Sitting of 17 June 2004

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

  COMMISSION FOR ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report made by AHL Ltd in June 2004 in respect of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Fuel Duty
    Norman Baker: What account he takes of long-term trends in the cost of motoring in deciding his policy on fuel duty rates for private vehicles.[179122]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): As with all tax decisions, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor takes into account all relevant economic, social and environmental factors, including the cost of motoring, in deciding fuel duty rates.
    Norman Baker: Has the Minister seen the information released by the Department for Transport yesterday, which confirmed that since 1974 the real-terms cost of travelling by rail has gone up by 84 per cent. and by bus by 70 per cent., but that the real cost of motoring has fallen by 5 per cent.? Those trends have continued under this Government. Is it not therefore true that bus users have more cause to complain than motorists? Is it not financially and environmentally irresponsible to argue that the normal upgrade in fuel price must be abandoned, as some on the Conservative Benches apparently want?
    John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is right. The real cost of motoring has fallen by about 8 per cent. in the past 25 years and by 5 per cent. since 1997. I am surprised that he does not give due recognition to that and congratulate the Government on what we are putting in place to support the development of public transport. We are spending £250 million a week to improve transport to make up for decades of under-
    892
    investment. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman—I know that he takes a close interest in these matters—the real choice is whether we see a continuation of that long overdue substantial investment in our transport infrastructure or a return to the cuts and freezes that the shadow Chancellor has promised.
    I recognise, and I am sure that others will note, that the hon. Gentleman speaks for the Liberals on these matters and that he seems to have a policy of pricing people out of their cars and hauliers off the British roads.
    Richard Burden: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. If we are to tackle emissions from vehicles, looking at price is one part of that, but only one part. We also need to encourage the development of environmentally friendly automotive technology, whether it be cleaner diesel or fuel cells. I welcome what the Government have already done in that respect, but is it not important to give greater incentives to British firms to develop such technology so that we reap the industrial as well as the environmental benefits?
    John Healey: My hon. Friend has a well-established and strong local interest in the future of the automotive industry. He makes the right point that it is a mistake and too simplistic to focus on the main fuel duty rates. To do so misses many of the advances that we have been making, especially through the use of fiscal instruments and other support. The reform of vehicle excise duty and company car tax has had a beneficial impact on the environment. Support for, and voluntary agreements with, the motor industry are bringing forward the new technologies that my hon. Friend is concerned about and resulting in an improvement in the efficiency of engines.
    By using duty differentials, we are able to create a shift in the fuels that are used on our roads towards greener fuels. We created a shift entirely to ultra-low sulphur fuels in 2001. We are set to do the same again in September this year with the incentive that we have planned for sulphur-free fuels.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the Government's investment to enhance public transport and long for the completion of the trans-European networks route between Cork, Dublin, Belfast and Larne. What encouragement is being given to the Irish Republic to narrow the gap between fuel prices in the Republic and those in Northern Ireland, with a view to helping to reduce the amount of smuggling?
    John Healey: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the increase in public investment. He will know that there is a specific public investment programme in transport in Northern Ireland. He draws attention to the real problem of oils fraud in Northern Ireland, which is the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with another European Union state.
    The answer is not to look at fuel duty, because the largest part of oils fraud is the laundering and misuse of rebated fuels, on which the duty rates are more than 40p

    893
    lower than the road fuel rate. That is why the programme of action to counter that smuggling, laundering and misuse of oils put in place by Customs is so important. Due to the tough action and the investment that we have put in place, in the past couple of years there has been an increase of 7 per cent. in the legitimate duty-paid market for road fuels in Northern Ireland. That reverses a steep five-year decline.
    David Taylor: The whole House recognises and welcomes the progress that my hon. Friend has described in his answers so far. I note that the British motorist is taxed at about the average for EU countries, but does he acknowledge that much remains to be achieved on motoring taxation? Given the stabilisation of costs, does he accept that the alarums and excursions that are occasionally produced by some lobbies are driven more by politics than by economics or the environment?
    John Healey: My hon. Friend points to the sort of factors that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has to take into account when making duty rate decisions. In a sense, it is most important that we have the strength to take decisions for the British economy that balance the interests of motorists and hauliers, the needs of the public services, the stability of the economy and the responsibilities we have to the environment. That is exactly what we aim to do.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Although the Chancellor has chosen to avoid answering this question himself, it would be churlish not to congratulate him on his long period in office. However, he has some way to go before he matches the record of Vasili Feodorovich Gurbazov, who was the Soviet finance Minister for 25 years and tragically died in office, without ever becoming Prime Minister.
    One of the hallmarks of the Chancellor's long period in office has been increasing public resentment of the fact that his big Government have given us higher taxes without any commensurate improvements in public services. Does the Minister recognise that the outrage that forced the Chancellor into retreat on his proposed fuel duty increase was just part of a mounting feeling that people are being let down by Labour's big Government, big tax rises and big failures to deliver?
    John Healey: Oh dear! I welcome the congratulations that the right hon. Gentleman offers to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I remind him that during my right hon. Friend's period in office there have been five shadow Chancellors. I hope that we will not see a sixth too soon.
    When we consider our decisions on fuel duties, we will not take any advice from the Tories. If we had followed the Tory policy that we inherited, of 5 per cent. increases in road fuel duty each year, the motorist and the haulier would now be paying 14p a litre more in duty than they are.
    Mr. Letwin: I am afraid that that answer will not help people who feel let down by a Government who have given them the second highest fuel duties in Europe—not, as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said, somewhere near the average—and
    894
    an overall increase in tax of £34,000 for every minute of the Chancellor's tenure in office. Does not the Minister see that the reaction on fuel duty and the reaction on council tax are part of a pattern? Has it truly not begun to dawn on him that the taxes required to sustain the Chancellor's big, ineffective Government are now beginning to exceed the limits of what people will accept? As taxes tick up at a rate of £34,000 a minute, is it any wonder that the recent elections suggested that it might be five minutes before midnight for this Government?
    John Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat inventive, but this a question about fuel duty rates, which he did mention briefly. We understand the cause of concern for the motorist and the haulier. It is in nobody's interest that oil prices are higher than expected, but the problem is caused by world oil prices, not UK fuel duty. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been at the forefront of discussions internationally with OPEC about oil supplies and increased oil production. That is why both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have said that in August we will consider the progress we have made in dealing with this period of high and unsustainable prices. However, rather than the short-term and opportunistic reactions to changing events that the right hon. Gentleman demonstrates, we will not put at risk the stability of the public finances or the economy—two things that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has worked hard to put in place over the past seven years.
    Mr. Letwin: I do not know what the Minister thought the Chancellor's retreat was if it was not short-term opportunism. I am afraid that that answer betrays a complete failure to learn the lessons of Labour's disastrous performance in the recent elections. Those elections revealed mounting concern, not only about fuel duty but about the rest of the 66 stealth tax increases. Since those elections, the Governor of the Bank of England has alerted people to the fact that the Chancellor's big Government and big borrowing are beginning—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about fuel duty.
    Mr. Letwin: Do the Chancellor and the Minister recognise that the undignified retreat on fuel duties, the recent rises in interest rates, the level of household indebtedness and the halving of the savings ratio all bear out—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Members must let the Speaker chair the proceedings I expect the Minister's response to be brief, because we are only on Question 1—and at this rate we may only get to Question 4 before the hour is up.
    John Healey: The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) quoted the Governor of the Bank of England, so let me, too, quote the Governor on the precise points that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to pray in aid against us. Last night, in his Mansion house speech, the Governor of the Bank of England said
    "the improvement in the fiscal stance in recent years has been a key element in achieving macroeconomic stability".

    895
    Our public finances are in good shape. The economy is growing strongly. Unemployment has fallen again this week—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We will leave it at that.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: I, too, extend congratulations to the Chancellor for having exceeded the period in office of the last great Liberal Chancellor, Lloyd George, although not yet that of Gladstone, both of whom in fact became Prime Minister—unlike the Russian gentleman.
    In the same positive spirit, I suggest that the Government were right not to have panicked at the political demands for the immediate cancellation of the oil price increase in the face of international market instability. Which does the Minister regard as the greatest threat to the stability of the British economy: an oil price shock caused by uncertainty in the middle east or, as the Governor of the Bank of England appears to believe, a house price shock generated domestically?
    John Healey: It is neither; it is the re-election of the Conservatives.

    International Finance Facility
    Valerie Davey: What recent progress has been made on the international finance facility. [179123]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): We welcome the proposals at the G8 summit last week that advance our proposal for the international finance facility to double aid and halve poverty. In September, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank will report on the proposal. I can also confirm that the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation has indicated interest in applying the principles to the next stage of its important work.
    Valerie Davey: I thank the Chancellor for that reply and for his strong international leadership in this field. The vast majority of my constituents want the Government to give a strong moral and financial lead in campaigning for global justice, so can my right hon. Friend tell them and the House how the IFF will link to and support the Commission for Africa?
    Mr. Brown: The Commission for Africa will report at the beginning of next year. It will look at proposals under which money for education, health and anti-poverty programmes in Africa can be financed. That report will contain recommendations about the financing of such proposals, including support for the IFF. Over the next few months, we shall have discussions with other countries; France and Brazil will be making a report in the next few weeks; I shall be visiting the Vatican to discuss how it can help to move the proposals forward; and I believe that many other organisations will join the 50 countries that have already given support to the facility.
    Tony Baldry: Despite the Chancellor's lead on the matter, we are unlikely to make much progress until after the US presidential election, so will he consider the Treasury working with the Department for International Development to produce a paper that could be published at the start of the United Kingdom's G8 presidency to show how long it will take, at present rates of development assistance, to reach the millennium development goals? Many people in Congress and elsewhere think that the US millennium challenge account will do it all. There is insufficient international recognition of the fact that at present levels of spending we are light years away from meeting the millennium development goals.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development. He has played an important part internationally in giving support to the proposals. He is right: on present trends, in sub-Saharan Africa the education and anti-poverty targets will not be met until 2150—not 2015 but 150 years from now. That is why there is urgency to persuade the Americans and other countries that we must find a new mechanism to finance development aid. Support for the UK proposal is growing and I am grateful that we have support for it on an all-party basis. I believe that we can do more to win over the Churches and the non-governmental organisations, as well as Governments, and I look forward to support for the proposal from parliamentarians of all countries.
    Ms Julia Drown: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the important lobbying for the international finance facility will not be an excuse for this country not spending 0.7 per cent. of our gross national income on international aid? If part of the lobbying for the IFF says that nations need to mean what they say when they sign up to things such as the millennium development goals, do we not need to mean what we said when we signed up, 34 years ago, to spend 0.7 per cent. of GNI on aid? That target is achievable. Will we see it in the comprehensive spending review?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a very big interest in these matters. She chaired a meeting that I spoke at only a few weeks ago. We have increased overseas development aid from 0.26 to 0.4 per cent., and there will be further announcements, of course, in the spending review that will report before the summer recess. There has been a real-terms increase of almost 100 per cent. in the amount of money going into development aid and, because of the untying of it, there has been a doubling and more in the aid that is going to Africa, which is the source of some of the greatest problems that she has talked about. I can assure her that we remain fixed on the goal of 0.7 per cent. I can also assure her that there will be further announcements to come. Perhaps she would note the fact that, if the Opposition had their way, they would freeze development spending in cash terms, cut it by 5 per cent. in real terms, and the percentage of overseas aid would

    897
    go down to the 0.26 per cent. that we had to inherit when we came to office. I hope that they will reconsider their position.
    Mr. Russell Brown: I appreciate that the IFF has been designed to front-load and meet the required targets to achieve our millennium development goals. I have heard what my right hon. Friend has said this morning, but has any real progress been made in ensuring that the other interested Governments—in particular, the United States—are as committed to what we in this country are trying to achieve?
    Mr. Brown: The reason I wanted to deal with this question after the G8 meeting is that progress was made on debt relief for the poorest countries. The G8 decided only last week to provide the necessary financing for the completion of the debt initiative, so progress is being made on one specific aspect that would come under the IFF. I believe that there is also general agreement that, if Africa is to make the necessary reforms, support for education, health and anti-poverty programmes must be provided. I think that my hon. Friend will know that 50 countries have already supported the proposals. I look forward over the next year, particularly in our presidency, to achieving far wider support for the IFF. It is one of the means by which we can indeed meet the 2015 millennium development goals.

    Plastic Bags
    Dr. John Pugh: What studies the Treasury has made of the environmental benefits of a plastic bag tax. [179124]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): The Government conducted an assessment of a plastic bag tax in December 2002. A copy of the report is in the Library.
    Dr. Pugh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer; I will study the report. Do Ministers agree that our environmental taxation must be evidence-based and, in respect of plastic bag use, take into account reuse, recycling and the disposal costs of substitute packaging?
    John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is right in principle and right on the detail. Of course, we make great efforts to ensure that any development of any fiscal decision is evidence-based. That is in part why we conducted an assessment of a plastic bag tax, including in Ireland. I think that he will find that the factors that he mentions are covered in that report, when he gets around to reading it.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Durham county council on working with major food retailers in the county—such as Tesco, Sainbury's and the Co-operative Society—not only to encourage customers to reuse their carrier bags, but to provide biodegradable carrier bags? Does he agree that that is a better way forward than slapping an arbitrary tax on shoppers?
    John Healey: We are keen to see precisely those sorts of initiatives and innovations, and I certainly welcome the moves that have been made in my hon. Friend's area both by the Co-op and by his local council. Beyond plastic bags, it is true that councils more generally are making a real effort and real progress in reducing the amount of waste and increasing the amount of recycling. That is certainly the direction that we need to encourage.

    Gershon Review
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: What discussions he has had with Sir Peter Gershon regarding the total savings in public sector employment within the Department for Work and Pensions as a result of his efficiency review. [179125]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I will report further on my discussions with Sir Peter Gershon when I make the spending round announcements. It has already been agreed that there will be 30,000 fewer staff posts at the Department for Work and Pensions. Some 10,000 staff will be redeployed, and numbers will fall from 130,000 to 100,000.
    Mr. Djanogly: But is this not yet another example of the Government's mismanagement of the public sector? They have been spending millions of taxpayers' pounds to create tens of thousands of public sector jobs only to be told by the likes of Sir Peter Gershon that there are too many workers and that they are often working in the wrong places. Does the Chancellor agree that a better run Department would have saved the costs of recruitment, training and 40,000 redundancies if it had not created the jobs in the first place?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman complains about the expansion of public sector jobs, but let me remind the House of his election pledges:
    "Increase police numbers in Huntingdonshire … Improve local roads … Expand … hospital and fund extra schools and pensions … Improve our leisure, shopping and children's facilities."
    If that is not a demand for extra public spending from the Conservatives, what is?
    Mrs. Joan Humble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of people in Blackpool and along the Fylde coast work hard for the Department for Work and Pensions, and does he acknowledge that that hard work is delivering essential services? At Warbreck house, people are delivering disability living allowance and the pensions agency is operating at Mexford house. A variety of different services are carried out at Norcross. Does the Chancellor understand that the people who work in those places are anxious about their future? Will he make sure that there is full and meaningful consultation with trade unions and employees to ensure that essential jobs remain and services continue?
    Mr. Brown: It was precisely because Sir Peter Gershon gave us accurate information on job reductions and savings, and said that if we went further than that we

    899
    could put services at risk, that we came to the decision about the numbers that I have announced. We are being sensitive, and when I announced the figures in the Budget I paid tribute to the work done in the Department for Work and Pensions. I know that the Department employs many people in my hon. Friend's constituency who do an excellent job for the service. We have invested £2 billion in new technology, which allows us to cut the number of staff in back-office services. However, there will also be 10,000 additional personal advisers so that the front-line work of the service will continue and, indeed, be enhanced so that more people can get back to work.
    Sir John Butterfill: Do the employment figures that the Chancellor cited take account of the anticipated employment costs of the pension protection fund and the new office of the regulator? If not, what does the Chancellor anticipate that they will be?
    Mr. Brown: These figures are for the Department as a whole. The individual figures on the administration of the pension protection fund will be announced in due course by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We are determined to honour our commitment to make the pension protection fund work. Of course, we have also set aside money to deal with people who cruelly lost their pensions through no fault of their own under previous arrangements.
    I must tell the hon. Gentleman that our investment in the Department for Work and Pensions ensures that we have a better service for those who want the pension credit and those who are looking for jobs. At the same time as we are making the savings, we are ensuring that there is a proper service for everyone who depends on the Department.
    Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are in a period of economic stability with record low unemployment—recent figures show that it is 2.8 per cent.—compared with the period of mass unemployment under the Conservative Government? Does he agree that that gives us an historic chance to restructure the Department for Work and Pensions to help to create even more active labour market policies and ensure that those for whom finding work has been difficult, because their access to the labour market has been beset by problems such as discrimination, are now given the first chance in many years for a meaningful life at work?
    Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, the Department for Work and Pensions is expanding its services to help lone parents to get into work, to help people with disabilities to find jobs and to help people from ethnic minorities who have often felt discriminated against in the labour market. It will offer a specific service to those people who want to get skills. A big expansion is taking place in the service. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we are determined to achieve full employment in our country. When Conservative Members intervene in this debate, they should congratulate us on having the lowest unemployment for 30 years.
    Mr. Howard Flight: When will the Government publish the Gershon report promised in April, and what proposals do Gershon or the Chancellor have to address the problem identified by the Public Accounts Committee that one in five welfare payment decisions by the Department for Work and Pensions are incorrect, leading to up to £7 billion per annum of benefits being paid out wrongly?
    Mr. Brown: It is precisely because of problems that have been identified in the past that we have taken action. Compared with the position under the previous Government, the percentage of inaccurate payments has gone down under this Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that in removing 40,000 gross jobs, or 30,000 net jobs, we are not going far enough in public sector reform. Indeed, no other Government have announced such a staff reduction in one Budget, so he should applaud us for taking action on efficiency, where his predecessors failed.
    Rob Marris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Work and Pensions Committee, on which I serve, is currently carrying out an inquiry into computerisation, which he mentioned? Some of the evidence submitted to the inquiry suggests that his figures are very ambitious. Can he assure the House that when the Committee's report is finally published the Treasury will look at it very carefully?
    Mr. Brown: The Treasury looks at everything very carefully, so I can assure my hon. Friend that we will examine the report and, after representations from the relevant Minister, we will discuss with him what should happen next. Despite the fact that we have to make announcements about job reductions, it is right to pay tribute to the tremendous success of the new deal and the Employment Service—now Jobcentre Plus—in creating job opportunities. Again, I should have thought that the shadow Chancellor would want to congratulate us, because in his constituency there are only seven people who are long-term unemployed.

    Combined Heat and Power
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received from the combined heat and power sector on the removal of fiscal incentives to develop CHP installations; and if he will make a statement. [179126]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): We have not received any representations from the combined heat and power sector on the removal of fiscal incentives, and have no plans to remove them. Indeed, on the contrary, only last year we introduced an exemption for good quality CHP from the climate change levy, and were strongly encouraged to do so by the industry.
    Miss McIntosh: While it is true that the Government have granted an exemption from the climate change levy, it is equally true that they are imposing an obligation on CHP operators to purchase renewables obligation certificates, which has created a barrier to entry and has affected the ability of existing CHP

    901
    operators to remain in operation. It has led to a haemorrhaging of jobs and investment. Therefore, will the Chancellor urge the Government to keep clause 120 of the Energy Bill and make sure that operators are not subject to that irksome fiscal obligation?
    John Healey: No. If we did so, we would reduce the capacity to deliver the renewables obligation. There is a distinction to be made between CHP as a fairly mature technology and the renewable technologies that the renewables obligation is designed to promote. A wide range of measures is already in place to support CHP, including fiscal, grant and regulatory measures. At present, there is an increase in CHP generating capacity, but of course we keep such progress under constant review.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Did my hon. Friend see the remarks by the chairman of Shell yesterday about the perils of global warming? If we do not take more action not only on CHP but on generating energy from waste programmes, such as incineration and many other things, and if there are no fiscal incentives to stop dependency on one source of energy, the country and the planet will run into dreadful problems.
    John Healey: My hon. Friend is an expert in this area, so he knows that we aim to meet the target of the CHP sector of supplying 10 GW of generation by 2010. On the wider question of waste, he knows that we are putting in place a range of policy support instruments so that we can reduce the amount of waste created, boost recycling and achieve greater capacity to deal with waste in more environmentally friendly ways.

    Inland Revenue Office (Hebburn)
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: If he will make a statement on the future of the Inland Revenue office in Hebburn. [179128]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Inland Revenue building in Hebburn is due to be vacated in March 2005. That is part of a long-term strategy to develop the Newcastle estate that began in 1995 to rationalise the number of sites in Tyneside. The building in Hebburn is leased and the lease will expire in June 2006. The building will be fully vacated in March 2005 and the current plans are that it will be used for contingency purposes between then and the expiry of the lease.
    Mr. Hepburn: As part of those plans, 700 jobs will be relocated from Hebburn to Newcastle, which is not only an outright waste of money, but will do the utmost damage to the shopping centre and the local economy in Hebburn. Will my right hon. Friend review the plans, and is she willing to meet a small delegation from the constituency to discuss the matter further?
    Dawn Primarolo: As I explained to my hon. Friend, the plans have been under discussion since 1995, in order to provide modern accommodation for the Inland Revenue and the Department for Work and Pensions. Those Departments are committed to remain and to
    902
    employ people from the south Tyneside region, and there will be no job losses as a result of the relocation. I know that my hon. Friend has followed the matter keenly, and I would be more than happy to meet him to review a constructive way forward for the redevelopment of the site—a subject that I know he has raised with other Ministers.

    Africa (Debt Relief)
    Andy Burnham: What recent steps he has taken towards the cancellation of debt in Africa's poorest countries. [179129]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Debt relief of more than $70 billion has already been agreed for 27 countries, mainly African countries, under the HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—initiative. Last week, at the G8 Heads of State meeting we extended the HIPC initiative by another two years, and it was agreed that more finance was required for debt relief. Both will be of special help to the African countries.
    Andy Burnham: I welcome last week's decision of the G8, but does my right hon. Friend share my view that the HIPC initiative needs to go much further and much faster, specifically in providing 100 per cent. debt relief to the poorest African countries, and in bringing in countries currently outside HIPC, particularly Sudan, from where we see terrible images of suffering on our TV screens every evening? When Britain assumes the chair of the G8 next year, will it make this—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary is fine.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has taken a great interest in these matters, and I thank him. He has rightly pointed out that more help is urgently needed for Sudan, and he will be pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has not only announced more money for Sudan, but is carefully looking at what more we can do, both bilaterally and internationally. In their wisdom the G8 Heads of Government asked the G8 Finance Ministers to look further at what more could be done on debt relief. In addition to extending what was called the sunset date for the HIPC countries, and to provide the necessary financing for completion of the initiative, we were asked to consider measures that can further help the poorest countries address the sustainability of debt. I hope that we can publish a report on that and get action on it before the beginning of next year.
    Mr. Mark Field: Although I accept the superficial attraction of debt cancellation in African countries, I am sure the Chancellor is well aware that in many ways it gives the wrong signals to the next generation of dictators in those countries when they see debt being written off in that way. Is the Chancellor ensuring that G8 countries are not just considering debt cancellation but encouraging free trade with those countries, to allow their economies to expand in the years and decades ahead?
    Mr. Brown: Debt relief is not unconditional. It carries with it certain obligations on the part of the countries concerned. The hon. Gentleman should agree with me that the initiative proposed around the international finance facility and part of the new plan for Africa is that in return for African countries opening up to trade, dealing with their problems of corruption and moving to monetary and fiscal regimes that make sense in the modern world, we will provide extra money for health, education and anti-poverty programmes. That is the right way forward. It is based on the Monterrey agreement two years ago, and it is important to understand that it is the relationship between developing African countries and the industrialised world that holds the key to the way forward. That includes a settlement of the Doha round of the world trade talks.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I welcome the achievements at the G8 summit, but in view of the apparent opposition of Germany and Japan to the Government's original proposals, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of a 10-year moratorium on debt servicing, so that we can achieve those vital millennium goals?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been very active in this area over many years. A debt-servicing moratorium would place no conditions on the countries concerned to use the money for health and education as we would like. One of the great achievements of the HIPC scheme is that large sums of money have been spent on health and education that would otherwise have gone on debt servicing payments. I should like a more comprehensive agreement with the poorer countries whereby in return for the finance that we provide, including the writing off of debts, they take the action necessary to invest in their health and education systems and to deal with problems of corruption and stability. I believe that there is a wish in Africa—my right hon. Friend meets many people from that continent, and has visited it—for that new relationship to work, and that the best way forward is not unconditional support, but a new contract or covenant between the richest and the poorest countries.
    Ann McKechin: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his tremendous efforts involving debt relief in the international community. As he is aware, however, for many African countries there is no prospect of reaching the millennium development goals by 2015; in fact, on current projections some of them will take more than 100 years to reach those targets, to which the international community has committed itself. Given that writing off the rest of the debt would, in the case of the United Kingdom, mean only a few extra pounds per year from each taxpayer, is there not a pressing burden on us to consider further relief at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has often petitioned me on these issues. One of the millennium development goals is to ensure that primary school education is a right for all people. It would cost the world only $10 billion a year to finance that basic
    904
    right for 120 million children, two-thirds of whom are girls. I believe that it is possible to do that if we devise new forms of financing, such as the international finance facility, so as to ensure that all countries contribute, that the proposal does not fail if one country is excluded or does not want to take part, and that the money comes immediately and is therefore front-loaded. That innovative way of financing the development of education, then of health and work on AIDS, is the best way forward if we are to move quickly to meet the millennium development goals that my hon. Friend mentioned.

    Gershon Review
    Mr. David Cameron: What discussions he has had with Sir Peter Gershon regarding the total savings in departmental expenditure in the Department of Trade and Industry as a result of his efficiency review. [179130]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The efficiency review features in regular discussions involving Treasury Ministers, their Department of Trade and Industry counterparts and Sir Peter Gershon, in order to maximise the benefits of the review for front-line services.
    Mr. Cameron: Now that the DTI no longer runs car companies, coal mines, power stations, steel mills or any other major businesses, will the Chief Secretary explain why it still needs seven Ministers, with seven private offices? Apart from providing a perk for some of the Chancellor's acolytes, what does it actually do?
    Mr. Boateng: Those Ministers do a very great deal. They have responsibility for energy policy and for promoting competition and enterprise. Importantly, too, they have responsibility for the Small Business Service, which helps some 600,000 small and medium-sized businesses—even some, I suspect, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and certainly some in his county.
    Tony Wright: I welcome the Government's commitment to robust public sector efficiency reforms, but it has given Opposition Members an opportunity to launch a general attack on civil servants. Civil servants are not to be associated with waste and inefficiency, and it is not good merely to laud front-line public servants and thereby attack back-office staff. Will my right hon. Friend give the assurance that whatever cuts are made, a mechanism will be in place to ensure that service quality is maintained?
    Mr. Boateng: Service quality and support for front-line workers are at the heart of our approach to the efficiency agenda. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already paid tribute to the work and dedication of our public servants, and I am happy to do so again. We should compare and contrast that with the approach of the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), whose calumnies against public servants, suggesting that they are there to do as little as possible, are legendary. We support front-line services and the contribution that

    905
    civil servants make to the delivery of those services, while believing that there are real efficiency gains that we are determined to obtain from the system.
    Mr. David Laws: Given the amount of money that Department of Trade and Industry Ministers, rather than civil servants, waste, would not it be better to scrap the Department and make savings that could be used for front-line public services?
    Mr. Boateng: No it would not—and I have found no support for that proposal from any section of industry. There is certainly no support for it from the Confederation of British Industry or the Trades Union Congress. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does a superb job in promoting British business, productivity and employment. She and the Department should be congratulated on that.
    Mr. Andrew Love: The efficiency savings are partly to achieve the Lyons review total of 20,000 civil servants to be shifted out of the capital. Are we still on track for achieving that goal? Is there any scope for increasing the number of civil servants who could move?
    Mr. Boateng: We are on track for achieving the goal, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make announcements about that as part of the spending review. The Department of Trade and Industry has made a commitment to reduce its headquarters staff by some 450 posts by 2006. That programme is already well under way, and we expect still more from the Dept.

    Equitable Life
    Mr Andrew Mackay: What representations he has received from Equitable Life policyholders about the operation of the regulatory system with regard to Equitable Life. [179132]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): The Government have received several representations about a range of Equitable Life issues. I am announcing today, by written statement, the Government's decision on price caps for stakeholder products. For the deposit account product, the cap will be 1 per cent. below the Bank of England base rate. For medium-term and pension products, the cap will be set at an annual management charge of 1.5 per cent. for the first 10 years of the product and 1 per cent. thereafter. The consultation document is available in the Libraries of both Houses and the Vote Office.
    Mr. Mackay: Perhaps we can revert to the subject of Equitable Life, rather than a reply to a question that I did not ask and a statement that should have been made separately. Has the Financial Secretary noticed that the grass grows very long at this time of year, and it is easy to kick problems such as Equitable Life into it? When will policyholders be properly compensated? When will the Government stop hiding behind others?
    Ruth Kelly: First, I told hon. Members that I had tabled a written statement on stakeholder products. Secondly, that is fundamentally important to people
    906
    who save in the pensions industry and to future trust in the financial services industry. It relates directly to Equitable Life, among other issues.
    However, the right hon. Gentleman asked about compensation for Equitable Life members, so let me deal with that. We commissioned Lord Penrose to conduct an independent inquiry into the circumstances that led to the events at Equitable Life. He found no evidence of maladministration or negligence. He made no recommendation for compensation and, indeed, made it clear that:
    "Principally the Society was the author of its own misfortunes … The regulatory system failures were secondary"
    factors. Although I have every sympathy with the victims of events at Equitable Life, it would not be right, given the circumstances, for the Government to consider compensation.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Even if we were not to blame for the collapse of Equitable Life or the failure of the regulatory system, can we not have a compensation scheme based on need?
    Ruth Kelly: I understand my hon. Friend's point. However, people who invested in Equitable Life did so of their own free choice. The position is different from that of members of failed company pension schemes such as Allied Steel and Wire, which we have debated long and hard in the Chamber. Investors in Equitable Life tend to have supplementary pension provision, and many members have large pension pots, though others have smaller pots. It is largely their expectations that have been disappointed. I sympathise with people whose expectations have been disappointed, but Equitable Life continues in business and continues to fulfil its guaranteed obligations. If insolvency were to occur, we have a clear mechanism for providing compensation.
    Mr. Eric Forth: May I give the Minister a chance to answer the question? She was asked what representations she had had from Equitable Life policyholders, and the House would like to know the answer. Can she also give us a positive response to the question that has so often been asked about the role of the ombudsman? When will she give the ombudsman an opportunity to look into this matter again, to satisfy so many frustrated Equitable Life policyholders?
    Ruth Kelly: I have had many representations on the subject of Equitable Life. Indeed, I have met the action groups representing the policyholders. One of the points that we have discussed is the need for comprehensive, efficient regulatory systems. Through the formation of the Financial Services Authority, the single ombudsman scheme and the single comprehensive financial services compensation scheme, we have already put in place an advanced, forward-looking system to protect consumers. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the ombudsman. Yes, it is perfectly within an individual's rights to take their case to the ombudsman, but I am not here to stand up and offer advice to the ombudsman. People will have to make their own decisions.
    Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I am very interested in that last remark—that the Minister is not prepared to offer advice to the ombudsman. As the whole House knows, the parliamentary ombudsman has invited submissions on whether she should reopen her inquiry. She must be aware that the hundreds of thousands of policyholders who have lost out now believe that the Government and the Treasury are quietly lobbying the ombudsman not to reopen her inquiry. Will the Minister tell the House whether she has made a submission to the ombudsman—yes or no? If she has, why has she not published it, and had she not better do so immediately?
    Ruth Kelly: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was referring to the parliamentary ombudsman. Of course, I was referring to the financial services ombudsman. The parliamentary ombudsman is an independent officer of the House and it would be inappropriate for me to try to push her in one direction or another. However, she has come to the Treasury and asked for a submission about our case, and we have put forward our view, as requested. She is perfectly at liberty to publish that submission if she so chooses.

    Carbon Emissions
    Mr. Colin Challen: What fiscal measures his Department is taking to reduce carbon emissions from road transport. [179133]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): The Government have introduced a range of fiscal instruments to reduce carbon emissions from road transport, including restructuring vehicle excise duty, reforming company car tax and introducing duty differentials to support the use of cleaner fuels.
    Mr. Challen: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I commend to him early-day motion 527 on the way to go proposals? As he will know, environmental justice and social justice often go hand in hand, and the way to go campaign's document, "Paying for Better Transport", contains many detailed proposals for achieving both those aims at one fell swoop. Will he read the document carefully, as is the Treasury's usual very principled way of dealing with such matters, and come back with some answers to the campaign's proposals?
    John Healey: I welcome this further interest in environmental issues. I am normally seen as the Minister for booze cruises and fag flights, but I will indeed study the proposals that my hon. Friend mentioned and ensure that the campaign receives a full response. I have noted the support that it has in the House, including that of my hon. Friend.
    Lawrie Quinn: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibilities of modal switch away from road to other modes of transport? With that in mind, has he given particular consideration to the freight sector, and to whether some fiscal incentive for the rail freight industry might help to reduce carbon emissions from road use?
    John Healey: Clearly, policy for transport modal switches is less my responsibility than that of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) will lead a delegation from the rail freight industry that is coming to see me next week, and the point that he has raised is no doubt one that the industry will want to make at the meeting. I look forward to seeing him and his colleagues from the industry then.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Peter Pike: What revenue his Department estimates would be received by HM Treasury if the ceiling were to be removed on national insurance contributions on earnings in a full financial year. [179134]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The estimate provided by the Government Actuary's Department is £5.6 billion in 2004–05.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. That is a lot of money. Remembering that the Treasury team believe that this Government are best when we are a Labour Government, can we not remove that ceiling, so that we can do more to help the poorer people in this country and spend more on the health service and other such matters?
    Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend will know, all those matters are for the Chancellor to consider in the Budget. With regard to pensions, however, the £10 billion extra includes £5 billion more on the poorest one third of pensioners. There is a commitment in relation to the 1 per cent. national insurance contribution rise to secure substantial and sustained increases in the national health service. That will provide investment in more nurses, more doctors and 100 more hospitals, to ensure that we have the health service to which people in this country aspire.
    Gregory Barker: Removing the ceiling would be another massive tax rise, but there have already been 66 tax rises under the Labour Government. How many more tax rises will there be before this Parliament is out?
    Dawn Primarolo: I will not be taking prompts from the hon. Gentleman about tax rises, given his party's record when in government. Nor will I be taking any prompts for cuts in the public services, which his party is suggesting. We will continue the sustained investment to provide the education, health service and transport system that the people of this country want.

    Interest Rates
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: What discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England on the current level of interest rates. [179135]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I meet the Governor regularly, but the level of interest rates is entirely a matter for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Chancellor for that factual and accurate response to my question. Is he aware of the views of the British Chambers of Commerce on interest rates? Although it agrees that small interest rate rises may be necessary to curb inflationary features in our economy, it is also concerned that excessive interest rate rises would have a devastating effect on manufacturing industry, and might not even curb house price inflation, which is one of the problems that this country is facing.
    Mr. Brown: I meet representatives of the British Chambers of Commerce regularly, and I last met its president only a few days ago. I listen seriously to what it says. It wants low inflation, which has been achieved, low interest rates, which have been achieved, and low unemployment, which has also been achieved. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to thank me for the 63 per cent. drop in unemployment in his constituency since we came to power.
    Ms Sally Keeble: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the east midlands regional agent for the Bank of England recently visited my constituency, where he met people from several businesses, including some manufacturers who were more optimistic than they have been for a considerable time and reported improvements in performance, because of both the stability that they have had and low interest rates? If he intends to vary the inflation targets for the Bank of England, will he take carefully into account the needs of manufacturing industry, and will he welcome the improvements in performance in the east midlands region?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a big interest in questions of manufacturing and the state of the economy. I agree that although manufacturing output has been rising, we wish to see more progress. The important thing is that we have and maintain economic stability. She will be as pleased as I am that the rate of unemployment in her constituency has been halved under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: As a full-blooded and committed monetarist, the Chancellor will be more aware than many of the power and the effect that even small interest rate rises can have on the level of demand in the economy. Does he therefore share concerns about the Monetary Policy Committee's apparent fixation on house prices, and the potential damage to the real economy that excessive interest rate rises could have if implemented before the impact of recent rate rises fully takes effect?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman wants to keep interest rates low, he will want to maintain a Labour Government. The average interest rate under the
    910
    Conservative Governments from 1979 to 1997 was 10.3 per cent., and interest rates have been less than half that under a Labour Government. I seem to remember that when we made the Bank of England independent, he said:
    "The decision to give the Bank of England independence … will, in due course, lead to unemployment increasing."—[Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 791.]
    We have created 2 million jobs and halved unemployment.

    Transport (London)
    Roger Casale: What representations he has received in the context of the comprehensive spending review on increasing investment in transport infrastructure in London. [179137]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): Representations on investment in London's transport have been received from a wide cross-section of organisations and individuals.
    Roger Casale: My constituents recognise that there has been substantial investment in south-west London by the Government in the Merton-Croydon tram link, in new rolling stock and stations on the Northern line by Transport for London, and in rolling stock and stations by South West Trains. But does my right hon. Friend accept that if we are to keep pace with the extraordinary growth of business activity and employment, and to attract important international events such as the Olympics to London, it is important for us to proceed with projects such as Crossrail 1 and 2 and the east London line? The Government must give a strong lead in that regard. Will my right hon. Friend take account of those representations, and seek to invest as much as he can in transport infrastructure in London through the comprehensive spending review?
    Mr. Boateng: We take all representations into account. We have already invested some £15 billion in London's transport infrastructure since 1997, and that is delivering the real results that my hon. Friend has identified in his constituency. We welcome his interest in transport and the Olympics, and in that context we should remind ourselves of the International Olympic Committee's comment that London has one of the most extensive rail and underground systems in the world. The committee says that its main transport infrastructure ratio is one of the highest among all the applicant cities.
    Between now and 2012—irrespective of whether we win the Olympics bid—we intend to invest more than £18 billion in London's transport. That is a good record, which should be compared and contrasted with the record of the Conservatives.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 21 JUNE—Second Reading of the Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 22 JUNE—Opposition day [13th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Threat to the Integrity of the Electoral System", followed by a debate on NHS recruitment and retention. Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords], followed by motions to approve the appointment of managing trustees to the parliamentary contributory pension fund and the House of Commons Members' fund, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
THURSDAY 24 JUNE—Estimates [3rd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the Highways Agency and a debate on taxis and private hire vehicles. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 6 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 25 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 28 JUNE—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Human Tissue Bill.
TUESDAY 29 JUNE—A debate on London schools on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, followed by a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 30 JUNE—Opposition day [14th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 1 JULY—A debate on Zimbabwe on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 2 JULY—The House will not be sitting.
Following are the details: Thursday 24 June—Estimates to be considered: Central Government Supply Estimates 2004–05 (HC 466); House of Commons: Administration Main Supply Estimate 2004–05 (HC 467); National Audit Office Main Supply Estimate 2004–05 (HC 468); Electoral Commission Main Supply Estimate 2004–05 (HC 469).
Tuesday 29 June—outstanding PAC reports 2003–04 to be considered: 1st report, "Tackling fraud against the Inland Revenue" (HC 62) (Cm 6130); 2nd report, "The new electricity trading arrangements in England and Wales" (HC 63) (Cm 6130); 3rd report, "The Sheep Annual Premium Scheme" (HC 64) (Cm 6136); 4th report, "Improving service delivery: the Forensic Science Service" (HC 137) (Cm 6155): 5th report, "Warm Front: helping to combat fuel poverty" (HC 206)
912
(Cm 6175); 6th report, "Department of Trade and Industry: Regional Grants in England" (HC 207) (Cm 6155); 7th report, "Progress on 15 major capital projects funded by Arts Council England" (HC 253) (Cm 6155); 8th report, "The English national stadium project at Wembley" (HC 254) (Cm 6155); 9th report, "Review of grants made to the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns" (HC 305) (Cm 6175); 10th report, "Purchasing and managing software licences" (HC 306) (Cm 6175); 11th report, "Helping consumers benefit from competition in telecommunications" (HC 405) (Cm 6191); 12th report, "Getting it right, putting it right: Improving decision-making and appeals in social security benefits" (HC 406) (Cm 6191); 14th report, "Inland Revenue: Tax Credits" (HC 89) (Cm tbc); 15th report, "Procurement of vaccines by the Department of Health" (HC 429) (Cm tbc); 16th report, "Progress in improving the medical assessment of incapacity and disability benefits" (HC 120) (Cm 6191); 18th report, "PFI: The new headquarters for the Home Office" (HC 501) (Cm tbc); 19th report, "Making a difference: Performance of maintained secondary schools in England" (HC 104) (Cm tbc).
The House may wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the summer recess at the end of business on Thursday 22 July and return on Tuesday 7 September.
Mr. Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business, and in particular for announcing the debate on Zimbabwe. Can he confirm that there will be a statement from the Prime Minister on Monday about the intergovernmental conference?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he got into a bit of trouble last year when he said he was quite happy
"to fight the … European elections on a Labour platform endorsing"
the European constitution? He said
"the Conservatives can oppose it and then the people will decide."
Now that the majority have voted for parties opposed to the constitution, will the right hon. Gentleman not accept their verdict that there is no mandate to sign up to the European constitution?
The right hon. Gentleman has announced an Opposition day debate on the postal ballots fiasco. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe) has uncovered an important aspect of that: the shocking state of electoral registers with up to 20 per cent. inaccuracies, which has led to thousands of postal ballot papers being sent out to the wrong people. In Newcastle and in Chester, even babies received postal ballot papers. The Chester Chronicle headline was, "Blair's Babe: Voting slip 16 years early". The Labour leader of Birmingham city council, Sir Albert Bore, has called for a national rethink on postal voting. [Interruption.] This is the Labour leader of the council calling for the rethink. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the advantage of a polling station is that the voter is positively identified and the scope for impersonation reduced? Will he give an assurance that the review of the all-postal experiment will be completed and debated before the Government lay the necessary orders to make this autumn's regional assembly referendums all postal?

913
The right hon. Gentleman promised a draft Bill to set up regional assemblies before July. Can he reassure us that there will be a debate about the Bill before the referendums? The Prime Minister has made it clear how vital it is to have lengthy parliamentary debate before a referendum, so will the Leader of the House confirm that that applies not just to the European constitution, but to regional assemblies?
Finally, turning from bogus voters to bogus visas, can we have a debate on visa abuse and illegal immigration? Today's National Audit Office report slams the Home Office for allowing 10 times as many visa applications as embassy staff advised. Yesterday the police smashed a multi-million pound scam, involving student visas with more than 1,000 illegal entrants.
Is it not time that the Government started to listen to, and act on, advice? They are ignoring the voters on the European constitution; they ignored the Electoral Commission's advice on all-postal ballots; they ignored their own embassies' advice on immigration visas. Does the Leader of the House understand why people feel let down by Labour? Can we have a statement—a statement of apology?
Mr. Hain: You would not have thought, Mr. Speaker, from that bravura performance that the Conservatives actually lost the elections last week. [Interruption.] Yes, in comparison with the predictions of the Leader of the Opposition, as supported by Conservative Back Benchers, they did very badly indeed.
On Zimbabwe, I freely acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman, and others on both sides of the House, has been pressing me on that matter. I am pleased that we are having a debate about it, which will present an opportunity to send a message loud and clear to Robert Mugabe about what the House thinks of his despotic rule.
Yes, the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday, following the European Council. The hon. Gentleman referred to the European elections. Of course, when I made my statement last year, there was no prospect of a referendum on the European constitutional treaty. Now there will be a referendum and we will fight it. When we do so, the pathetic Conservative policy on Europe will be exposed and it will be made very clear to the voters. One of the reasons why Conservative policy will be exposed relates to what happened last Thursday. I am surprised—no, perhaps I am not surprised—that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the fact that a large proportion of the Conservative vote went to the United Kingdom Independence party. Some of his own Back Benchers are sympathetic to the withdrawal from Europe strategy. When the arguments are raised with the electorate, the electorate will clearly see that Britain should be at the heart of Europe under Labour and that Britain would be on a train out of Europe under the Tories.
On the issue of postal votes, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Birmingham, but there were no pilots for postal votes in Birmingham. There were local elections, but not the all-postal voting pilot arrangements that he and his colleagues consistently complain about. They
914
did not apply in the west midlands. I should like to quote the joint statement from the north-west regional returning officer, Sir Howard Bernstein, and Martin Bottomley of the Greater Manchester police, who said:
"While the nature of the allegations has changed this year, the scale has not increased; if anything, it has lessened."
When we look at the facts as opposed to the hype and the rhetoric, what we see is that 14 million people were given the opportunity to vote from the comfort of their own homes. The pilots covered that scale of voters, compared with 6.5 million last year. European election turnout in pilot regions was up more than 100 per cent. Is that not a good thing for democracy? That is compared with a rise of less than 50 per cent. in non-pilot regions. The facts speak for themselves. On the specifics of when the assessment will be made, the Electoral Commission is due to report in September. The Government, led by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, are carrying out their own inquiry, and we will report to the House when those inquiries are over.
On the question of the regional assemblies Bill, that will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Yesterday, I promised the Liaison Committee a timetable for that, and the expectation is that it will be published and available for pre-legislative scrutiny before the recess. That will give plenty of time for voters who will be voting on regional assemblies—and I hope that they will vote yes—to know what they are voting for, which is a voice for their own regions and, therefore, a stronger voice for their own interests.
I think that I have dealt with the matters raised, but I cannot read my own writing on the last point.
Mr. Heald: Immigration visas.
Mr. Hain: Yes, on the question of immigration visas, we have consistently put in place practices and procedures to tackle any abuses of the visa system or the immigration procedures, and the Home Secretary gave a written ministerial statement today that provides details of our response to the inquiry that was set up into what went wrong in Bulgaria and Romania. That is available for everyone to see.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that when he gave the business for the next two weeks, he also announced the recess for 22 July, which means that after the next two weeks' business, there are only three more weeks left before the long recess? He will know that I have called for the introduction of a ban on fox hunting, and we need that before the long recess. There are now three weeks available for us to show that most Labour MPs are in favour of banning hunting, most Tory MPs are in favour of the opposite, the Liberals are split down the middle—so there is nothing neater in electoral terms—and UKIP members will be fighting one another like Kilkenny cats. There is not a subject under the sun that is better suited to us, and to raising our morale in the constituencies, than a ban on fox hunting. Get on with it!
Mr. Hain: I am with my hon. Friend in sentiment all the way. As he knows, the House voted for a ban on hunting and an end to cruelty to animals by a landslide majority, and I was in the same Lobby as he, with the vast majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The House's view on the matter is overwhelmingly clear, and I hope that Opposition Members will give a guarantee that the Conservatives in the House of Lords will not seek again to threaten the primacy of the House of Commons on this or other matters. I can tell my hon. Friend that when the time is opportune, an announcement will be made. The Government's intention is, as I have consistently said, to resolve the matter.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May we have a statement, either before or during Tuesday's debate, on the Government's intentions or opinion polls, their use by newspapers and their potential for distortion of the electoral process? The Prime Minister's answer yesterday implied that that is simply a party matter, but I suggest that it is a much bigger issue. It affects every member of the House and the whole integrity of the political process. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 1294, which a large number of Members on both sides have signed.
[That this House regrets the decline of self-regulation of public opinion polling companies in the United Kingdom; is deeply concerned that there are no sufficient checks on the integrity of polling or polling organisations; further expresses concern at the proliferation of non-scientific/empirical polling, in particular the use of techniques designed to secure the results favoured by those who commission the polls, and lack of transparency in the methodology employed; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to conduct a thorough investigation into the integrity, honesty and professionalism of the polling industry and, if indicated, introduce regulation.]
May I also draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some specifics from last week, when the poll YouGov and the Evening Standard purported to demonstrate that Messrs. Livingstone and Norris were neck and neck when they were clearly nothing of the sort? The same poll in The Daily Telegraph overestimated and grossly promoted UKIP, when that was clearly inaccurate. Finally, the exit poll, which is quite difficult to get wrong, was simply wrong. May I suggest that the whole way in which polls are regulated or self-regulated should be examined?
On a quite separate matter, will the Leader of the House see whether the Home Secretary can come to the House, next week or the week after, to discuss some very important national lessons emerging from the Caroline Dickinson murder inquiry? The right hon. Gentleman may know that the family are constituents of mine. I took John and Sue Dickinson to see a succession of Ministers about the important lessons that need to be learned from the inquiry.
The chilling truth is that, without the heroic persistence of John Dickinson and the incredibly lucky break that occurred when an immigration officer guessed what might have happened with the person found to be the culprit in due course, no case could have been brought and no conviction secured. That is a shocking reflection on the adequacy of cross-Europe co-operation.
916
I do not deny for a moment that there has been a great improvement in that co-operation since 1996, and I am grateful to Ministers for their response to our lobbying on this matter. However, will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to look carefully to see whether there can be greater co-ordination between the investigating forces across Europe? In particular, will he look at the question of the harmonisation of DNA testing and analysis? That has not been possible in the past, but it was a very important feature of the Dickinson case. We all know that serious crime crosses national boundaries. Crime-stoppers must do so as well.
Mr. Hain: First, I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Gentleman stood by the Dickinson family as they went through this dreadful experience. I agree that Mr. Dickinson showed enormous persistence and courage, and great skill, in ensuring that justice was done.
It is a pretty shocking episode. The almost accidental way in which justice was eventually done exposes a series of matters, not least the question of harmonisation of DNA testing. Work on that is being done, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take careful note of the interest of the hon. Gentleman in these matters, and of the points that he has raised.
The hon. Gentleman asked about opinion polls. I am sure that he does not blame those polls for the fact that the Liberal Democrat candidate in the London mayoral elections polled only 15 per cent., but he makes a fair and important point. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that the chairman of the Labour party will consult with other parties on what is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, an all-party matter.
Joan Ruddock: Has my right hon. Friend seen the editorial in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph? It denigrates the proposals by the Modernisation Committee that people visiting the House should get a greater welcome and that the term "strangers" should no longer be used.
Mr. Eric Forth: Rubbish!
Joan Ruddock: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the question posed by the newspaper. It asked:
"Why … should Parliament, a serious, grown-up institution, change its well tried ways to attract the attentions of those too young to be interested in it?"
Is that merely a reflection of the elderly profile of Telegraph readers, or is something more serious going on?
Mr. Hain: My parents-in-law are Telegraph readers, so I do not want to insult too many of them. However, I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the editorial was extraordinary. It began by saying:
"The heart sinks at proposals to make the House of Commons more accessible to young people."

917
In our democracy, the young persons' vote is declining, as is their interest in politics. It seems that The Daily Telegraph has the enthusiastic support of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the former shadow Leader of the House.
Mr. Forthindicated assent.
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman nods, from his mediaeval posture on the other side of the House. The newspaper seems to want to turn off young people and young voters. The Modernisation Committee is an all-party committee, with Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour members. We feel that the House of Commons should send out a loud and clear signal to all members of the public—and to young voters in particular—that this is their House of Commons. They are entitled to be able to visit it more easily, to be given a better welcome and to have their concerns addressed. A whole series of practical and radical measures have been suggested to enable Parliament to be better connected with the public. We ought to welcome that.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Leader of the House very much for arranging the debate on Zimbabwe. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will open the debate, as it is a matter of very considerable importance. To some of us it is as important as the matters relating to Iraq, but my question is to do with how the House operates. Will the right hon. Gentleman take very seriously the problems facing many Select Committees, which are finding it difficult to get a quorum of members for important meetings? Particularly on the Government side, it appears that members of the Select Committee are being appointed to other Committees—
Chris Bryant: Nonsense.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Government Members are being appointed to other Committees of the House that they consider take priority over Select Committees. I believe that Select Committees are the most effective way of the House holding the Government of the day to account. Therefore, they must be of considerable importance. Will the Leader of the House turn his attention to that and have a word with his own leader of the business, as it were, namely, the Chief Whip?
Mr. Hain: The Chief Whip will have taken note of the points made by the hon. Gentleman and, especially given his seniority in the House, will want to study them carefully. The hon. Gentleman will find that in many of these instances it is a question of appointments to Standing Committees and Statutory Instrument Committees, which are very important, although I agree that Select Committees are vital for the effective functioning of the House and for holding Governments and Ministers accountable. I am happy to confirm that
918
the Foreign Secretary will be opening the Zimbabwe debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in the dreadful events in Zimbabwe.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the NHS loans out a lot of medical equipment and aids such as crutches, commodes, wheelchairs and even specialist beds, much of which is never returned. Will he ask the Health Secretary to come to the House and make a statement on the issue? Will he join me in congratulating BBC Radio Sheffield and other groups in South Yorkshire who have got together to campaign and encourage people to take such equipment back? That will save the NHS hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Mr. Hain: I am happy to congratulate BBC Radio Sheffield, on which I have been interviewed from time to time. I join him in appealing to his constituents and others to return equipment that is vital for the effective functioning of local hospitals.
Mr. Hugo Swire: The Leader of the House will have seen recent reports, which were not unsurprisingly welcomed by the House Builders Federation, that the Government plan to scrap local authority designation of protected land. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has called the plan a blow for local democracy. Given the recent controversy over the Barker report, the cynical manipulation of the green belt and the general concern about the concreting over of our countryside, will the Leader of the House provide Government time before the summer recess for a debate on this extremely important matter?
Mr. Hain: I am sorry, but I have to rebut the proposition that we seek to erode the green belt or concrete over the countryside. It is just nonsense and scaremongering. The hon. Gentleman will have seen a number of written ministerial statements that made clear what we were doing to find areas, especially brownfield sites, which were suitable for the extra housing projects that we need to fill the gap in the housing programme that has been largely bequeathed by the Conservative Government.
David Winnick: What did my right hon. Friend mean precisely when he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) "when the time is opportune" with regard to the use of the Parliament Act to make sure that hunting with dogs comes finally to an end? Can he be more precise? Does he understand that the question now is whether we will have the courage to end this barbaric sport once and for all? That is what the overwhelming majority of Labour Members wants and undoubtedly what a large majority of the country expects this Parliament to do before the general election.
Mr. Hain: As I have assured my hon. Friend and others, we are determined to resolve this matter.
David Winnick: When?
Mr. Hain: When the time is right, I will make an announcement.
David Winnick: What does that mean?
Mr. Hain: When the time is right, I will make an announcement. There is no attempt to avoid this issue. It is clear that what my hon. Friend described as a barbaric practice has to be ended. There is no question about that. I am with him all the way. I think that he will be encouraged when I make the announcement about how we intend to proceed.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Leader of the House give the House some information about the future of the statue of the Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, which is outside the House? He must be aware of the statements in the press that its location is to be changed. If that is so, why, when and where to?
Mr. Hain: I have not seen any proposals to change its position, so the hon. Gentleman can be reassured on that.
Kate Hoey: In welcoming the debate on Zimbabwe in Government time, may I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the work that he has done behind the scenes to ensure that finally we have a debate? Given that the Foreign Secretary will open the debate, will he inform the House of some extra sanctions that this country might be able to impose rather than waiting for the European Union to do so? Is it possible for the House to have some form of debate to show that we do not want the England cricket team to go to Zimbabwe even to play one-day matches or the Zimbabwean team to come here in September and play at the Oval in my constituency in the International Cricket Council championships?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. As she knows, I am with her all the way in my opposition to Mugabe's regime. I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is extremely concerned to make sure that events change for the better for the people of Zimbabwe. He will carefully note the view that she has expressed and will want to see whether he can make any progress in the direction that she asks.
Sir George Young: Has a date for the statement by the Chancellor on the outcome of his comprehensive spending review yet appeared on the Leader's radar and if so, can he share it with us? Can he give a guarantee that before the House rises there will be a full day's debate in Government time on that statement so that the Chancellor can seek to persuade the Governor of the Bank of England that the Government's expenditure plans are sustainable?
Mr. Hain: There is no question but that the Government's expenditure plans are sustainable. That statement has been widely endorsed by economic commentators and others. As for a statement on the CSR, yes it is on my radar and no, I am not able to tell him yet when it will be.
Mr. George Howarth: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, while there is no appetite to return to regular late-night sittings and all-night sittings, there is a mood in favour of adjusting the hours as they now stand. Has he made any progress on that matter?
Mr. Hain: I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive discussions that I have had with him and the efforts that
920
he has made with others to find a way forward. The Modernisation Committee met yesterday and agreed after a fairly lengthy discussion to proceed with its review, which will include taking evidence from hon. Members who have been particularly articulate in supporting one position or another. We will also take close account of the excellent Procedure Committee report, which contains a comprehensive survey of Members' opinions, with an unusually high return from Members. I thank the Procedure Committee for that.
I am anxious, as I know my hon. Friend is, to find a way of avoiding a knife-edge vote like we had last time, but I think that if we simply dropped a proposition on the table tomorrow, we would get that again. I want to find a way of addressing all the issues that have arisen in the consultations that I have had and those issues that have been drawn to the attention of the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee. We want a modern approach. We do not want to roll the clock back, but we want an approach that deals with all the concerns that a large number of Members have about the present situation. That is what the Modernisation Committee will do. We shall write shortly to every hon. Member to ask whether they wish to add to our knowledge any points other than those identified by the Procedure Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), so that we can make a recommendation to the House.
Mr. Michael Jack: In his Mansion house speech last night, the Chancellor understandably called for an increase in the supply of housing, but unfortunately in the north-west of England, outside certain selected inner-city areas, Government housing policy is inhibiting the reuse of brownfield sites and the further supply of affordable housing. Will the Leader of the House persuade the Minister for Housing and Planning to make a statement to the House perhaps before it rises for the summer recess indicating a willingness to review policy with a view to achieving Government policy?
Mr. Hain: I am a bit puzzled by that point, because I do not recognise that situation. However, as the right hon. Gentleman represents a constituency in the north-west, he will know it better than I do. I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is well seized of his points and is able to discuss them with him to discover what can be done.
Mr. Alan Hurst: The Braintree Riverside club in my constituency has been in existence since 1974. It has 150 members and provides an opportunity for older people to learn new skills in art, carving, computers, history and a range of other subjects every Friday. Up to now, the club has been supported by Braintree college, but under the new terms of the college's financial directives, it will not be able to pay the costs of £30,000 in the coming financial year. The club provides a valuable facility to the older people of Braintree. Can my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate so that lifelong learning and skills can be put at the forefront of the agenda for people in Braintree?
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge that that is an important issue for my hon. Friend's area. There will be a debate on Wednesday in which he could raise the matter further, and I hope that he will consider whether he wishes to do so.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I also thank the Leader of the House for arranging a debate on Zimbabwe, which will give many of us an opportunity to encourage the Foreign Secretary to press internationally for deeper, sharp sanctions against the Mugabe regime.
The situation in Iraq is clearly deteriorating rapidly. I put it to the Leader of the House that the occasional statement, though welcome, from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence is not enough, and we need to have another debate on Iraq soon.
Mr. Hain: I am sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman's request and discussions are taking place. Clearly, the situation in Iraq is now entering a different position, with the handover of power to the Iraqis themselves and the prospect of elections to follow next year. It would be a good opportunity for the House to discuss where we are going and where our strategic focus lies, so I will bear the right hon. Gentleman's request closely in mind.
Julie Morgan: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1292?
[That this House notes that the overwhelming majority of medical studies have shown that passive smoking is severely detrimental to human health; further notes that, according to a recent Imperial College London study, one person working in the hospitality industry is killed every week by the effects of passive smoking and that according to other studies, smoking is the cause of 32,000 deaths from lung cancer and 11,000 from other cancers every year; further notes that the Department of Health has initiated a major consultation exercise on smoking in public places that will form part of a White Paper later this year and that the Welsh Assembly is beginning a similar consultation; rejects the notion that a ban on smoking in public places would be illiberal and believes that a ban would act as an encouragement for heavy smokers to kick the habit; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to ban the smoking of tobacco in public places forthwith.]
It already has more than 100 signatures. Is he also aware of the private Member's Bill, which I am now promoting? It has passed through the other place, promoted by Baroness Finlay of Llandaff. What can my right hon. Friend do to ensure the safety of people working in the catering and hospitality industry, one of whom dies every week because of passive smoking? Can he arrange for us to have a debate on that important issue and does he agree that we should take the lead in that crucial area of public health?
Mr. Hain: I agree that we should take a lead in that crucial area of public health and, indeed, we are doing so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has launched a major consultation, which includes questions about what action could be taken to tackle smoking, and second-hand smoking in particular.
922
That has been extended to the end of the month and one of the options is the introduction of legislation to ban smoking in public places. My hon. Friend has been a champion of that policy and I pay tribute to her. The Second Reading of her Bill will take place on 15 October.
Mr. Eric Forth: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) called for the regulation of opinion polls, but will the Leader of the House consider regulating Liberal party election literature, which is even more dishonest than some of the opinion polls mentioned? Can the Leader of the House assist us by rehearsing again the timetable for the regional assemblies legislation? If we are to get the draft Bill only just before the summer recess and if it will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, the voters will not know what the draft Bill—never mind the final Bill—will be like, before they are asked to vote in the referendums. Is not that the wrong way round and will he therefore look again at the timetable? Will he give an undertaking that people will not be asked to vote on regional assemblies until they know the final form of the legislation?
Mr. Hain: In a moment of unanimity with the right hon. Gentleman, I agree that regulating Liberal Democrat literature would be in the interests of humanity, not to mention democracy and honesty in politics. I will look carefully at any opportunities to do so.
On the issue of the regional assemblies Bill, I go back to the precedents. I was involved in the referendum held in September 1997 on whether to set up a Welsh Assembly. It was preceded by a White Paper, called "A Voice for Wales". The public knew that they were voting on whether to set up a Welsh Assembly. Not even a draft Bill was published before the referendum, let alone one subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. We have moved on since then. We have had a White Paper and the voters in the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside will know that they are voting on whether to have a regional assembly to give them a voice and real power over regional issues. The Labour party is in favour of empowering the regions of England and providing them with better democracy. The fact that we will publish a draft Bill before the summer recess, which will then enter the pre-legislative process, will mean that extra information will be available, and the right hon. Gentleman should welcome that. We are not failing to make details available of what will be a short Bill: voters will have more information than the Scots and the Welsh did when they voted in September 1997.
Llew Smith: The Leader of the House will be aware that the public were informed by many of the world's politicians that we needed to go to war with Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction, it was an immediate threat to the world and Saddam Hussein was behind the tragedy of 9/11. Now we know that none of those statements was true, may we have a debate to examine the evidence behind them? At the same time, perhaps we could discuss the real reasons for going to war, which were oil and the west's need to control the Gulf region.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend and I have an honest disagreement on that matter. I respect the honesty of his point of view and ask him to respect the honesty of mine, that of the Prime Minister and of the Cabinet, who took the decision—with the overwhelming backing of the House of Commons in a vote—to go to war. On the question of weapons of mass destruction, we await the report of the Butler inquiry and the later report from the Iraq survey group. They will pose all sorts of questions, and it will be open to my hon. Friend to look at those.
I disagree with my hon. Friend fundamentally on one point. The Government never ever said that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. We never made that assertion and nobody should be allowed to suggest that we did.
Mr. Roy Beggs: There was uproar and outrage recently at Belfast Crown court about the sentencing of Conor Doyle, who brutally murdered his girlfriend, Angela Snoddy, by stabbing her more than 70 times, almost severing her head. Could we have a debate on sentencing for serious crimes? Conor Doyle was sentenced to serve only 10 years before being considered for release. The House should have the opportunity to discuss sentencing levels, so that magistrates and the judiciary are aware of the concerns of right hon. and hon. Members and their constituents that, in far too many cases, sentences do not fit the crime. Life appears to be cheap, especially for women, and we need an opportunity to urge the Attorney-General to review all low sentences automatically.
Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been anxious to ensure that life genuinely means life for the most serious murders and other crimes. He has introduced changes in the tariff arrangements and the sentencing procedures to ensure that the seriousness of crimes is taken into account by the courts. I agree that the case he mentions is appalling, and my right hon. Friend is taking a close interest in it.
Chris Bryant: May we have a debate on the lessons to be learned from last week's elections?
Mr. Forth: Twenty-two per cent
Chris Bryant: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that, because 22 of the 25 seats in the Rhondda were held by Labour—I do not know What the problem was elsewhere.
May we look especially into the fact that many ordinary people who sought postal ballots were troubled that someone had to Witness their voting? They would like to see a change in that system. Furthermore, could the local and European elections always be held on the same day in future, as that seems to be rather good for turnout?
Mr. Hain: I certainly agree with the points that my hon. Friend made. The result in the Rhondda was an example to us all, not least in Neath. There was a complete wipe-out of Plaid Cymru, which paid the price for the dreadful council it had run and the policies for which it had been responsible. I agree with his point about the witness procedure, which was included, I
924
think, at the insistence of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, who wanted to make as much mess as they could of the postal voting system—they wanted to discredit it from the beginning. The witness statement made many voters feel that the privacy of their vote was in some way transgressed and I think that the Electoral Commission will want to look at that issue.
There is great merit in my hon. Friend's last point; when there are European elections, local elections should be held on the same day, so that people can vote just once. As we saw, turnout was up significantly. The results, if not brilliant for the Labour party, were brilliant for democracy.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement to explain the logic behind why there will be referendums for regional assemblies before the House passes legislation, yet the Prime Minister is insistent that the House comes to its deliberations on the European constitution before the people will get a choice?
Mr. Hain: The situation is simple and I shall explain it to the hon. Gentleman. There are important precedents. When establishing a new body, such as assemblies for the three English regions, there is a vote on the principle, followed by the legislation to effect it. If the vote is no, the legislation is not proceeded with. That is exactly what we did in the case of Scotland and Wales and it makes sense, because an assembly is a new body—an entirely new institution.
What is at stake in the European constitutional treaty, however, is the amendment, reform and modernisation of several existing European treaties. There is a European Union; we are in it. We made that decision in a referendum under a Labour Government—denied by a Conservative Government—in 1975. As the legislation goes through, all the issues will be exposed, as will a lot of the Tory myths and downright lies about what the new constitutional treaty is about. The voters will come to see that it is a common-sense reform and modernisation, and the simplification of a tangled web of treaties into one text, so that everybody can see how the EU is structured and how it works. They will know, too, that the House of Commons for the very first time will be given a say on any new piece of European legislation. That is a big advance for democratic rights and for national sovereignty, and the hon. Gentleman should recognise it.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I return to the point that was raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? It is important that we have an early statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on the timetable for the regional assembly referendums—when the orders will be made and so on. Does the Leader of the House think it right that we go ahead with all-postal voting in the regional assembly referendums in October when the Electoral Commission

925
will not publish its review of all-postal voting on 10 June until the previous month—September? The whole thing has concertinaed and we need to rethink the timetable.
Mr. Hain: If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend has bought a lot of the Tory and media myths.
Mr. Prentice: No, no.
Mr. Hain: I am sorry to have to say that to my hon. Friend but I am afraid it is true.
The timetable is clear. We are currently assessing the evidence about what happened last Thursday and in the preceding week or two, because votes were cast before Thursday in large, if not overwhelming, measure. The Government will also seek the advice of the Electoral Commission and there will be plenty of time to take that into account for the postal ballots. There is a difference in that situation, however: people will be asked to vote yes or no to a regional assembly. We hope they vote yes, but that situation is different from the two sets of elections with what many people found were rather complicated ballot papers.
Angus Robertson: The Leader of the House may be aware of the ongoing discussions since July last year between the United States Administration and the United Kingdom Government about the renewal of a bilateral agreement on weapons of mass destruction programmes for both the US and the UK. May I commend a new report by the British American Security Information Council? Its conclusion states:
"The Labour Government has declined to set aside time for a full parliamentary debate and it has been parsimonious with the actualite of the agreement."
Does the Leader of the House agree that US-UK nuclear weapons collaboration under the mutual defence agreement is important and that it should be debated in full?
Mr. Hain: It has been going on for a very long time—many decades—so I do not see a case for an urgent debate, but the hon. Gentleman can apply for a debate in the normal way.
David Taylor: Public-private partnerships and private finance initiatives, equally unattractive cousins, have racked up aggregated debts of £120 billion, which is more than 10 per cent. of gross domestic product and is off the Government balance sheet. Perhaps the largest such deal is the one to modernise and upgrade the tube network, whose present net value is £16 billion over the next 30 years and which provides returns to shareholders at the mouth-watering levels of 18 to 20 per cent. Has the Leader of the House seen the report published today by Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General. Stripped of the accounting jargon with which I am relatively familiar, that report is excoriating in its criticism. It says, in effect, that the deal is prohibitive in cost, flawed in concept and intolerable in consequence to the taxpayers, travellers and train drivers of this land. When can we have a debate on the shambles and folly that is PFI?
Mr. Hain: There are many opportunities to debate those matters. The Government will obviously want to study the report carefully and the Secretary of State for Transport will want to note my hon. Friend's points, but he must acknowledge that through the PFI and the PPPs there has been a huge expansion in capital programmes under the Labour Government—
David Taylor: At a cost.
Mr. Hain: Of course. But the cost through public borrowing and public funding would have meant fewer opportunities to provide from public finance the many capital and public spending projects in which we have invested on a record basis.
Sir Sydney Chapman: May I return the Leader of the House to the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay)? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that four weeks ago I asked for a debate on Iraq, especially in the light of the handover to the Interim Government on 30 June. As that date is only 13 days away and as he has already announced the business for the next fortnight, may I earnestly implore him seriously to consider holding a debate, certainly in the three weeks thereafter before we go down for the summer recess?
Mr. Hain: I will pay very serious attention to the hon. Gentleman's request I am sympathetic to it, but it is a question of fitting it into the rest of the business—the need to get Royal Assent for Bills and so forth. However, the time is fast approaching when we should take stock of where we are going on Iraq and his point will be well noted.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As a Bill to implement a version of the Tobin tax has been accepted by the commission on finance and budgets in Belgium and is due to be voted on by its Parliament in a fortnight's time, can we have a debate on the sensible proposals that the Belgians are currently examining? Those proposals involve a low, normal tax on currency speculation, but when matters get out of hand and the currency is being battered about by massive speculation, there should be a high rate of tax to interfere with that and dampen it down, because many of the world's economies in poorer nations are destroyed by currency speculation.
Mr. Hain: I acknowledge that my hon. Friend has long been an advocate of the Tobin tax. The Chancellor and the previous Secretary of State for International Development, who addressed these matters some years ago, have explained the Government's point of view, but I am sure that the Treasury will want to note the points that my hon. Friend makes.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I was tempted to ask for a debate on just how badly a Labour Government have to lose a European election before they will realise that they should not sign up to a European constitution, but as I know that I would not get that, may I ask instead for a statement or debate on the law of trespass? I was involved in a case whereby a burglary took place and the police identified the fact

927
that people had been present but were not able to charge them because their alibi was that they had gone into the house with the intention of occupying it and setting up a squat. Is there not something extremely strange about a situation where if people steal and take away another's property, they commit a criminal offence, but when they enter another's property, change the locks and sit there, they cannot be touched by the police and the owner has to go to enormous expense and trouble to reoccupy his or her own property?
Mr. Hain: That is a rather strange situation, I must concede. I am sure that Ministers in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, one of whom is sitting to my left, will have noted very carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said.
On the Europeans elections, the blunt truth is that everyone lost them: the Conservatives lost them, Labour lost them, the Liberal Democrats lost them and the United Kingdom Independence party lost them, as did every other minor party. That is the picture that resulted from last Thursday's vote.

Point of Order
1.22 pm
Mr. George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a point of order that relates to Treasury questions, which we have just had, and the answer that the Financial Secretary gave to Question 10, on Equitable Life, which was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). The Financial Secretary used her answer to make a major announcement about the future of the savings industry and to launch a Government consultation document, which is now available in the Library. Is it right that the Government can use a very narrowly worded question on Equitable Life to make an announcement about what is really a very different area of Treasury business, and to do so in such a way that gives the House very little opportunity—indeed, no opportunity whatsoever—to question the Government? When the Government first made such an announcement, they did so by oral statement. There was a statement on Sandler products at the time. Is it right for the House that that announcement has been slipped out in response to an oral question on another issue?
Mr. Speaker: Of course, I am not responsible for the replies from Ministers. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that those on both Front Benches get some elbow room from the Speaker, so it cuts both ways. My understanding was that the Minister was drawing attention to a written statement that was put on the Order Paper today. Therefore, I gave the hon. Lady some elbow room. I would not expect that to happen all the time, but it did today, so we will leave it at that.

BILL PRESENTED
  MENTAL CAPACITY
  Mr. David Lammy, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Reid, Ms Rosie Winterton and Mr. Christopher Leslie, presented a Bill to make new provision relating to persons who lack capacity; to establish a superior court of record called the Court of Protection in place of the office of the Supreme Court called by that name; to make provision in connection with the Convention on the International Protection of Adults signed at The Hague on 13th January 2000; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 120].
Orders of the Day

  Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on the draft Public Audit (Wales) Bill, HC 763, and the Government's response thereto, HC 87, Session 2003–04.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.24 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Public Audit (Wales) Bill is intended to create a unitary public audit framework for Wales, with overall responsibility for public audit vested in one person—the Auditor General for Wales. The Bill will extend the Auditor General's powers to include most, although not all, of the current functions of the Audit Commission in Wales. Together, the Auditor General and his staff will be known as the Wales Audit Office or Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru. It builds on the creation, under the Government of Wales Act 1998, of the Office of the Auditor General for Wales and the National Assembly's Audit Committee to scrutinise the National Assembly's expenditure and the value for money obtained from it.
  Llew Smith: The Minister says that the new audit office will have the ability to scrutinise the funding of the National Assembly for Wales. Will it be able to look, for example, into the commitment made at the time of the referendum? We were told, as he well knows, that if we voted for the National Assembly, we would have a bonfire of the quangos. We were promised not only such a bonfire, but that the savings that would come from it—we were told that they would be £20 million—would be more than enough to run the National Assembly for Wales. We now know that the National Assembly costs an additional £100 million or so a year to run, so would it be possible for the new audit office to consider the original claim and, indeed, the funding since then of that institution?
  Mr. Touhig: Of course, it will be a matter for the Auditor General to decide what he and his staff will examine. As for the point that my hon. Friend makes about a bonfire of the quangos, I am not sure whether there has been one, but there have certainly been a few sparks.
  Devolution has resulted in a far greater degree of scrutiny and accountability in respect of public spending in Wales, and the Bill will advance that cause further. Under the Bill, the Auditor General will retain responsibility for financial and value-for-money auditing of the Assembly, its bodies and its funds. The Bill will extend the Auditor General's remit, so that he or she will have sole responsibility for the financial audit and value-for-money studies of NHS bodies in Wales. He or she will appoint auditors to local government
  930
  bodies in Wales and take on inspection functions under the Wales programme for improvement, best value review under the Local Government Act 1999.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Does the Minister not think that there is a case for the Public Accounts Committee also to have the power to scrutinise the Welsh Assembly's spending decisions?
  Mr. Touhig: Of course, the Public Accounts Committee can broadly examine such matters because the House votes the budget for the Welsh Assembly to the Secretary of State for Wales, who then hands it to the Welsh Assembly. That is a matter for the PAC, but the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Assembly has its own very effective Audit Committee.
  Mr. Alan Williams: In fact, the Public Accounts Committee, as my hon. Friend knows, only investigates reports from the National Audit Office, under Sir John Bourn, in so far as they affect England. Sir John Bourn, with a different hat on, reports directly to Wales. So we in the PAC have no locus to hear matters that relate specifically to Wales.
  Mr. Touhig: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point clear to the House.
  Llew Smith: In referring to the commitment to have a bonfire of the quangos, the Minister admitted that there had been not a bonfire, but a few sparks. Will he accept that we have not had even a few sparks, only a damp squib? There are now more quangos in Wales than when the commitment way made. Indeed, quangos in Wales are far more powerful now than they were then.
  Mr. Touhig: I think that I will stick by my original comments and say that there have been a few sparks.
  Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill has been the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation. It was introduced in another place last November and closely examined there, and the process has undoubtedly improved it. I especially pay tribute to representatives of the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats because their contributions to the process and the discussions that I had with them helped to inform our judgments on how to amend and improve the Bill. That represents Parliament working at its best.
  The Bill's objectives have been almost universally welcomed by all who took part in the early scrutiny. The Assembly in Cardiff, the Auditor General for Wales, the Audit Commission in Wales and the Welsh Local Government Association have welcomed it. The Welsh Local Government Association is satisfied that the Bill's proposals will not impinge on its constitutional independence and democratic accountability. Indeed, several of the Bill's provisions are designed to safeguard the independence of local government. Foremost among them is this safeguard: although the Auditor General will take on responsibility for the appointment of auditors to local government bodies, he or she will not be able to appoint him or herself in a personal capacity to be that auditor.
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: Clause 5 will insert new section 145C "Studies relating to registered social landlords" into the Government of Wales Act 1998. Will the Auditor General be able to appoint auditors to examine social landlords in isolation? I ask because the new section contains nine subsections, but does not make it clear where the responsibility for such appointments lies.
  Mr. Touhig: Yes, the Auditor General will be able to do that, which will be welcomed as beneficial.
  Key benefits will flow from the Bill. It will result in a single audit body where there are now two, which will enable expertise and best practice from differing areas of audit work to be developed and shared more easily. It will make public audit arrangements in Wales simpler and more understandable. For example, two different bodies currently have responsibility for various aspects of the financial audit of the health service and both have responsibility for value-for-money studies. I think that everyone would agree that that is confusing and over-complex. Under the Bill, the Auditor General will have sole responsibility for the financial and value-for-money audit of NHS bodies in Wales. The Bill also tries to encourage collaboration and mutual assistance between the Auditor General and a wide range of relevant bodies, such as Audit Scotland and the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.
  We have tried to find the most logical and cost-effective approach on cross-border work between England and Wales. I can confirm that the Audit Commission will retain its existing functions under the Audit Commission Act 1998 to undertake local government cross-border reviews and other studies on an England and Wales basis. Similarly, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 empowers the newly created Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to undertake equivalent cross-border reviews in respect of NHS bodies.
  Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that cross-border comparisons are absolutely essential if we are to guarantee that there is a broad-ranging approach on ensuring that we have value for money between England and Wales?
  Mr. Touhig: I do, because I remember from my previous incarnation as a councillor in Gwent in south-east Wales that cross-border comparisons help to drive up standards. We learned a great deal from such studies.
  The Bill will facilitate cross-border working by agreement and the Government are confident that co-operation will be widely embraced. It includes provisions that require the Auditor General, the Audit Commission, the Assembly and CHAI to co-operate and consult each other when necessary for the proper exercise of their respective functions. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) will recall from our debates on the Wales (Health) Bill that several Conservatives Members were especially keen to ensure that there were would be no duplication of effort through cross-border co-operation. The Bill requires the Audit Commission and CHAI to have regard to work done by the Auditor General when undertaking cross-border work.
  932
  The Government amended the Bill in another place to impose mutual duties on certain key bodies to provide each other with any information that they may reasonably require for cross-border comparative purposes. Those bodies are the Auditor General and the Audit Commission, and the Auditor General and CHAI. All the essentials are in place for effective and productive cross-border collaboration without imposing over-rigid requirements.
  Since the draft Bill was first published in April 2003, it has been scrutinised by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the report and recommendations of which were debated by the Welsh Grand Committee in July 2003. A Committee of the Assembly also scrutinised the draft Bill in the early summer of 2003 and the full Assembly debated its report. More than 200 organisations were involved in a 12-week public consultation, and 41 recommendations for change or clarification were made in all, of which 19 were accepted. In addition, improvements were made to the Bill as a result of amendments made during its passage through another place. I have already mentioned the amendments made on the mutual duty of the key audit and inspection bodies to provide each other with information for cross-border comparative studies, and I also want to touch on other key improvements to the Bill.
  The draft Bill was designed to give the Auditor General enhanced rights of access to documents and information on bodies for which he has statutory audit responsibility, and those enhanced rights reflected the recommendations of Lord Sharman's report. Clauses 11, 18 and 52 of the Bill will ensure that auditors should be able to follow the trail of public money to end users. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) will remember when we were involved in pressing for an inquiry on a college in our part of the world, so I am sure that we will all welcome the improvement to the system.
  The Welsh Affairs Committee recommended that the Bill should provide consistent access rights across both local government and non-local government sectors in Wales, and the draft Bill was amended to achieve that. However, the Bill now goes one step further. It has been amended to enable the Auditor General and appointed auditors of local government bodies to require assistance and information from effectively any person whom they consider could help in exercising these functions, irrespective of whether that person held or was responsible for relevant documents. That means that a person will no longer be able to refuse to give an auditor assistance solely on the basis that he or she had lost a document or was no longer in possession of it.
  Hon. Members will be well aware that the most contentious of the Bill's provisions is clause 54. It will restrict the disclosure of information obtained during the course of a local government audit or study by an auditor or the Auditor General, albeit with widely cast exceptions. The clause is equivalent to section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. Both pieces of legislation impose a criminal sanction on a person who discloses information in contravention of those provisions. Both the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Welsh Assembly recommended that the clause should be deleted from the draft Bill, as did the Auditor General. However, the

  933
  Audit Commission and the Welsh Local Government Association argued for it to be retained because it would provide a safeguard against the inappropriate or premature release of information—I stress the importance of the word "premature".
  The Government fully understand that there should be no impediment to the legitimate disclosure of information, and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is a testament to that. In this particular case, however, they also consider that there should not be undue inconsistency in the criminal law between England and Wales on the appropriate release of information. That would be the case if clause 54 were deleted while section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 remained in force.
  Owing to those concerns, the Government amended clause 54 in another place to enable the Bill to be further amended after its enactment to reflect the outcome of a general review that is being undertaken by the Department for Constitutional Affairs under the Freedom of Information Act on existing statutory bars to the disclosure of information. The Government have announced their intention to amend section 49 of the Audit Commission Act as a result of the review, and I made a ministerial statement to that effect, which was laid before both Houses of Parliament on 24 March. The amendment will overturn the existing presumption in section 49 against disclosure, and change it to one in favour of disclosure, which is wholly consistent with the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
  Lembit Öpik: While welcoming the change and the fact that the Government have listened to people's concerns, I should be grateful if the Minister would outline the time scale. Lord Evans said in another place that he expected change to be completed
  "as soon as possible and certainly before the end of this year."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 2004; Vol. 661, c. 168.]
  Will the Minister assure us that the matter will be entirely resolved by the end of the year?
  Mr. Touhig: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and was about to come on to that point. It is the Government's intention to make an order before the end of the year to amend section 49. We have to amend clause 54 separately, and that amendment will be made by the end of the year to bring it into line with section 49.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Clause 54(2)(h) talks about the disclosure of information
  "for the purposes of any criminal proceedings which have been or may be initiated".
  If such information is disclosed retrospectively, who would be responsible? Would it be the Audit Commission in Wales or the Audit Commission? If there is a UK-wide investigation before the Bill is enacted which body would be responsible?
  Mr. Touhig: I believe that it would be the Audit Commission, although it may be the Auditor General for Wales. I will clarify the position for the hon. Gentleman before the winding-up speeches
  934
  Clause 22 deals with immediate and other reports in the public interest. Subsection (1) states:
  "In auditing accounts of a body under this Chapter, an auditor must consider whether in the public interest, he should make a report on any matter which comes to his notice in the course of the audit, in order for it to be … considered by the body, or … brought to the attention of the public."
  Subsection (3) makes the position clear. It states:
  "If the auditor considers that the public interest requires the matter to be made the subject of an immediate report, he must make the report immediately."
  I hope that that assuages the concerns of right hon. and hon. Members. The Government are determined that there should be no unreasonable impediments to the proper disclosure of information in the Bill.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Are subsections (1) and (3) of clause 22 covered by the Human Rights Act 1998? If one asked for retrospective information about an audit, disclosure of such information in the public interest could breach someone's human rights.
  Mr. Touhig: I do not believe that that would be the case but, again, I will provide clarification later for the hon. Gentleman on that important point. We are establishing a series of measures so that there is a presumption in favour of disclosure, and I believe that Members on both sides of the House will welcome that.
  The role of the public expenditure watchdog is vital in maintaining and improving accountability and safeguarding the public interest. Almost £12 billion of taxpayers' money is spent on functions devolved to the National Assembly which ensures that it is spent correctly and with due regard to value for money in public services. Although financial audit remains a key component of an auditor's work, the role of auditing has developed over recent years. It increasingly includes advice and assessment of clients' corporate governance arrangements, including the assessment of risk management. Advice on increasingly sophisticated financial management systems is another important aspect of auditing. Inside an organisation, people would say that the watchdog is a man's best friend. A value-for-money audit provides reassurance to the public, and is strategically important for developing policy and improving performance.
  The mechanisms for public expenditure and accountability are becoming more complex. The Assembly is working with the Government to develop a distinctive partnership approach, which involves a range of public, voluntary and private sector bodies in the development of policy and the delivery of objectives. Good examples include the communities first initiative and the Wales waste strategy, but all the initiatives involve close collaboration and co-operation across sectors. The value-for-money functions of the Auditor General for Wales are retrospective, and cover the way in which a body has used its resources in the past. The Bill will enable him to undertake forward-looking value-for-money studies across the sectors, covering the full range of public bodies in Wales. Those studies can inform policy decisions and will provide reassurance to taxpayers that their money is being well spent.
  In conclusion, the Bill offers a single framework for public audit in Wales, with expertise vested in a single organisation, which suits both the way in which the

  935
  Government work in Wales and the interests of the people of Wales, who pay for the services that they receive from the public sector. It will concentrate expertise and help to develop and spread innovation and best audit practice across the public sector in Wales. It will also enable the Wales Audit Office to play a full part in developing wider audit standards in co-operation with other bodies throughout the United Kingdom. It provides the basis for a world-class audit body of which Wales can be proud, and gives the Auditor General the tools that he needs to meet the challenges of rapid change and an increasingly complex public finance framework. I commend the Bill to the House.
  1.46 pm
  Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words, and to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, under whom I served when the Bill was scrutinised. I pay tribute to the Committee's hard work, and particularly to him.
  Regrettably, the programme motion proposes a deadline of 1 July for Committee proceedings. Such a timetable will create difficulties, given the complexities of clause 54 that the Minister has just told us about. The Bill will consolidate audit arrangements for public bodies in Wales, replacing the Auditor General in Wales and the Audit Commission in Wales with a national audit office that will ensure best value from the National Assembly, health bodies, NHS trusts and local government bodies. In principle, we welcome the consolidation of a single audit regime in Wales, which makes good sense. The new office has great potential to improve the quality of public services and government in Wales, and ensure the best-value use of resources. We owe a debt of gratitude to Baroness Noakes and Lord Roberts of Conwy, who greatly improved the Bill in the other place. Most of the 23 Government amendments made in the House of Lords were introduced after discussion of Conservative amendments, so I am grateful to my colleagues in another place.
  There are, however, still inconsistencies in the Bill about which we are concerned. The Government have insisted on making the Bill consistent with audit arrangements in England simply by regurgitating arrangements that currently exist in England and Wales. Consequently, a great opportunity for improving the audit regime in Wales has been missed. Clauses 5 and 11 are consistent with provisions in England, but create arrangements that are inconsistent in Wales.
  We are concerned that the criminal sanctions in clause 5 will affect registered social landlords' rights of access, as the clause makes it a criminal offence for registered social landlords to hinder the work of the Auditor General for Wales. However, criminal sanctions are omitted from clause 11, which deals with the Auditor General's right of access to general information. We will therefore make the Bill consistent by tabling amendments that either remove the criminal sanctions from clause 5 or create criminal penalties for a breach of access rights in clause 11. Clauses 18, 53 and 5 do not deal with criminal sanctions, but are inconsistent with one another, so we will table amendments to deal with that.
  In an attempt to justify those inconsistencies, the Minister said that the Bill is consistent with audit provisions in England. The Government have ignored
  936
  the chance to create a coherent, logical audit regime in Wales, and one such inconsistency is to be found in clause 14. The Auditor General cannot appoint himself as the auditor to local authorities, yet he can audit NHS bodies himself. As Baroness Noakes pointed out, why would such an appointment cause a conflict of interest in local government bodies but not health trusts? It is puzzling that there should be constraints on the Auditor General in the local government sphere while he has freedom to act directly in the health field.
  The most contentious issue is clause 54, which restricts the disclosure of information held by the Auditor General in respect of local government unless consent is given for its disclosure by the body or the person to whom the information relates.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that if the Auditor General found an anomaly in relation an NHS trust or social housing, the Audit Commission would have to audit the Auditor General to check that his figures were right, so that in the Audit Commission role he could take action on the Auditor?
  Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes an important point and I look forward to hearing his contribution in Committee, which I am sure will be valuable. The difficulty with this part of the Bill is that the Auditor General is not allowed to appoint himself. If he is allowed to appoint himself to audit NHS trusts, surely he should be able to appoint himself to audit local government expenditure. My hon. Friend sensibly points out that we need consistency; otherwise the purpose of the Bill is diminished. The Bill is a good one, by and large, and it will improve matters, but not as much as I would have liked.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: While my hon. Friend is on inconsistency and disclosure of information, can he say whether, in his judgment, the failure to disclose information could be in conflict with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, about which we heard from the Minister?
  Mr. Wiggin: I shall have more to say about clause 54, but there is indeed a problem. The Government Whip seemed surprised by my opening comments about the timetabling, and I shall try to explain why I am bothered. The Government's amendments to clause 54 through amendment of section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, will not take place until after the Bill is on the statute book. We are therefore being asked to legislate on trust. Surely it is the job of Parliament to ensure that we legislate as well as we can, rather than by remote control or trust in the Government. That is why the Committee stage should take place after the Government have tabled their amendments to the other legislation.
  Lembit Öpik: Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's suspicion about taking the Minister's assurance on trust, does he accept that given the explicit

  937
  statements made in another place and by the Minister today committing the Government to introducing the appropriate amendments before the end of 2004, the Government are unlikely to have much room for manoeuvre or delay?
  Mr. Wiggin: I am tempted to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State just told us that everybody lost the European elections. When one came first in those elections, it is difficult to believe the Government all the time.
  Mr. Robathan: I do not wish in any way to impugn the Minister, who is a decent soul, but until about two months ago we were told categorically that there would not be a referendum on a European Union constitution. Now we are told that there will be a referendum. Does that not reinforce my hon. Friend's point that we should not take assurances on trust?
  Mr. Wiggin: I agree. The problem in the present case is that there is no option. We shall deal with that in Committee. The Bill is a good piece of legislation and the Government are trying to do their best, but the problem—I address this to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) as well—is that even though the Government have promised to make changes, we still have not seen a draft or detail of those changes.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The House will have the opportunity to discuss the Government amendments when they are tabled, and that is when we will make the decision. Since we are giving a subordinate power, which could not be used to introduce changes in Wales as it is contingent on what happens in England, the Bill is utterly logical.
  Mr. Wiggin: I do not agree. The right hon. Gentleman implies that whatever is later debated will be perfectly adequate for Wales. That is fundamentally at odds with the Select Committee report. Everyone who has criticised the clause is deeply unhappy about it. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I accept that he is doing his best by intervening.
  If I can make some progress, perhaps I can shed some light on why I am concerned about clause 54. It restricts disclosure of information held by the Auditor General in respect of local government unless consent is given by the relevant body. The Government have conceded that the clause is not satisfactory, but their amendment does not go far enough to protect against those who mishandle their duties to public bodies. It blocks the proper presentation of findings in the public domain that would embarrass those involved.
  The Government amendment would allow but not require the Secretary of State to amend clause 54, but only if section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 is amended under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, the Government have not proposed to change section 49, except in what we heard today, so I have reservations about the possible use of clause 54 against whistleblowers. Anyone who doubts that should consider what happened to James Cameron. I was extremely disturbed to read about that.
  938
  Those who support a free society will also have concerns about clause 54, as it would deter potential whistleblowers, who would be treated far more harshly in local government audit than in any other public sector audit environment. That is one of the inconsistencies that concern us. We believe it is wrong in principle to apply criminal sanctions to the disclosure of audit information. That was the conclusion of the Welsh Affairs Committee too, and of the Assembly Committee that considered the draft Bill. The Auditor General has made it clear that he did not request those provisions. It is the Government who wish to undermine the accountability and responsibility of public bodies for their actions.
  Under what circumstances do the Government consider that criminal sanctions would be appropriate for the disclosure of information? In his opening comments the Minister suggested that criminal sanctions would be appropriate if someone released information a little earlier than they should, but I do not believe that James Cameron would ever have found it too late to deliver the information that he did.
  Mr. Touhig: I shall try to be helpful. The Government take the view, as I said, that there should be no inconsistency in criminal justice between England and Wales. That is why we thought clause 54 should be retained. Following Discussions in the other place and with colleagues, we amended the clause in the other House, as the hon Gentleman understands. As a Member of Parliament in the 1992–97 Parliament, I introduced a Bill to protect whistleblowers. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was very helpful in the debate—we may have converted him in the course of it—and he made an important contribution to that debate. I may have been sitting on the Opposition Benches as he is now but that is the will of fate.
  Clause 54(2) lists a number of exceptions to the restriction on disclosing information. Those exceptions explicitly allow disclosure on matters relating to best value, fraud, the work of the ombudsman, the discharge of social service functions, education best-value matters, matters affecting social landlords and matters of a criminal nature. So on a raft of matters set out in subsection (2), disclosure is allowed as the clause stands.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister, and I am keen to emphasise that at no stage did I think that he was one of those on the darker side of this business who would suppress whistleblowers. Nevertheless, we must be careful. One can only imagine the fear and trepidation felt by someone before they blow the whistle.
  Mark Tami: If the hon. Gentleman does not consider criminal sanctions suitable, what sanctions would be suitable?
  Mr. Wiggin: If whistleblowers are to be allowed to tell the truth, criminal sanctions may not be the best way to deal with them. We are talking about people releasing information, not stealing or committing acts that are traditionally known as crimes. They could be fined or dealt with in other ways, but the clause allows imprisonment. Even fining may be too harsh. I am concerned not so much about the scale of the

  939
  punishment as about the whole principle of how we legislate and the manner in which the Government are promising to change the Bill after it is on the statute book. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
  On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting announced that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had instructed the Department for Constitutional Affairs to incorporate an amendment to section 49 of the Audit Commission Act and to amend clause 54 accordingly, although that will not happen until the end of this year. Clause 54 represents another example of the Bill following English precedent instead of taking the opportunity to create something new for Wales. As the Welsh Affairs Committee said, it is a shame that the Bill is not better for Wales instead of no worse than for England.
  As it stands, the Bill represents many wasted opportunities. I fear that the changes that it introduces have not been properly costed. The Government have admitted to an inaccurate estimate of start-up costs, with the most recent regulatory impact assessment raising the initial cost from £500,000 to £987,000. However, that does not account for additional budgetary costs, even though there will be no scale economies in establishing the Wales Audit Office. It would be helpful if the Minister informed the House of the current running costs, and I hope that he will do so when he winds up.
  Although the Bill will make a difference, it is rather disappointing that it is the only piece of Wales-specific legislation, despite the National Assembly for Wales having proposed five Bills. We know that Lord Morris of Aberavon was disappointed when, much to the Minister's embarrassment, he said on Second Reading in the other place:
  "I know the pressures on the government's business managers … and"
  I have
  "seen many Ministers' worthy legislative proposals thrown aside for lack of time. But that is the purpose of the Secretary of State for Wales—to fight for Wales in Cabinet; he has hardly any other real functions."
  He must have forgotten that the Secretary of State has another job, as of course we could not forget, as he answered questions this morning. He continued:
  "By any standards, this is pretty poor reward for his efforts."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 717.]
  Overall, we welcome the Second Reading of the Bill, which will create a single audit body in Wales to the benefit of the people of Wales. The Bill has been greatly improved by the hard work of Conservatives, but inconsistencies and concerns remain. I do not wish at any stage to forget the input of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
  The challenge in Committee will be to amend clause 54 so that the Government can ensure that it satisfies modern tests of transparency. I know that they and the Minister want to deliver that result, but I am still not happy that they have completely succeeded.
  How can we possibly pass the Bill until section 49 of the Audit Commission Act has been amended? I cannot believe that the Government would want it any other
  940
  way, given that they propose to uphold the accountability of public bodies and to protect those who blow the whistle on corruption.
  We will strive in Committee to resolve the inconsistencies in the criminal sanction provisions with regard to rights of access to information. There is an underlying concern that the Bill simply imports the current audit regime for England and Wales, thereby ignoring the chance to make the audit regime in Wales sharper and more suitable than the English version. Instead of making Wales the beacon of good audit practice, the Government have chosen to duplicate the Audit Commission Act. That is short-sighted. We shall endeavour to improve the Bill further in Committee.
  2.3 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Following last year's effective consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, of which I am Chairman, the Welsh Grand Committee and Committees of the Welsh Assembly, several changes have been made, and it has been improved still further during its passage through the Lords. I should like to single out the following matters for the House's attention.
  Julie Morgan: As my hon. Friend says, the Bill has received an enormous amount of scrutiny, during which the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Committee in the Assembly interviewed the same people. Next week those two Committees will start a joint investigation—an historic event. Does he agree that that is partly a result of our experience on this Bill?
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was going to mention that later, but she has pre-empted me.
  The Welsh Affairs Committee welcomed the extension of the Auditor General for Wales's access rights to follow public money to end recipients such as contractors and grant recipients—that was in clause 11 at the time—and recommended that those extended rights should also apply to local government-appointed auditors. That was accepted, and what is now clause 18 was amended before the Bill was introduced. That is an example of how pre-legislative scrutiny is helpful. Following debate in the Lords, the Government extended those rights even further to require assistance from anyone who might have relevant information, as well as the production of documents. That is a good outcome. Public auditors in Wales will now have access rights among the best in the civilised world and fully in line with Lord Sharman's recommendations.
  The draft Bill allowed the Audit Commission to continue to have access rights to Welsh local authorities for the purposes of producing cross-border reports on performance. We should remember that the Auditor General for Wales was not being given similar access to English local authorities. The Welsh Affairs Committee recommended that the Auditor General for Wales and the Audit Commission should co-operate on cross-border work and produce reports that were jointly badged so that both organisations could take their share of the credit.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points. He hits the nail on the head in

  941
  relation to access to documents by the Auditor General, which is covered by clause 11(3), but how does he see that unfolding in relation to, for example, cross-border investigations of subsidiary companies? There are cost implications, legal implications and, perhaps, European implications, but none of that is dealt with in the Bill.
  Mr. Jones: I agree that, on the face of it, that is not in the Bill. However, the Government's proposals go some way towards meeting the concerns expressed in the Welsh Affairs Committee as regards such situations.
  The Government did not accept the Committee's view, but they amended the Bill to require the Audit Commission to take account of the work of the Auditor General for Wales and to co-operate with him—or her, as may be the case in future. Following pressure in the House of Lords, the Government tabled new clauses requiring the Audit Commission, the Auditor General for Wales and the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to share relevant information. Although we are not entirely happy with that, it is a good halfway-house solution. I hope that the Government will consider that further.
  Clause 54—formerly clause 50—prevents information obtained in the course of an audit from being disclosed except in certain circumstances. Our Committee backed suggestions that it should be deleted and replaced with agreed protocols about the clearance of draft reports. The Government did not accept that because they believed the clause to be identical to section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, which will continue to apply in England. As that section contains offence provisions, the Government took the view, as the Minister confirmed again today, that it would be unacceptable to have aspects of criminal law that applied in England but not in Wales.
  Following pressure by the Lords, the Government issued a ministerial statement saying that section 49 was under review as part of the review of statutory bars following the passing of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. They further stated that it is likely to be amended to create a presumption in favour of disclosure rather than against it, as at present. Clause 54 now contains an order-making power to allow the Secretary of State to amend it in line with any changes made to section 49 of the 1998 Act. I understand that, as the Minister repeated today, that will happen within the year. However, I still believe, as do my Committee, that Wales is being required to hang on to England's coat tails. That is a cause for concern.
  More generally, part 2, which covers local government audit, replicates the Audit Commission Act 1998 in large measure, with the Auditor General for Wales being put into the commission's shoes. The Bill has its origin in a local government Act of the 1970s, the name of which escapes me, and could do with being brought into the 21st century. However, the Government do not wish to create different rules for local government in England and in Wales—that is a reasonable proposition—especially as such bodies are accountable to their electorates, not the Welsh Assembly.
  Part 2 also contains offence provisions unlike the audit arrangements for the Assembly and its related public bodies. That contrasts with the audit of NHS
  942
  bodies, which are accountable to the Assembly, and part 3 greatly simplifies the audit regime to suit Welsh circumstances.
  Overall, the Bill is a good measure, which will create a Wales Audit Office. That is appropriate for the devolved environment in which we now have to work in Wales.
  2.10 pm
  Lembit Öpik: Good auditing tends to be invisible in that, when it is done correctly, the general public get the benefit but do not necessarily observe the process. In my time as a Member of Parliament, not one member of the public has lobbied me for the Bill. I can see that the Minister is barely able to contain his shock at that discovery but it is true. Nevertheless, a responsible Parliament must take the matter seriously.
  The complex and sophisticated nature of modern auditing means that it is in order for us to try to ensure that we have a strategic and consistent approach across Wales. I therefore join others who give the Government credit for the extensive scrutiny that has taken place in the run-up to the debate. As we have heard, the Welsh Grand Committee debated the Bill last July, the National Assembly for Wales considered it in August, and the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs produced a report—we have just heard some of its findings—and the Assembly also published a report. That is an example of the way in which value can be added through detailed consideration on a cross-party and cross-body basis before the Government commit themselves to a Bill.
  I am pleased that the Minister noted the benefit of consulting Opposition parties, including the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, and I am glad that we assisted him. Indeed if he would like to delegate any substantial part of his ministerial responsibilities, the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin)—I am sure that I can speak for him—and I would be willing to help him out on a daily basis on the assumption that we got a proportion of his salary.
  Mr. Touhig: Modern apprenticeships.
  Lembit Öpik: Indeed, it could be a good example of that. Perhaps we can discuss that after the business today.
  The Minister outlined some of the key benefits of the Bill. They include a single audit body for Wales instead of two, making the public auditing process simpler and handling cross-border working coherently. That can lead to a practical improvement in cross-border relations, for example, in the health service. I have previously raised points about securing English health provision for Welsh patients. There has been some debate about issues that relate indirectly to auditing when I have discussed those matters with the Royal Shrewsbury hospital If the cross-border working element of the Bill is effective, it could improve access to health provision for Welsh patients. Although the measure may, at first sight, appear theoretical and somewhat removed from the interests of the public, some of the aspects that the Minister highlighted will provide a practical benefit.

  943
  An extensive debate was also held in another place, where amendments were tabled. I am obliged to pay tribute to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in another place, who, in their quiet and methodical way, ensured that best practice was derived from Conservative and other Members of the House of Lords.
  Clause 54 probably occupied the greatest amount of time. It places restrictions on the disclosure of information obtained by the Auditor General or an appointed auditor about local government audits and studies, except in some specified circumstances. Other speakers have already given a definition and I therefore do not need to dwell on that. There was great concern that the clause provided for things for which no one was calling. I am optimistic about the Government's willingness to alter that, because they appear to have accepted the arguments. Perhaps I am simply an optimist or willing to trust the Minister because he has an honest face, but I believe that he will ensure that the issues that relate to clause 54 will be resolved before the end of 2004.
  I have already quoted Lords Evans's words when he made an explicit commitment to resolve the section 49 element of the difficulties. The Minister went a little further today when he said that he would try to ensure that the consequential alterations that have to be made to clause 54 would happen by the end of the year. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that those two assurances mean that the Minister will deliver the desired outcome. In a sense, the question is not whether the Minister's words and those of the Lords are appropriate, but whether to trust the Government. I trust them on the matter and can envisage no reason why they would renege on something for which they have accepted the arguments.
  I was intrigued by the observations of the hon. Member for Leominster about the importance of whistleblowing. I suppose that, after all these years, the Conservative view of whistleblowers has altered. Whistleblowers did not have a good time between 1979 and 1997. I chuckled quietly to myself when I heard the hon. Gentleman concerning himself about the sanctions that clause 54 might grant the Government, including imprisonment. Unless my memory deceives me, at least one whistleblower went to prison between 1979 and 1997 under a Conservative Government, explicitly for blowing a whistle on them.
  Mr. Wiggin: While the hon. Gentleman was chuckling to himself, did he consider the difference between audit information and the Official Secrets Act?
  Lembit Öpik: Yes, but until now, the hon. Gentleman made no distinction between whistleblowers who are acceptable and those who are not. He begins to box himself in if he claims that whistleblowers on audit information should be given more latitude than those who have a similar, principled concern about official secrets. One could go as far as to say that whistleblowers violate the Official Secrets Act in the public interest because they feel a greater moral imperative than someone in an audit office, and that they therefore act extremely nobly.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am nervous about straying out of order but the hon. Gentleman should consider the difference
  944
  between the Official Secrets Act, which seeks to protect our servicemen and their lives, and audit information, which under the Bill, is likely to be relevant to local authorities and the way in which they spend public money.
  Lembit Öpik: We could go on about different levels of whistleblowing, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I shall not play games. There are different levels, but I am encouraged by the Conservatives' recognition that there are times when people should be entitled to blow a whistle without recrimination from Government. That must be good news for whistleblowers everywhere in the Conservative party. If they have information that could be in the public interest, they might even be entitled to a community service award for blowing their whistles.
  I have one last thought about clause 54: the only thing that the Minister did not explicitly describe was the mechanics of ensuring that the clause is brought into line with the promises that he made today. I would be grateful if he could briefly outline the input that the House will have into the changes that hon. Members on both sides agree will be useful.
  I can say without fear of contradiction that this is the greatest Public Audit (Wales) Bill ever to be laid before the House. Although it might not set the good people of Montgomeryshire alight with excitement, they stand to gain from it practically through a more rational, strategic and simplified approach to cross-border auditing. If the Bill is successful in its goals, I fully believe that it will help us to have a sound and sensible public audit of public money, and that it will ensure that the audit process is done once rather than twice, as it is at present because of the duplication in the system. We shall probe some minor changes in Committee, but I am satisfied that there will be enough time to do that under the programme that the Government are proposing. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats support the Second Reading.
  2.21 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I welcome the consensus on the Bill. In my Liaison Committee role, I see part of that being attributable to its having had a pre-legislative and draft legislative stage. Strangely enough, that was common practice in the 19th century. It was dropped in the last century and has been embraced again by the previous and current Leaders of the House with the full support and encouragement of the Liaison Committee.
  In a different role, as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission in this House, may I say how welcome it is to have this additional armament relating to the scrutiny of public expenditure? It has always been a criticism of the Public Accounts Committee—a remarkable Committee on which I have served for 14 years—that it can deal with only about 50 reports in a year. With £650 billion worth of public expenditure and income to scrutinise, 50 inquiries a year can obviously only scratch the surface. As someone who was, and is, no enthusiast for devolution, may I give it one point of credit for having enhanced public audit in this country? Scotland and Wales, which previously had perhaps only one or two inquiries into their expenditure during the year, now have their own respective bodies. I welcome this strengthening of the organisation in Wales.

  945
  In fact, public audit to some extent rebuts the argument that we do not get anything for nothing, in that the National Audit Office has claimed for years that it makes enough savings to reclaim its costs eightfold each year. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) asked who audits the auditors, so he might be interested in this. As Chair of the Public Accounts Commission, I set up an independent value-for-money audit of the National Audit Office, which has reported in the last couple of weeks. That report confirms the NAO's own estimate that it makes eight times as much for the taxpayer as it costs the taxpayer. I hope that the Bill will create a similar experience for Wales.
  Like the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and those new converts on the Conservative Benches, I have a great sympathy for whistleblowers. I remember that, when Rhodri Morgan was in this House, he had a system whereby his telephone was linked to the fax machines in the Wales Office. In some way, whispers used to get to him about what was going on in Wales. On one occasion, he came to see my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells)—who was also on the Public Accounts Committee at the time—and me. A group of civil servants had asked whether they could meet the two of us because there was something going on in the Welsh Development Agency that they felt needed to be exposed.
  We offered to meet the civil servants in Cardiff, but they said, "No, we're known in Cardiff. We'd be recognised there, and you'd be recognised there. Can we come to London?" So we met them in one of the "W" rooms here. We were about to produce a report from the National Audit Office on excessive car expenses in the WDA, and these two WDA officials came to us and said, "Look, we'd better tell you what's going on there, but you mustn't say where it came from." What they exposed was a conspiracy to privatise two sections of the WDA: the property section and the consultancy section. Feasibility studies had been commissioned on that proposition, yet there was not one word of record of them in the minutes of the board, though the board was involved. There was no record of feasibility studies where one might expect to find them because they had been farmed out to irrelevant divisions in the WDA. One head of a division was so worried about what was going on that he kept photocopies of everything that he had in an attic, in case the situation was exposed at some time.
  Eventually, an ignominious report was produced on the WDA's conduct, which led to resignations. The board had deliberately conspired to conceal what was happening. We subsequently discovered that the only person who seemed to know about it at this end was the then Secretary of State. In our National Audit Office report, we made a recommendation that there should be protection for whistleblowers when the national interest would benefit from their actions.
  It was a paradox for someone who is anti-devolution, such as myself, that there were two exposures at the WDA—another one followed—and the Development Board for Rural Wales was also in the queue. So we had a neurosis about quangos in Wales, which led to the
  946
  clinching argument in the devolution debate: "We will have a bonfire of the quangos." The debate was won by only a quarter of 1 per cent., and without the bonfire argument, it would not have been won. I would have been happy if it had not been, but that is another point. I would suggest that the new body, as part of its first inquiry, should ask, "How did we lose the bonfire of the quangos? Where in the system did it disappear?"
  I welcome the opportunities that will be created by the evolution of separate auditing bodies for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each, in its own devolved way, will be experimenting individually with methods, approaches and structures. This will give us the opportunity to spend much more time carrying out comparative studies of the ways in which the benefits or disadvantages of different methods emerge in the various parts of the United Kingdom—I have asked the National Audit Office, through the forum of auditors, to consider this—so that we can all learn from best practice. In the case of Wales, for example, I think that most Welsh Members would agree that an area that requires such attention is the delivery of the health service. I am glad that I wrote to the NAO and asked for a comparative examination of the facilities, waiting lists and so on for hip, knee and cataract operations in Wales, England and Scotland. I believe that such a report is relatively imminent and may be available in the summer.
  I welcome this Bill, it enhances the auditing facilities, and I wish the new organisation well.
  2.30 pm
  Hywel Williams: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and to hear his positive comments on the setting up of this body in Wales. We cannot claim him as a convert, as he has said explicitly, but it is pleasing to hear his comments, including his pertinent point about quangos. If he is looking for the ashes of the bonfire of the quangos, or perhaps even for some action, he should question not the Assembly, but his friends down there who are in charge. In some ways, it is not an Assembly matter, although it has joint responsibility, and has in the past acted more corporately than it does now.
  On behalf of Plaid Cymru, I join the general welcome for this Bill, which confers new functions on the Auditor General for Wales in setting up this powerful new body for audit. We hope sincerely that its effects will be apparent very quickly. We hope that it will lead to much greater scrutiny, accountability and transparency in relation to public expenditure in Wales, all of which will be very welcome. We agree that a single public audit body for Wales headed by the Auditor General is most desirable, given the current arrangement in Cardiff and the duplication.
  Some hon. Members might recall the slightly jocular tone that I adopted When I made a speech on this matter in the Welsh Grand Committee—[Interruption.] It was a thin house. I said:
  "The word 'auditing' does not conventionally gladden the heart or excite the nerves … it is hardly likely that anyone's famous last words would contain the immortal line, 'I wish I had done a bit more auditing'."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 15 July 2003; c. 7.]
  We would do well, however, to note and praise the value of the work done by the Audit Committee of the

  947
  National Assembly. My impression is that it has worked well, and without some of the pyrotechnics that we have seen in other aspects of the Assembly's operations. It has worked well jointly with all the parties that have been involved, and it has worked hard and to a purpose. It has adopted a practical approach.
  The complaint is sometimes heard in the less enlightened parts of the press, especially in north and west Wales, "What has the Assembly done for us?" If we consider the work of the Audit Committee, it claims to have saved at least £90 million out of a budget of £10 billion to £12 billion, depending on which year one counts. That might not seem much, but £90 million is a great deal of money, which, I am sure, has been very well used.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd. West (Gareth Thomas) made the point in the Welsh Grand Committee, which was also raised earlier, that the regulatory impact assessment put the cost of the move at £500,000, but we understand that that figure has increased. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary could say what the future cost is likely to be, if he is in a position to do so. That would be a matter of interest to Members of the House and to the public in general in Wales. The proper audit of public expenditure is such an important aspect of securing the public good that we should know what it costs, and what the regulatory costs are. Certainly, we should be clearer about the amount of money that has been saved. With due respect to the Under-Secretary, the Secretary of State and previous Secretaries of State, I would venture that the savings that have been achieved since the establishment of the Assembly might not have been achieved under the pre-Assembly arrangements. Judging on the past record, therefore, this Bill promises much. We will look for reports of positive results in the future.
  As the Under-Secretary and other Members have said, this Bill has been the subject of a great deal of scrutiny. Irrespective of the debates and discussions in Cardiff, the Welsh Affairs Committee and Welsh Grand Committee have also considered the matter. Of course, it has also been the subject of the usual procedures in the passage of Bills through the other place. On behalf of Plaid Cymru, I hope that it will now proceed quickly to Committee, and that it will be examined in the proper amount of detail. We will be looking to make a positive contribution to that process.
  Members have already referred to a number of improvements achieved in the other place. Plaid Cymru Members were very pleased to note to the Government's change of heart on clause 54. I am glad that the Government saw sense, or at least realised that their approach, and that of the Wales Local Government Association, was inconsistent with the principles of freedom of information, and was thus unsustainable. We will be looking to make sure that the Government keep their word.
  Lembit Öpik: For the avoidance of any possible doubt, is the hon. Gentleman aware that quite a few people in local government in Wales want this change, too? Delyn Liberal Democrats, for example, are very keen to ensure that these changes are made, because they have concerns that some of the bad things that happened in Flintshire might end up being covered up instead of exposed if clause 54 is not amended. Does he
  948
  therefore agree that since the argument has been totally won, the Under-Secretary is under a tremendous obligation to make sure that he delivers to the timetable that he has promised, which is this year?
  Hywel Williams: I am grateful for that intervention and I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. As I said, we will make sure that we do our best to hold the Government to what the Minister has said this afternoon. Rather than carp at any questions about motivation or what has happened in the past, I want to accept and celebrate the change in the other place.
  I hope to have the opportunity in Committee to examine this Bill in detail. Briefly, I want to comment on a couple of issues that have been raised by other Members. To make a broad point, were we to compare part 2 with part 3, we would see that part 2 is concerned with the audit of local government bodies, and runs to four chapters and 47 clauses. Part 3, however, is concerned with the NHS and contains a mere five clauses. How does one account for this startling variation? Is audit in the NHS simpler or more straightforward? Given the huge expenditure on the health service, I scarcely think so. Is it that local government is inherently more complex? As a former council employee, albeit a long time ago, I do not underestimate the complexity of local authority finance, even in such well-run authorities as Gwynedd county council, both the old and the new. We have had yet another reorganisation of the health service, and whatever its merits or demerits, no one could claim that the establishment of 22 local health boards and a wide variety of some 30 other bodies in the new system is a move towards simplicity.
  The NHS is a complicated organisation, and has five clauses about it, whereas local authorities, which are perhaps equally complicated, have a huge section of their own. Perhaps it is not that local authorities are more complex, or that the health service is a beacon of organisational simplicity and clarity, but that the clauses relating to the health service are new, whereas the chapters and clauses relating to local government replicate the existing legislation, but with a Wales tag. For that reason, many who welcome the intention and hope sincerely that the Bill will increase accountability also consider that an opportunity has been missed—the opportunity to simplify existing law and write new law suited to Welsh circumstances, rather than producing a Welsh version of the arrangements for England and Wales.
  As others have said, the reproduction and adaptation of existing legislation has led to inconsistencies. For instance, the penalty arrangements in clauses 5, 19 and 29 vary. One clause provides for a £20 fine for each day on which an offence continues, while the others do not. Some might say that fining public bodies is not the right way in which to proceed. After all, the auditor has a right to seek injunctions; alternatively, the miscreant's authority could be hauled before the Audit Committee. Others might say that a £20-a-day fine is derisory, and hardly constitutes encouragement to comply.
  All I am saying—and I will repeat it in Committee—is that there is an inconsistency in the Bill which arises from the nature of the legislation being reproduced in it. I shall not proceed with that critique now, but I assure the Minister that my party will be tabling amendments.

  949
  Let me conclude by emphasising the importance of keeping the Assembly and the Audit Committee in the loop, engaging them when appropriate, and enabling them to continue their good work in maintaining the high standards of probity in public expenditure that we value so much.
  2.42 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: This is not a bad Bill, but as we have heard from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), it could be improved. Nor is it a small Bill, and it will require detailed scrutiny.
  Some may ask why an English Member representing a midlands shire constituency should speak on this Bill. It is true that there are not quite as many Conservative MPs in Wales as we might wish, but I do have Welsh antecedents. My father was born in Llandaff, and my grandfather was headmaster of Llandaff cathedral school. Both my great-grandfather and my great-great-grandfather were doctors in Risca, in the Minister's constituency of Islwyn, in the valleys. Although I am not actually Welsh myself, I can claim to be Welsh when I want to be. I am certainly much more Welsh than the Secretary of State, who has no Welsh connections at all apart from having happened to end up in his present berth in Neath.
  Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with a past president of my party, Dr. Gwynfor Evans, who once famously stated that anyone can be Welsh as long as he is prepared to take the consequences?
  Mr. Robathan: Funnily enough, I do agree, not least because those who stand next to me in church always say, "You must have some Welsh antecedents because you sing so loudly"—if not so beautifully.
  Lembit Öpik: May I ask who the hon. Gentleman supports in the current Euro football competition?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might be a good idea if the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) returned to the subject of the Bill.
  Mr. Robathan: I accept your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker. Apart from anything else, I believe in neither the cricket test nor the football test. Furthermore, I think that football tends to be played by rather overpaid louts. I say that in my constituency, so everyone knows that it is what I think—and I believe it has been proved this week.
  Like the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I do not particularly like devolution, and I do not particularly like the Welsh Assembly, for which only one out of four Welsh voters voted. In fact, I have heard Welsh Members of Parliament—not members of my party—describe the Assembly as a rather second-rate county council, although I accept that it is doing good work.
  Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend will not need to be reminded that the Conservative Assembly Members were recently proved to be the most hard-working group. Perhaps that is one reason why he was able to be complimentary about the Assembly.
  Mr. Robathan: I did not know that, although of course I support the Conservative Assembly Members. Nevertheless, I am not sure that Wales is as much a better place as it was claimed that it would be when the Assembly was established. It is up to the Welsh to decide what form of government to have, but I repeat that only one person in four voted for the Assembly.
  It is because of my distrust of devolution that I have certain qualms about the Bill. It appears to be non-controversial, but the taxes that will fund it are paid by all taxpayers. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), who is not here now, pointed out that the costs of the Assembly, originally estimated at £20 million a year, are now £100 million.
  According to the explanatory notes, the compliance costs will be borne by the Assembly, and the Assembly considers that the Bill will not result in any additional budgetary costs to it or other public bodies. As I have said, however, the original estimate of the Assembly's costs was itself wrong.
  I understand that we shall be bringing together 45 staff from the National Audit Office and 200 from the Audit Commission. I hope that that will not involve huge compliance costs. I am not particularly au fait with Cardiff these days. I hope the Minister will tell me whether a new building will be needed, and how the costs will be paid. I understand that the costs of setting up the new arrangements will be £1 million.
  I was particularly puzzled by what the right hon. Member for Swansea, West said about the Public Accounts Commission. It seems to me that the Public Accounts Committee here should be able to examine what is done in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman said that it could not, whereas the Minister said that it could. The discrepancy needs to be cleared up.
  According to clause 40, any public-interest report will be sent to the Home secretary—a UK post, obviously. Surely it should also go to the Public Accounts Committee as well if that is requested.
  We have discussed the conflict between the Freedom of Information Act and clause 54. It is important to establish whether the Act will override the clause. I do not impugn the Minister, but I think that the issue should be sorted out now, in the Chamber. After all, there is no mad rush for the Bill.
  The way in which the Bill reflects on whistleblowers has also been discussed. The Minister has a very good record in that regard. I remember a debate on the subject. I think I supported the Minister then, which was surprising, as one or two Whips were quite keen for me not to.
  Where is that bonfire of the quangos? We should not take everything on trust.
  A piece of non-controversial legislation is all too easy to nod through. Much of our legislation is not sufficiently considered. I do not pretend to be either an accountant or an expert on auditing, nor do I represent a Welsh seat; but I think it important to the stature of

  951
  the House that we produce well-thought-through, precise, detailed legislation. Questions have already been asked about various aspects of the Bill. Let me add that we have a duty to ensure that any moneys raised from our constituents and spent on whatever we decide is spent well.
  2.49 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: As a Scotsman hiding in Somerset, I claim even less reason than my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) to speak in the debate. Someone once asked me what my view of Wales was from my seat, and I said, "Overlooking it." I apologise to all Welsh Members for that faux pas.
  I agree with other hon. Members that this is not a bad Bill, but I should like to speak about a part of the Bill that I do not like. In a wonderful bit of double speak, clause 6 refers to the provision:
  "The Auditor General for Wales may borrow sums in sterling by way of overdraft or otherwise for the purpose of meeting a temporary excess of expenditure over sums otherwise available to meet that expenditure."
  That is my problem with this generally good Bill.
  The whole point of having an Audit Commission is to be able to follow an audit thread. I am worried that the Auditor General can borrow money, even on a temporary overdraft basis, in order to follow an audit thread for one simple reason. If he cannot follow the thread through private or public accountability—in other words, if it has been delegated to a private auditor—it means that either the National Assembly for Wales or the British taxpayer will have to be pick up the tab. There is no other way round it. In respect of Wales, of course, it means the Welsh taxpayer.
  That is my main difficulty with the Bill. The audit trail has to be examined, but not through the eyes of the Welsh, the Scots, the Irish or anyone else. It must be possible to follow a thread where public money is involved. Too often in this country, audit trails have left the taxpayer out of pocket by millions of pounds with absolutely no benefit—and certainly no prosecution at the end of the day. It worries me that we are allowing the Auditor General to run an overdraft. Why should he need to run an overdraft? Do we not have enough money in the country? Is the Chancellor not telling us something? Are we running all this on Barclay cards? That is not the way to do an audit trail.
  The fees are another problem. New section 93A in clause 7 states:
  "The Auditor General for Wales may charge a fee for auditing a person's accounts."
  If he is delegating that responsibility to a well-known firm of accountants—it does not matter which—and that firm is unable to retrieve the money from the person because of a dispute, what happens? Does the Auditor General for Wales sue the company to get the money back or does the delegated auditor, a private individual, sue for it? If the company goes into liquidation in the meantime, what do we do? Do we pursue the company directors, or does the Welsh Assembly have to pick up the tab? Exactly what would happen in those circumstances has not been clearly explained.
  Much has been said about clause 5. It is a crucial provision, dealing with auditing of registered social landlords. I doubt whether many Members would be
  952
  unable to recall occasions—I have spent only three years in the House—on which such landlords were brought into question and people were anxious to follow them up. The noble Baroness Noakes said:
  "The criminal law is a blunt instrument for a public audit regime … I am reinforced in this by the absence of criminal sanctions".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1461.]
  That just about sums it up. The Minister said that we audit social landlords correctly by our ability to follow the audit trail and secure what information we want. However, at the end of the day, we do not have a criminal sanction. Social landlords can be very good at disappearing. A company may have a problem, the social landlords may leave, the company goes down the pan and once again the taxpayer is left to pick up the bill. Will the Minister reflect on Baroness Noakes' view of the criminal law as a blunt instrument and ensure that people realise that it is unacceptable to walk away from a company because the Audit Commission of Wales is in pursuit.
  There are nine subsections to clause 5, which gives the Auditor General the ability to pursue reasonable costs, but when he delegates the responsibility for investigating a company, who takes the decision? Is there a time limit and a budget? Is there a narrow or broad brief, or is the delegated body asked to write its own brief? I ask those questions because we all know what happens—I am a capitalist and do not disapprove of commercialism—when something is given to a private company. It will obviously try to keep it all going and there is a tendency—dare I say it to any lawyers or accountants in the Chamber—to egg up the costs. What powers will the Auditor General for Wales have to rein in costs at all levels? Clause 5 does not make that clear, so we may have to amend later clauses to tighten it up.
  I want to move on to the enormous amount that the Audit Commission has achieved in the last year. It has dealt with late payments to farmers in Wales, the National Council for Education and Training for Wales, compensating farmers for tuberculosis—I had to get that in somewhere—in Wales, the renewal of private sector housing, the management of the delivery of hospital cleaning services, the procurement of primary care medicine and the management of further education and estates in Wales.
  I have two questions for the Minister. First, has the Audit Commission done everything that it wanted? At the moment it has a very large staff—about 4,000 people—because it covers England and Wales. Are there further objectives that have been prevented because of stepping on the toes of the Welsh Assembly? When the Bill is enacted and the Audit Commission for Wales is established, it will want to do its job to the best of its ability. As my hon. Friend asked a few moments ago, will there be sufficient numbers of staff seconded into Wales to carry out the role properly? What it did last year certainly amounts to an ambitious programme, never mind what it might be asked to do in the future. Currently, there 2,300 staff dealing with England and Wales, including 1,500 commissioners and 450 inspectors. I believe that the number of staff taken on specifically for Wales is way below even a third of that. It is important to look further into that problem.

  953
  Costs are also important. The fifth report of the Welsh Affairs Committee supplies the figure of £500,000. The report states:
  "We have to express some concern that there is as yet no realistic published estimate of set-up costs … or savings, arising from"
  the new office. It continues by stating that that is
  "exactly the sort of failing for which auditors are rightly swift to criticise other organisations. We hope that … a clearer idea of costs"
  will emerge. Does the Minister have any idea of the costs that will accrue? I see that the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee is in his place. It is surely crucial to know what sort of budget the Auditor General for Wales will have on day one. Presumably, he will want to make progress as quickly as possible when the Bill is enacted. Can the Minister give us an assurance about the total costs?
  In conclusion, this is a good Bill, but it does need tweaking. Some glaring provisions stand out and need to be amended. I have already mentioned the point about the criminal law. The provisions need tightening up. Cross-border co-operation is important—I do not mean that Wales is not part of Great Britain—so the provisions must be sensible. If we cannot follow up the trails properly, every one that the Auditor General wants to pursue will fail. In the eyes of the law, the job will not be deemed to have been done sufficiently, which cannot be acceptable to the Minister. If we need retrospective information, the Minister must ensure that the law gives us the ability to use it. It is all very well for the Bill to say that it can be done, but when there is no tie-up between England and Wales, following the split, there is the possibility that many things that desperately need to be pursued will fall through the lines.
  2.59 pm
  Mr. Hugo Swire: The Opposition broadly welcome the Bill, as has been heard this afternoon. It must make sense to consolidate the audit arrangements for public bodies in Wales by replacing the Auditor General for Wales and the Audit Commission in Wales with the Wales Audit Office or, as it is called—this might be one of my few attempts at Welsh this afternoon—y Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) will squirm in his seat at that when he reads the Welsh press tomorrow. He, of course, is a man who started off by learning the Welsh national anthem and I am told that he is progressing well in that language. I have to say that my credentials are somewhat more challenged, in that I took a lot of convincing that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who was in his place earlier and who serves with me on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, was not in fact a Member of Parliament for Scotland—a mistake that I made early on in my parliamentary career.
  We will nevertheless put that behind us and move on to the substance of the matter before us this afternoon. The Minister was, in his usual manner, reasoned, conciliatory and generous to many this afternoon, including the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, and we thank him for that. I thank him, too, for the tribute
  954
  that he paid to our Conservative colleagues in the other place. We all agree that their diligence has ensured that this Bill has been greatly improved. It has to be said, however, that some inconsistencies and genuine concerns remain.
  It is worth reiterating that the Opposition are disappointed that this is the only piece of Wales-specific legislation, in spite of the fact that the National Assembly for Wales has proposed five Bills. Welsh Conservatives, Liberal peers, Plaid Cymru and Labour, in the shape of Lord Morris of Aberavon, have all, as we have heard, shared that sense of disappointment.
  In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the cross-border reviews and the co-operation between England and Wales. That part of the Bill is no doubt to be welcomed. However, what is perhaps less welcome is the Government's failure to introduce something new and radical—something Wales-specific. By mirroring the Audit Commission Act 1998, the Government have missed a trick and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster has said, we shall seek to remedy that in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) both mentioned the bonfire of quangos—or perhaps we should say the "bonfire of the vanities"—and commented that there has not been so much as a spark, let alone a bonfire. Perhaps that should now be looked at as a priority. The Government's financial record on matters Welsh is, I have to say, a little questionable. I asked the Secretary of State for Wales back in May what the cost of the Welsh Assembly to the public purse was estimated to be at the commencement of that project, and the answer was that the additional running costs of the Assembly would be £15 to £20 million more than the cost of running the Wales Office. That is in addition to the £55 million or so that we are now facing for the establishment of the Welsh Assembly. Those costs in no way mirror those of the Scottish Parliament, but we can see how the costs of such projects can escalate very quickly.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend is making interesting points. Perhaps I may help him. A major part of the draft Public Audit (Wales) Bill was devoted to the cost of setting the Welsh Assembly up but this Bill contains no actual breakdown of costings. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister must give costings in line with what the Welsh Affairs Committee asked for?
  Mr. Swire: My hon. Friend makes a customarily good point, but I shall turn to costings in a minute, if I am able to in the limited time that I have left this afternoon.
  The Minister spent much time telling the House how the Audit Office will scrutinise expenditure in Wales, but not much time telling us what the cost of the legislation will be. The Government have already admitted that their initial start-up costs were inaccurate, and the latest regulatory impact assessment has almost doubled that cost, from £500,000 to just under £1 million. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could give us an up-to-date and, hopefully, final figure when he replies this afternoon.

  955
  My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who is no longer in his place, made a good point about the scrutiny of expenditure in Wales by the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that the Minister will seek to address that concern later this afternoon.
  It would be quite wrong for me to continue in my comments without thanking those two excellent volunteers, my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), who made contributions in their own way. My hon. Friend the Member for B1aby, who was quick to stress his Welsh antecedents, comes from a distinguished line of doctors and teachers from Llandaff and was more than happy to take the responsibility for being Welsh. He raised concerns about costs, and questioned whether a new building was needed, which, again, has not come out so far in the debate. He thought that well-thought-out and precise legislation was needed, and that we had a duty to ensure that money raised from our constituents was well spent. I think that most of us in the House would agree with those sentiments. Those are the prevailing sentiments with any kind of legislation, certainly among Opposition Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, who takes the responsibility of being not a Welshman but a Scot in Somerset—perhaps an altogether more difficult position—made some probing interventions throughout the debate and, like all good Scots, concentrated on the financial aspects of the Bill. He made a series of points on the auditing of social landlords. Those good points were well made, and are worthy of a response from the Minister. He concluded by saying that he thought that although this was a good Bill, it needed tweaking. I look form and to joining him in the tweaking process in Committee later on this Session.
  The Minister made many reassuring noises about clause 54 and about how clause 49 was to be amended in favour of disclosure. However, we are being asked to accept that those very necessary changes will be made after enactment—although in all fairness, by the end of 2004. My party believes that it is quite wrong and unnecessary to introduce new legislation without making those fundamental changes at this stage.
  We are, it must be remembered, talking about large sums of money, and we have only to look to Brussels and the corruption in the European Union to see how whistleblowers have been treated in the past—and yes, regrettably, by a Welsh ex-Labour MP and party leader. That is in sharp contrast with the excellent record of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who, ironically, succeeded the gentleman to whom I am alluding in that seat. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) went off at a slight tangent about whistleblowers. I know that he plays in a band, so perhaps he should confine his blowing to his harmonica.
  For once, however, the House is on the whole in considerable agreement on the Bill. We think that it has merit, and we look forward to the Committee stage, when we can introduce those amendments that will make the Bill even better, more workable and more relevant to the people of Wales. I look forward to the Minister's response, and hope very much that rather than repeating some of the points that he made in his
  956
  very good introductory speech, he will seek to answer some of the excellent probing points made by Opposition Members this afternoon.
  3.8 pm
  Mr. Touhig: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate. We have had an interesting and highly constructive debate on the Public Audit (Wales) Bill. Many good points have been made, and I can assure Members of all parties that the Government will consider those points carefully as we move towards Committee. The Bill's key objective is to create a simpler and more rational structure for public audit in Wales. That will break down operational boundaries and assist in the development and spread of best audit practice.
  The Bill is based on the principle that public audit in Wales should be a simpler, more co-operative and more proactive process. It should reduce the burden of audit and inspection activity in Wales, without diminishing audit standards. That point was expressed by a number of bodies that responded to the public consultation on the Bill. For three years running, the Auditor General's annual report to the Assembly has shown that overall standards of financial management and probity are high. However, there can be no room for complacency and this Bill will ensure that we are able to build on that achievement. Through co-operation and consultation, the Bill will encourage a more strategic and inclusive approach to planning and carrying out audit, examination and inspection work. In addition, it will ensure that other bodies outside Wales can work with the Auditor General in developing areas such as audit standards and practice. That work has an increasingly international dimension.
  The Auditor General and his staff have much to contribute. They have a wealth of expertise and experience, and it is fitting that they should play their full part. Some have said that this Bill is a patchwork of different provisions rather than a coherent whole. I disagree. Key people, such as the Auditor General for Wales and the director general of the Audit Commission in Wales, have wholeheartedly welcomed the Bill's proposals.
  The very real benefits that this Bill will bring to the public audit process should not be lost in the wider debate. The Audit Commission in Wales, the Auditor General and the staff of the National Audit Office have done, and continue to do, excellent work in upholding and improving the high standards of public accountability that exist in Wales.
  We have heard today about the pre-legislative scrutiny that the Bill has gone through. I pay tribute to the members of the Welsh Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), and to those in the Welsh Assembly's Audit Committee who played a strenuous part in the consultation.
  In my opening remarks, I took a number of interventions from Opposition Members, to which I shall now respond. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) asked whether the Auditor General for Wales could appoint auditors for social landlords in Wales, and I want to amplify the response that I gave. The Auditor General for Wales has no

  957
  power to appoint auditors to registered social landlords in Wales because such landlords are not public bodies, and not all receive their funding from the Assembly. However, he will be able to undertake value-for-money programmes in the registered social landlords sector, with the agreement of the National Assembly.
  The hon. Member for Bridgwater also asked whether the publication of a report under clause 22 would breach the Human Rights Act 1998. The answer is no: local government bodies cannot be victims under the terms of that Act.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made an important and welcome contribution about the locus of the PAC in respect of the National Assembly. The PAC has a locus, in the sense that the Government of Wales Act 1998 provides that the Assembly's Audit Committee can, on behalf of the PAC, take evidence on audit issues, and report back to the PAC. That is covered by section 102(2) of the 1998 Act.
  The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) welcomed the Bill. He said that it was a good piece of legislation, but that some opportunities had been missed. I am sure that we will explore that further in Committee. He was concerned that, although the Auditor General could audit the NHS, he could not do the same for local government. That is because local government enjoys a distinct democratic legitimacy that is bestowed by the electorate. Health bodies do not have that, as their members are not directly elected by the public. The Government are keen to ensure that local government retains its democratic independence. That is why we feel it right that the Auditor General should not be the auditor of local government, but that he should be able appoint those who will perform that function.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the details of the orders to amend clause 54. At this stage, I cannot go into detail about how those orders will be drafted, as discussions are continuing. As soon as I have some information, I shall make it available to the House. If it becomes available while the Bill is in Committee, I shall bring it to the attention of colleagues, as I think that people should know the Government's plans.
  Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for the Minister's kind offer. However, the Committee sittings may start as soon as next week, so he has only a small window of opportunity in which to deliver that information.
  Mr. Touhig: I accept that, but I merely want to make it clear to the House that I shall do all I can to get that information to colleagues. I recognise that I am asking for support for the Bill, and that that requires a degree of trust that the Government will introduce amendments later in the year.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned whistleblowers. He was worried that they might be deterred, but I do not believe that the Bill will cause that to happen. The Auditor General for Wales is the prescribed person for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. My private Member's Bill that would have had the same effect was thwarted by the previous, Conservative
  958
  Government. In fairness, I should say that the 1998 Act was introduced by a Conservative Member. It was supported by this Government and subsequently enacted.
  Various hon. Members asked about the running costs of the Auditor General's office. The Auditor General can raise income through fees and charges. The gap between estimated income and expenditure is met by the National Assembly. I believe that, in 2003–04, that amounts to about £1.5 million.
  In the Welsh Grand Committee, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) raised the question of set-up costs, and various hon. Members asked the same question this afternoon. When we carried out the pre-legislative scrutiny, we gave a figure of £500,000 for set-up costs, but that was before a working group produced a detailed analysis. The new estimate is £987,000, but more than half the difference between that and the original estimate is accounted for by costs that were not anticipated originally. Non-recoverable value-added tax charges amount to £147,000, and £127,000 is accounted for in the appointment of a dedicated project manager. Originally, project management was to be done as an in-house exercise and funded by NAO and Audit Commission resources, but that is no longer the case. Finally, the auditor General for Wales has estimated costs for information and communications technology at £350,000—over £150,000 more than originally anticipated.
  The revised costs were considered and approved by the National Assembly's Audit Committee in May, and await approval by the Assembly's Finance Minister. I remind the House that, in evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee in June 2003, Sir John Bourn said that the original estimate of £500,000 was a "ball-park" figure that he did not consider irresponsible. However, the estimates have had to be revised, and it is right that colleagues should seek—and be given—information about the new costs forecasts.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) welcomed the improved access rights to be given to the Auditor General, and I am sure that all hon. Members agree with that. I want to emphasise again the important work that the Welsh Affairs Committee performed in the pre-legislative scrutiny. That scrutiny process is now a matter of course for Welsh Bills, and the Committee plays a vital role in that. It will now begin consideration of the draft transport Bill for Wales, which we look forward to debating in the Welsh Grand Committee, perhaps next month.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said that he had not been lobbied about an audit Bill by any of his constituents. I am not surprised at that, but I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that when something goes wrong with any public service issue and costs arise, we all turn to the auditors to find out why. He expressed concerns about clause 54 and asked what role the House would play in the amendment to which the clause refers. The amendment will be made through an order that will be laid and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. The same procedure will apply to the amendment of section 49 of the Audit Commission Act 1998. I stress that clause 54 would not prevent an auditor from

  959
  disclosing evidence of corruption or malpractice if they encountered it and felt that they had a duty to bring it to the public.
  The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the way in which the previous Government treated whistleblowers. He was right to make that point. Indeed, when I presented a private Member's Bill on the subject, it was thwarted by the previous Government, who did not wish to see it on the statute book.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West welcomed the Bill. I was pleased about that because he brings considerable experience and knowledge of audit matters to the debate. All hon. Members value his contribution and he speaks with authority. I have no doubt that we will take account of the points that he has made and focus on them as we go through Committee stage.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) joined in welcoming the Bill. As I recall the Welsh Grand Committee debate, he was the only hon. Member who brought a degree of humour to our proceedings. We certainly enjoyed that, and I look forward to the contributions that he will make in Committee. He asked whether there was any information about the future costs of the new Wales Audit Office. The Auditor General will submit his estimate of income and expenditure to the Assembly Audit Committee in autumn this year in the normal way, and it is not possible for me at this stage to pre-empt those estimates.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked how we could account for the huge difference between the sizes of part 2, covering local government, and part 3, on the NHS. Of course, the drafting and structure of a Bill are matters for parliamentary counsel. Hon. Members may recall that the Health (Wales) Bill, which reorganised parts of the health service in Wales, ran to 10 clauses, so one cannot read too much into the point that the hon. Gentleman made.
  The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said that he felt that the Bill was not bad but could be improved. If he is on the Committee, I shall look forward to his contributions, because when I introduced my private Member's Bill to protect whistleblowers, I believe that he came into the Chamber in order to cause me some grief but was swayed by the power of my argument, and I certainly felt that I had an ally in him as we reached the conclusion of the debate. I was pleased to have him on my side, and was grateful for his contribution.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the costs of setting up the office and asked where the office would be located. I will deal with that point in a moment. He also touched on the extensive pre-legislative scrutiny. He said that clause 40 required public interest reports to be sent to the Home Secretary, but asked whether they should not also be sent to the Public Accounts Committee. Clause 40 deals only with public interest reports on police authorities in Wales and that is why it is felt that the Home Office is the appropriate recipient of those reports.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be new building costs. The new body proposes to operate from the existing accommodation. The offices of the Auditor General for Wales and the Audit Commission are in close proximity. When the leases of the property
  960
  expire, a rationalisation of accommodation may take place, but it will be for the Auditor General to come forward with proposals.
  The hon. Member for Bridgwater welcomed the Bill and made a number of important points. I will seek to cover some of them. He raised some detailed points to which I am not able to give a proper response today. I propose to write to him on any points that I do not cover and place a copy of my letter in the Library so that all hon. Members are aware of my responses. The hon. Gentleman asked what powers the Auditor General had to reign in costs at all levels. Contracts for the provision of services to the Auditor General will be the subject of the usual public procurement rules. He asked why there was a need for an Auditor General to run up an overdraft. It is overstating it to say that he would run up an overdraft. The facility gives the Auditor General the ability to cover short-term deficits of income and expenditure. The Auditor General's remit is expanding and this facility is also open to the Audit Commission and the Auditor General for Scotland. This aspect of the finances of the Auditor General for Wales would be subject to scrutiny by the Assembly's Audit Committee, and by the Auditor General for Wales' own external auditors.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: The other part of my question was: what would happen if the money could not be reclaimed but had been borrowed? Who would be responsible for getting the money back if there was a shortfall?
  Mr. Touhig: That is one of the matters that I will write to the hon. Gentleman about at a later stage.
  I welcome the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) to his first appearance on the Front Bench in a Welsh debate. I look forward to his future contributions. He made some powerful points, and I am sure that we will welcome the contributions that he will make in Committee.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister join me in hoping that my hon. Friend will be able to improve his accent and pronunciation of Welsh words?
  Mr. Touhig: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Leominster will be giving him some lessons, or that Labour and Opposition Members will seek to help him improve his pronunciation of Welsh place names. He has a long way to go, but if he is a willing pupil there are plenty of good teachers here.
  Finally, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today. The Bill is an excellent example of how the Government and the Assembly work in partnership in the best interests of the people of Wales, and I invite hon. Members to give it a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

PUBLIC AUDIT (WALES) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee. Proceedings in Standing Committee
2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 1st July 2004.
3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Paul Clark.]
Question agreed to.

PUBLIC AUDIT (WALES) BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable, by virtue of any other Act, out of money so provided; and
(b) any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Paul Clark.]
Question agreed to.

TRANSPORT
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft British Transport Police (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
Question agreed to.

Fishing Boat Sinking (Loch Ryan)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
3.25 pm
Andy Burnham: On 12 July 2003, a fishing boat sank in Loch Ryan in west Scotland, claiming the lives of three of my constituents. Shaun Ridley and his two sons, Steven and Michael, were returning to shore with their grandfather, Brian Ridley, and family friend, Harry Houghton, after the five had enjoyed a successful day's fishing. It ended in appalling tragedy when water taken over the bow of the boat submerged it and took it down in a matter of minutes. Shaun and Michael were airlifted from the water after four hours. Despite the efforts of hospital staff, they could not be revived. Steven's body was found six weeks later, miles down the coast.
It is impossible to describe the devastating impact that the events have had on a loving family, the survivors and, more widely, a close-knit community in West Leigh. That community has rallied round and provided great support, with many people travelling to Scotland to help with the search for Steven. The circumstances and causes of the accident have been the subject of a detailed inquiry by the marine accident investigation branch. Its report was published in April and makes eight separate recommendations to prevent such a terrible accident from reoccurring. Port authorities were asked to impose speed limits for fast, conventional ferries when entering and leaving port. Ferry operators were asked to ensure full adherence to the requirements for permanent lookout. Coastguard and rescue services were required to review their practices with a view to eliminating the alarming errors that were made in this case. Those are strong recommendations and nothing short of full implementation will do. I hope that the Minister in his reply will outline the steps that his Department is taking to ensure that that is the case.
In my view, the strength of the recommendations is at odds with the body of the report and its analysis of the accident. It is the firm view of the family and survivors that the report is selective in its use of supporting evidence, does not provide an accurate record of events and lacks balance in its analysis of them. It makes unequivocal criticisms of the fishing party, but seems to be at pains to mute and minimise criticisms of professionals and explain away their failings. As Pauline Ridley, wife of Shaun and mother of Steven and Michael, points out, there is a great difference between the health and safety responsibilities of a major industry and a family out sailing for a day's fishing.
Pauline is here today to witness our proceedings, together with her mother, Joan, and father, Tommy. Brian Ridley is accompanied by his wife, Marie, mother of Shaun, and the boys' grandmother. Harry Houghton is joined by his wife Audrey. Today is yet another difficult day for them, but they are here primarily to stop such a tragedy happening to another family and because they feel that they cannot leave the report unchallenged.
I have read and re-read the report and spoken on many occasions to the family and survivors. I have had to ask myself the difficult question—although the

963
answer may be hard to accept—whether the MAIB has reflected the full truth and Fairly apportioned responsibility for this terrible accident. I have to say that I do not believe that it has and I will outline detailed concerns and questions that require further investigation.
I want to set out four points of relevant context. First, the House should know that wash from ferries operating in and out of Loch Ryan is a matter of long-standing local concern. In advance of today's debate, I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) whose constituency borders the loch. He confirmed that, on many occasions over the years, he has raised the concerns of local fishermen about wash emanating from ferries operating in the port, with fast conventional ferries often cited as the worst offenders.
The second contextual point is the long dependence of the local economy on the ferry industry. The report notes that ferry services started in the area in 1861 and that it is one of the oldest established routes across the Irish sea. It seems that there is local nervousness—understandable to a Member representing a constituency such as mine—about questioning the activities of such major and long-standing local employers, but to what extent has that engendered a dangerous local culture, where people feel unable to speak out on public safety issues?
It has been suggested that other accidents have been kept from the public gaze by out-of-court settlements. Indeed, only hours after the accident, when the family were at the hospital, confronted with media interest, they were advised by a local police officer, "Don't mention the ferries." Media coverage immediately after the accident included quotation of a local spokesman for the coastguard who attributed it to a "freak gust of wind." That theory was dismissed soon afterwards.
The third point of context came as a shock to me. Despite its long history as a ferry port, and the operation of heavy commercial traffic with high-speed craft, there is no statutory harbour authority regulating activity on Loch Ryan. It was unbelievable to discover that that could be the case in Britain in 2004. The fourth background point is that less than two months after the accident, a similar accident involving ferry wash in the loch led to sweeping recommendations, including the establishment of a statutory harbour authority.
I have four specific concerns about the report. The first relates to the circumstances of the accident. On page 41, the MAIB sets out its belief that the events that finally sank the boat
"unfolded between 16.39 and 16.44 … The MAIB does not know the source of the wave(s) that impacted on the boat at, or about, 16.42. The survivors strongly believe that the wave(s) had originated from the ferry … which had very recently passed them. However, the ferry had passed out of the loch by the time the waves reached the boat and, considering the position of the accident, obtained from VDR radar recordings, and the apparent direction of the wash waves, this theory is not supported by the evidence."
The report later claims that the waves that swamped the boat came from the starboard quarter and from a
964
direction of about north-west, and provides the following explanation:
"Seacat Rapide, the Belfast to Troon fast ferry, passed 7 miles from Corsewell Point about 25 minutes before the accident. The MAIB has consulted experts for an opinion on whether wash waves from this vessel could have been significant in the position of the accident. The Branch was told that they would not have been. However, during an investigation into another incident the Branch asked … for members of the public to come forward with their experiences of wash from ferries in the Loch Ryan area. One response, from a reliable witness, included the information that over many years of observing the effects of wash in the area, he had noted, among other things, that the wash from the Belfast to Troon ferry could have a noticeable and significant effect on the shoreline … Despite the experts' view"—
I stress those words—
"the MAIB believe that this observer's evidence is compelling and the coincidence in the timing, and in the fact that waves from the Seacat Rapide would approach the loch from roughly the right direction, should not be ignored."
I find it surprising, to say the least, that the MAIB should promote the views of an unnamed member of the public, even if we are told that they are a "reliable witness", over those of experts and, perhaps more important, the vehement testimony of the survivors. The survivors dispute that version of events, stating that the wave that took the boat down came from the same direction as the one that, moments earlier, had swamped the boat, and they are adamant that it happened earlier in the afternoon—at 3 pm. Harry Houghton's watch stopped at that time when it was submerged in seawater.
The survivors dispute strongly the report's observation that
"a person's memory is fallible, especially when that person has been subjected to a very stressful situation".
In this case, I know the opposite to be true: the events that led to the sinking of the boat will be for ever etched on the minds of the survivors.
The dispute about the origin and direction of the waves that sank the boat brings me to my second area of concern: the fast conventional ferry, the Stena Caledonia, and its speed. Page 9 of the report notes:
"Some conventional ferries can develop sufficient speed in shallow water to move into the critical speed range and produce critical speed wash similar to that of an HSC"—
a high-speed craft.
On page 58, the MA1B states:
"In the area where the accident occurred, where the water is about 11 m, a vessel making 17.2 knots through the water is on the margin of the critical speed zone. In this case, the Stena Caledonia was making slightly less speed. Even so, she would have been producing large sub-critical wash waves such as those described by the survivors."
While its role in the accident is a matter of dispute, it would seem beyond doubt that the Stena Caledonia was travelling too fast for a boat leaving Loch Ryan, where other, smaller fishing boats had been spotted and where safety concerns are well known.
The report accepts that
"the greater knowledge and understanding of wash emanating from conventional ferries, gained by having a risk assessment passage plan (as required in Dublin) might have given the bridge officers a greater awareness of the effects of wash from their vessels on a small craft."

965
It continues:
"The MAIB investigation has discovered an apparent lack of awareness among the conventional ferry crews about the hazards of wash effects. In the vicinity of small boats, there appears to be a lack of concern unless a collision or close-quarters situation in imminent. Interest in the boat appears to diminish once she is past the beam of the ferry. Both high speed and conventional ferries can produce significant wash which can endanger vulnerable craft after the vessel has passed."
Clearly, the MAIB was sufficiently concerned about the speed of the boat to include those words, but I am yet to be convinced that there is not clear evidence in the report to show that the boat was, in fact, travelling in the critical range.
Figure 2, which shows the Stena Caledonia's radar at 16.37, shows a speed-over-the-ground reading of 17.4 knots—well past the 17.2 knots critical speed range for a fast conventional ferry. I have checked that point with the MAIB and have been told that speed over the ground does not relate to the actual speed of the boat. It says that the boat was travelling at 17 knots or just under and that tidal pull led to the radar recording a greater speed over the ground. Although I understand that distinction, it nevertheless seems to take the boat into the critical speed range, with similar effects. I am yet to be convinced that there is clear evidence in the report to show that the boat was not travelling in the critical range while still in the loch, with small vessels close by.
Further questions arise. Is it proven that a speed over the ground of 17.4 knots would not produce critical wash? If so, should the captain of the ferry not have reduced speed, having taken into account the effects of the tidal pull? Was the boat accelerating when the reading was taken? If it was not producing critical wash at the time of the radar reading, when did it reach that critical speed? The 17.4 knots reading was taken when the ferry was level with the fishing boat. What was the weight of the boat? Would its weight have had an effect on the size of the wash produced? Is it true that the loch was dredged very soon after the accident, which might suggest that its shallowness was affecting wash size? Those questions need further investigation and I ask the Minister to consider commissioning that work.
Although the report dismisses the Stena Caledonia's role in the sinking of the boat, it nevertheless makes two recommendations—2004/163 and 2004/162—one of which alerts harbour authorities to the potential of fast conventional ferries to create similar wash to that produced by high-speed craft. The second recommendation asks operators to consider whether any of their boats has the potential to reach critical speeds and, if so, to produce an RAPP, so that crew are fully aware of the dangers. Those strong recommendations about fast conventional ferries seem at odds with the main body of the report, given that the role of the Stena Caledonia has been discounted.
I now turn to lookouts. The survivors and their family have always maintained their disbelief that seven ferries passed the upturned boat through the late afternoon and early evening—sometimes a matter of yards away, and the survivors have spoken of seeing people clearly moving inside the wheelhouses of those boats—yet not one of the lookouts was able to spot the bright life jackets and upturned hull. On that hull,
966
Harry Houghton was at times waving at the boats, trying to grab the attention of those on them by waving a fluorescent buoy. Figures 8 to 11 in the report confirm the survivors' account that the boat passed very close by. It was a clear summer's day in Scotland. The survivors dispute whether the weather deteriorated in the way the report describes.
The report quotes the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers, which states:
"A proper lookout shall be maintained at all times … and shall serve the purpose of: detecting ships or aircraft in distress, shipwrecked persons, wrecks, debris, and other hazards to safe navigation. The lookout must be able to give full attention to the keeping of a proper lookout and no other duties shall be undertaken or assigned which could interfere with that task."
On page 59, the MAIB seems to suggest that that was not the case in Loch Ryan. It states:
"Other ferries operate in the entrance to Loch Ryan with the bridge officer or the master performing the role"—
of lookout—
"The latter arrangement would be deemed to be compliant with the rules if the officer can devote his time solely to the task of lookout. However, it is doubtful that, with all the other requirements associated with either setting out on passage, or on arrival, the bridge officer or master can adequately perform the role in the confines of the entrance to Loch Ryan."
The MAIB also noted that two of the ferries had improperly set radars on that day. It concluded that there were "shortfalls" in the lookout arrangements, but seemed to explain them away by saying that it had received assurances that designated lookouts were posted on all ferries operating on that day and that conditions would have made it difficult to spot the boat. It is an undeniable fact that the submerged boat was showing on the radar, so, in my view, a fully engaged lookout would have spotted it. We need more detail on the precise shortfalls of the lookout arrangements. If the arrangements were not up to scratch, as the report says, we should know why, and know the effect that those deficiencies would have on the lookout's ability to spot the boat.
My fourth point is on survival times. The report goes into great detail about the search and rescue operation and the basic mistakes made. Belfast coastguard was below minimum staffing levels and Clyde coastguard was below recommended levels. Such understaffing, coupled with the inadequacy of the procedures, led to the failure to correct a simple mistake in the inputting of the co-ordinates of where the survivors were rescued from, so the rescue helicopter was sent to the wrong location. Furthermore, the inshore lifeboat that located the boat was tasked with towing it from the scene instead of giving first priority to the search for survivors. After taking everything into account, the MAIB concludes:
"It is therefore possible, in a best case scenario, that Shaun and Michael Ridley could have been recovered 47 minutes earlier had the correct position been given."
The MAIB asked Professor Mike Tipton, an expert in cold water immersion survival, what difference that would have made. His analysis was that it would, in all probability, have made no difference. However, the family will have to live with the terrible fact that they will never know for sure. Pauline Ridley points out that clinical staff at the hospital worked on Shaun and

967
Michael for about two hours, clearly suggesting that they were not dead on arrival. Furthermore, she says that it is possible that Steven was still close by to Shaun at the earlier time when, if things had gone to plan, rescuers would have been on the scene. From all that, we know two facts: first, we will never know for sure whether a properly conducted rescue operation would have made a difference; and, secondly, the search and rescue operation was seriously defective.
The four areas that I have outlined cover issues of major dispute. At the same time as this report was published, the MAIB released another report into a more minor incident involving ferry wash in Loch Ryan on 3 September last year. It recommended that Dumfries and Galloway council should take the lead role in establishing a statutory harbour authority with responsibility for all of Loch Ryan. That major recommendation suggests that arrangements to date have been seriously deficient and have put public safety at risk. I cannot help but conclude that it was less controversial to attach such a major recommendation to a report into a more minor incident. The number of the report into the minor incident is No. 4/2004, while the report about which I have been talking is No. 5/2004. It is almost unbelievable that major commercial ferry operations have been run for years out of an unregulated British port with no harbour authority. It seems to me that the failure to create a statutory harbour authority has placed the public at risk. It would help to know from the MAIB the extent to which the report into the accident that I have described today influenced its decision to make major recommendations in its other report.
In conclusion, I make two requests. First, will the Minister consider the points that I have raised and commission a further investigation into them? Secondly, I ask the authorities in Scotland to order a fatal accident inquiry so that all the issues that I have mentioned can be thoroughly investigated.
Although the circumstances surrounding the tragedy are difficult to ascertain with absolute certainty, three things about that day are beyond doubt: wash from ferries affected the boat, lookouts had shortcomings and the search and rescue operation was seriously defective. One can only conclude that the lack of a permanent harbour authority contributed to that unsatisfactory state of affairs.
We are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker, for granting this debate today so that I, on behalf of the family, can place the facts on record. Shaun Ridley would never have knowingly placed his family at risk, but, like the rest of the public, he could not have known just how dangerous the unregulated Loch Ryan was to small vessels.
3.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Terrible as this subject is, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on his handling of it and on securing this debate. He has helped the House by raising some important issues, and since the incident occurred, he has represented his constituents' interests tirelessly. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I convey my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Pauline Ridley, who lost her
968
husband, Shaun, and her two sons, Steven, aged 15, and Michael, aged 12, in that terrible accident on Loch Ryan. I also offer my condolences to the two survivors—Mr. Brian Ridley, who lost his only son and two grandsons, and Mr. Harry Houghton, a family friend. There is no heavier burden that a parent has to bear than the loss of a child, especially those so young and in such tragic circumstances.
The marine accident investigation branch is an independent body that reports directly to the Secretary of State. Following a technical investigation into the circumstances and the causes of an accident, it makes recommendations based on its findings. The sole purpose of an investigation by the marine accident investigation branch is to make recommendations that will improve the safety of life at sea and help to prevent future accidents. It does not seek to attribute blame. To maintain its reputation, it relies on its investigations being fair, comprehensive and balanced. Indeed, it has a high reputation, not just in this country but internationally, and has been emulated by investigators in other countries. Since it was established in 1989, the marine accident investigation branch has inevitably gained a great deal of experience investigating a wide range of marine accidents. During the course of a single year, it typically conducts about 40 investigations.
In 2003 alone, the marine accident investigation branch investigated 27 deaths resulting from marine accidents. That was 27 too many, and in hindsight most of them were avoidable. Three of those deaths happened, as we have heard, on 12 July 2003, when Shaun Ridley's boat became swamped. Investigations are greatly assisted by eye witness accounts, but accident inspectors have to collect and analyse a large amount of evidence from many sources to compile a report that reflects the sequence of events as completely as possible. Six inspectors and a human-factors expert collectively spent many hundreds of hours collecting and analysing evidence before the final report was produced.
In conducting his investigation into the tragedy on Loch Ryan, the chief inspector appreciated the assistance and co-operation of Mr. Brian Ridley and Mr. Harry Houghton. I have been asked to comment on progress implementing the recommendations arising from the investigation, and I can report that recommendations to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the ferry operators have all been accepted and implemented, or are due to be implemented this summer. Following recommendations, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has conducted a review of similar but less severe marine accidents, and is improving links and the exchange of information with the National Federation of Sea Anglers by establishing a sea angling liaison officer.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is writing to all United Kingdom port authorities to highlight the potential danger to small craft from the wakes of both conventional and high speed ferries. It has also reviewed and revised its incident management course to concentrate more specifically on the watch manager's role as the search and rescue mission co-ordinator. It has changed its training courses to reinforce communication protocols.

969
I shall deal with some of the criticisms that have been made about the particular investigation, beginning with the location and timing of the incident. Establishing the precise location and time of an accident at sea can be a difficult task, even though that is fundamental to an investigation. In this case, in addition to the information provided by the survivors, the marine accident investigation branch was able to analyse information taken from the voyage data recorders—the VDRs—provided by Stena Line Ltd. and P&O Irish Sea, which operated vessels through Loch Ryan on the day of the accident. The ferries that operate to and from Loch Ryan all have VDRs fitted.
VDRs record certain key information, including conversations that take place on the bridge and radar information, which allows the marine accident investigation branch to recreate a picture of vessel movements. Such devices can tell us a great deal about when and where an accident occurred.
On its outbound voyage the Stena Caledonia passed the Ridley's boat at 16.38 hours and the Superstar Express passed it inbound at 16.45. The officer on watch on the Stena Caledonia saw a boat and commented on its presence to his helmsman. The officer was later shown Shaun Ridley's boat and was able to confirm that it was the boat that he had seen. The radar recordings from both ferries show the position and relative movement of the Ridleys' boat between 16.32 and 16.46. The recordings show the point in time when the Ridleys' boat became static after it had been swamped and its engine had cut out.
The marine accident investigation branch supplemented its information about the location of the boat close to the time of the accident by a visual sighting made by the crew of a passing fishing vessel at about 16.41. Given the degree of confidence that the marine accident investigation branch places in the radar information, it is completely satisfied that the location of the accident was as stated in its report.
Questions have been raised about the cause of the accident and, in particular, about the role played by the wash of an outbound ferry. In constructing the probable accident scenario, the marine accident investigation branch took account of the evidence provided by the survivors. The inspectors also considered other relevant evidence, including the VDR data, meteorological data, evidence from inspection of the hull—which showed that it had a leak—and the sea trials, which indicated that the boat was vulnerable to swamping from waves approaching from the stern.
In its report the marine accident investigation branch acknowledges that some of the evidence is conflicting. However, it regards the VDR evidence as being compelling, and it is confident that in its published report it has accurately reconstructed the events in the final few minutes before the boat sank.
It is not disputed that the ferry Stena Caledonia was passing through Loch Ryan on an outbound voyage at about the time of the accident. The marine accident investigation branch has the data from its voyage data recorder and the radar image that shows the position of Mr. Ridley's boat between 16.32 and 16.38. At that time the Stena Caledonia was making 17.4 knots over the
970
ground as it passed about 600 m from the Ridleys' boat. Given the tidal conditions at the time, the speed of the ferry through the water would have been about 16.8 knots, which is just below the speed that is needed to generate a critical wash, taking proper account of the depth of the water.
A passing distance of 600 m is not considered close, and the marine accident investigation branch is fully convinced that on the basis of the evidence, including the survivors' accounts, the boat successfully rode the wash waves from Stena Caledonia at about 16.38. However, the branch cannot be certain of the source of the waves that came over the starboard quarter of the boat at, or about, 16.42 causing the boat to be swamped and to sink within just a couple of minutes. The branch concluded that the waves could not have come from either the Stena Caledonia or the Superstar Express, which had yet to enter the loch on her inbound voyage.
The marine accident investigation branch believes that there is a possibility—I put it no higher than that—that there could have been wash waves from the Seacat Rapide, the high-speed ferry operating on the route from Belfast to Troon, which passed nine or 10 miles away some 25 minutes before the accident. At a speed of 35 knots, the branch says that she would have been operating within the terms of her risk assessment passage plan, but still fast enough to produce the powerful sub-critical waves that my hon. Friend mentioned, which might have contributed to the swamping of the heavily loaded and, by then, partially flooded boat. The branch holds that wash propagation from high-speed ferries is not yet fully understood. Although other experts may disagree, the branch gives credence to the evidence of a witness, who has observed the wash effects from such ferries in and around Loch Ryan over many years, because of his scientific background and his comprehensive description of the phenomena he had observed. I accept my hon. Friend's point that we do not avant to give overdue credence to that witness, but we certainly cannot rule out the careful examination of such evidence in future.
The marine accident investigation branch reports on the sad and regrettable fact that no one on board the three ferries, which passed the survivors a total of seven times, saw the problem. Those ferries were passing somewhere between 400 m and 800 m away from the casualties, and each ferry had a dedicated lookout as well as collectively several hundred passengers on board. Those on board other smaller and slower vessels also failed to see the people in the water. However, taking account of the prevailing choppy sea conditions and the blue and white colours of the bow of the boat, which was the only part of the boat remaining above the surface, the branch considers that it would have been difficult to spot. Furthermore, despite having inflated two life jackets, the casualties would have been difficult to see in the water. The fact that the problem was not spotted is a matter of concern to the branch; that is why its report contains a recommendation addressing that aspect of the tragedy.
There has been some criticism of the search and rescue mission, which began some four hours after the accident when a yacht saw the bow of the boat and rescued the two survivors who were clinging on to it. Shaun and the boys, who were wearing life jackets, had drifted away under the influence of the wind.

971
The United Kingdom is rightly very proud of its maritime search and rescue services. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency handles more than 12,000 incidents annually and renders assistance in more than half those incidents, with the result that some 5,000 people are rescued each year. It is very rare for a mistake to be made. Of course, any error occurring in a search and rescue mission is a matter of regret, but the most important thing is to learn from such errors when they occur. In this case, the marine accident investigation branch discovered that a typing error was made when inputting the position of the casualty that was not noticed during the normal double checks on such information.
The effect was to cause the helicopter to go in the wrong direction even though it had been given the right location when it took off. However, I believe that my hon. Friend accepts that, even if it had gone directly to the reported position of the boat, there is no guarantee that the survivors or bodies would have been spotted immediately, especially as the helicopter is not fitted with forward-looking, infrared equipment.
When the survivors were rescued, Shaun and the boys had been drifting away from the boat for several hours, so their location was uncertain. In an ideal world, the helicopter would have flown directly to where Shaun and Michael Ridley had drifted, spotted them immediately and recovered them. Only in those fortuitous circumstances would they have been recovered 47 minutes earlier.
Indeed, although it is impossible to be certain, expert opinion is that it is unlikely that casualties immersed in those waters and at those temperatures would have survived to the point in time when they might have been rescued.
Although it did not alter the outcome, the vital necessity to undertake double checks on the accuracy of crucial information such as the initial position has been reinforced in all Maritime and Coastguard Agency co-ordination centres and with the rescue units that it co-ordinates. We shall monitor that closely to ensure that that happens. The need for control and planning of radio communications by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency marine rescue co-ordination centres and for radio discipline is being underlined to all MCA operators.
The investigation into the tragedy has been thorough and independent. No assurance about an investigation can be given to the bereaved or to the survivors except that it will be rigorous and without favour. The chief
972
inspector of marine accidents is satisfied that the report into the tragedy is fair. When the recommendations are implemented, safety of life at sea will be improved.
I have already reported that the recommendations are being implemented. I can add that, already this summer, coastguard officers are being proactive in visiting caravan sites such as that near where the Ridleys were staying. The purpose of the visits is to increase safety awareness among the casual, recreational seafarers and to stress the importance of being properly equipped and prepared.
A fatal accident inquiry may yet be held, but that is a matter for the Procurator Fiscal and the Crown Office in Scotland. It is not a matter that I, as a Minister, can decide. The decision is a matter for the judiciary in Scotland. I am told that such an inquiry would resemble a public inquiry. It would examine all the issues that my hon. Friend would want to be considered. However, I stress again that the decision is a matter for the judiciary in Scotland. Unfortunately, I have no remit to direct them to make such an inspection.
Pending the decision on whether there will be a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland, it would be premature of me to comment on the need or otherwise for that form of public inquiry. However, if such an accident inquiry does not take place in Scotland, I shall review the request for further examination of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised.
This has been an appalling tragedy and, having had a similar one involving some of my own constituents on the south coast 10 years ago, I know that it will bear down heavily on the parents and all those involved. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on the way in which he has tirelessly represented his constituents, not only in the Chamber, but in his correspondence to the Department and his interaction with the marine accident investigation branch. This has been a matter of great sensitivity for him and, of course, for the families and all those who have been affected by this tragedy.
It is most important that we learn from tragic events. Because human beings are as they are, we will never be able to prevent every such incident from happening, but we must learn from these events and reduce the probability of there being casualties in the future, particularly among children and young people. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I am sure that there will be more to say on this issue, and he can be assured that my Department will do everything that it can to facilitate the answers to the questions that his constituents have raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Four o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

European Social Fund
[Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 680, and the Government's response thereto, First Special Report, Session 2003–04, HC 228.]
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the distinguished Chairman, long serving of this House of the Work and Pensions Committee to introduce this important debate.
2.30 pm
Sir Archy Kirkwood: It is a signal privilege to introduce this important debate. The House has, understandably, spent a lot of time this week considering matters European at different levels. The political celebrities upstairs have been knocking spots off one another and getting a lot of publicity, whereas we are here in the engine room of the House of Commons dealing with the nitty-gritty of some of those schemes, which have signal and significant effects on our constituents.
The Select Committee on Work and Pensions undertook its inquiry for a variety of reasons. Members of the Committee felt that there had been an increase in complaints from European social fund project managers in our constituencies who were concerned that their applications for ESF funding were, in some locations, unfairly rejected. There was also an evident and mounting feeling of unease about the administrative burden on project and service providers at all stages of the ESF process, from application to delivery. The Committee was also curious to know why the Department for Work and Pensions was in structural fund territory, as that is a slightly arcane, esoteric piece of public policy, which one would think has nothing to do with work and pensions—although I am old enough to know never to be surprised by anything in this place.
The report shed light on all those issues. While gathering evidence for the inquiry, we uncovered deep, but understandable, nervousness about the future and what will happen when the current programme ends. This debate provides us with a valuable, but brief, opportunity to delve further into those matters.
The Committee's recommendations were an attempt to address the issues raised in the evidence, and the Government's response was characteristically constructive and helpful. I wall to record my customary, but nevertheless heartfelt, thanks to the Department's professional team, who provided active support, assistance and even encouragement—that might get them into trouble—throughout the inquiry.
Hon. Members now have an opportunity to add to the recent, numerous attempts at mid-term evaluation of the ESF programme. We are in the latter stages of the
276WH
six-year time frame, so the timing of this debate is apposite. I hope that bureaucracy, which we identified as a problem issue, will be considered. It would also be worth reflecting for a moment or two on the relative merits of direct bidding versus co-financing as a mechanism for applying for ESF projects, because that was a feature of the evidence that we took. Last, but certainly not least, it would be useful to learn all we can at this stage about the situation post-2006.
A basic objective of the European Union is the elimination of economic and social disparities across all 25 of its member states. In March 2000, the European Council in Lisbon set a new 10-year objective:
"to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion."
It would be hard for anyone in the House to contradict those ambitious thoughts and plans, towards which some progress has been made.
One of the principal mechanisms by which the European Commission seeks to achieve those goals is through the deployment of all four structural funds, of which the European social fund is one. Briefly stated, the aim of the ESF is to develop market and human resources in a number of areas, such as lifelong learning, equal opportunities and entrepreneurship.
The focus of the ESF programme to date has rightly been on preventing and combating unemployment, promoting training and integrating hard-to-help groups into the labour market. In short, the ESF seeks to improve the employability of individuals by providing financial support to people and projects throughout the European Union. It is worth noting in passing that the ESF is unique in that regard; it actually helps individual citizens, and I am aware of no other programme run by the European Union that does that.
The programme is also cast over a seven-year period. That gives the programme stability over a longer period than most national Governments can promise because of political cycles and member states' parliamentary schedules. In addition, the ESF provides assistance throughout the newly expanded continent outside objective 1 regions.
For all those reasons, I think that the ESF is a unique, important programme, worthy of careful study. For the 2002 to 2006 programme period, £4.467 billion—a significant sum of money—is available for the ESF in the United Kingdom. The average annual support from the ESF for the UK is about 8.5 per cent. of the EU total, which makes it the sixth largest EU project funded scheme in the current period.
We need to pay careful attention to the remainder of the period through to 2006 and beyond, into the new period of financial planning for the European Union between 2007 and 2013. We should start by spending some time looking at the ways in which we can endeavour to reduce the bureaucracy on organisations. During the inquiry—the Minister, who has read the report, will have noticed this—we heard a number of complaints and criticisms about excessive bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy was considered to exist at every level throughout the system. It starts at EU level with the Commission. The Commission has its own financial audit requirements, which are enshrined in the treaties, and pursues them rigorously. Responsibility for the

277WH
implementation and operation of such schemes are then devolved to national Governments. Departments, such as the DWP and the other Whitehall Departments involved, all have their own robust and sometimes gold-plated schemes to make sure that the money that they take charge of is properly accounted for. At a lower level, the devolved and delegated bodies and various intermediary bodies all have their own audit controls and requirements to ensure that public money is properly spent.
Of course, public money needs to be properly accounted for, but the poor people at the bottom of the pile, who run the projects as service providers and beneficiaries, are the ones who seem to carry the can and the weight—disproportionately—of the administrative paper chase and trail. In purely financial terms, some of the costs of supporting the ESF are met from the budget for technical assistance, and that is understood. Some of the other costs are absorbed by organisations such as the co-financing organisations.
At the end of the day, the amount of accounting and record keeping is an issue. The famous example is the need to keep records for 12 years. Of course, if a motorway is being built under objective 2 of the European regional development fund, such a requirement might well be necessary to protect public money. However, if someone is running a little café as an intermediate labour market opportunity for the mentally ill in Aberdeen, as was the case with a project that the Committee visited, the requirement to keep records for 12 years seems bizarre, overdone and unnecessary. I should not like to think that anybody is suggesting that we are slipshod or casual about the way in which we check how the money is spent. We have debated in the Chamber how to eliminate fraud in the European Union, and EU auditors are struggling to certify the accounts as proper. I recognise the need for accountability, but call for a little proportionality in the incidence of the burden.
Within the Government, we heard from Ms Henderson from the Government office for the southwest about the administrative cost of the ESF. She reminded us that £10 million of Department for Work and Pensions and Government offices' running costs were involved in administering ESF in England. That amounts to nearly 2 per cent. of the total yearly value of the programme of £460 million. In addition to those direct costs, there is a substantial indirect opportunity cost involved in staff in front-line service providers and those in positions of authority in local authorities and other organisations spending an inordinate amount of time, much of it wasted because the project applications fail and because of the bureaucratic demands of the system, in making applications for ESF.
We were slightly concerned that we were in danger of smothering some of the best advantages and benefits of an important and valuable scheme in a disproportionate level of administrative control and audit. That raised questions in our minds as to whether that was the best use of resources. We would like to feel that the Department and Ministers are constantly vigilant to ensure that the balance is properly struck.
278WH
Some examples of the problem were acknowledged. Ms Minett of the Learning and Skills Council said that there was scope for improving the way in which some of the co-financing organisations were monitored, although she conceded that the DWP needed to do that directly with the European Commission. I am prepared to accept that the Department might have to operate within rules that have been adopted by the European Union.
We heard some interesting ideas on the other side of the argument. They were not exhaustive, but two or three have been proposed to ease the administrative burden on service providers. Mr. Pascoe of the Learning and Skills Council told us that under co-financing, the application form in his area has been reduced from 69 pages and six page: of annexes to a 10-page form. That is very welcome and was greeted with relief by the applicants in his area. When the Committee undertook its inquiry in Scotland, we were told—I do not know whether it has been brought to a successful conclusion—that a new IT project costing upwards of £1 million was expected to reduce significantly the time and effort spent in processing claims for ESF and other structural funds. That was very positive too. Finally, we heard about a telephone hotline that was being made available to provide technical advice and guidance to service providers.
There is evidence that people are aware of the difficulties and are trying to find creative solutions, but they need as much encouragement as Ministers can provide at DWP level. Some things will, I am sure, need to be argued at EU level as well, but I should like that to be taken into account in Ministers' work. Our recommendations reflected that. Our view was that, in the long run, streamlining the bureaucratic demands that are placed on service providers is the best way forward. To that end, we requested an assessment of the total administrative costs, both direct and indirect, that organisations face when dealing with the ESF.
We also recommended that the Department undertake a value for-money study into the use of technical assistance in the delivery of ESF. To be fair, the recommendation elicited a quite positive response. The Government promised to ensure that the evaluation strategy for the second half of the objective 3 programme in England would include an assessment of organisations' total administrative costs, both direct and indirect. Perhaps the Minister will have a chance to say whether they are on course to deliver that recommendation. We also made recommendations that call on the Government to quantify the potential administrative savings for service providers that could be generated by co financing, and to identify ways in which those savings could be realised. Perhaps the Minister will say a word about that also.
Two distinct systems of allocating ESF funding are emerging: direct bidding, which is the original historical process of people making bids; and the system of co-financing, which the Government introduced in England in 2001. Under direct bidding, applicants apply directly to Government offices for ESF funding. Those offices manage the process of appraising and selecting the best applications. Selection panels comprising Government office staff and regional partners score applications and recommend lists of projects for

279WH
approval by regional committees. Those approved projects are required to find match funding while also bidding for an ESF grant.
The new system of co-financing was introduced in England in September 2001. Under co-financing, the ESF grant and match funding are provided jointly from the co-financing organisations. Such organisations can have several distinguishing features, such as being public bodies—Jobcentre Plus, for example—with their own budgets that can be used for the purpose of match funding. They have a remit to support ESF-funded activities and enter into contracts with third parties.
Co-financing emerged as one of the biggest, most controversial issues of our inquiry. During the inquiry, several witnesses, especially from the community and voluntary sectors, were critical of co-financing. They identified various disadvantages that they contrasted with the reported strengths of direct bidding—although it must be said that some witnesses identified several strong arguments in favour of co-financing, so the argument was not all one way.
We considered the evidence as dispassionately as we could. Co-financing has several obvious advantages, including removing the need for service providers to undertake the onerous task of producing match funding. It also simplifies the application procedure, encourages organisations to take a big-picture view—the strategic approach is important—and means that funds can be apportioned to meet need, rather than being driven by projects and administrative expediency. Under co-financing, a single funding stream means that service providers account to a single funding body. All those things are positives and are welcome improvements over the direct bidding system.
Sustained and substantial criticisms of co-financing came mostly from the voluntary and community sector groups. They felt that consultation on the introduction of the policy was politically driven, hurried and incomplete. That attacked their confidence in the system. They felt that the tendering process, favoured by CFOs, was a move towards competitive tendering, which they were unhappy about. They believed that co-financing was symptomatic of a system that was driven by a top-down approach, rather than a project-driven bottom-up approach—they obviously supported the latter. They thought that co-financing tended to favour large high-impact projects, whereas direct bidding favoured small-scale projects. Finally, they believed that co-financing had increased centralisation and delivery by Government bodies.
All the evidence from the community and voluntary groups was in that direction. I came to the conclusion that there was an issue of scale. Although the evaluation of the ESF programme so far suggests a big proportion of funding is going to the voluntary, community and charity sectors, I suspect that a lot of that percentage spend is going to the bigger national charities—Age Concern and the like—rather than to the individual little community projects that are one-offs designed to help people with mental illness or leaning disabilities. I anticipate that the Minister will say that the evaluation process demonstrates that the community and voluntary sectors have not missed out through co-financing, and I accept that the evaluation evidence shows that, but I exhort him to look beyond that and
280WH
study carefully what exactly is going on. There are residual complaints that the co-financing system tends to centralise, and we need to look into that.
The first evaluation report into co-financing was published in July 2002. I do not know whether the Minister has read all of it; I am on page 6 myself. However, there is an important point to be made. If ever one needed a demonstration of the fact that there is overkill in the programme's bureaucracy, it is in this part of the evaluation process. As I say, I am on page 6, and am working through the report slowly. Some assurances from the Minister on that point would be useful.
On mid-term evaluation, the official documents reviewing the success were substantially more positive than the evidence that we found on the ground. All the projects that we visited had something negative to say, although they were committed to what they were doing. They felt that they were struggling uphill against a tide of administrative difficulties, although that was not for want of individual personal help through co-financers or direct bidders. Our evidence was slightly at odds with the evaluations that have been published.
To be perfectly realistic, there may be an element of fear of being critical, and we need to take that into account. In a situation in which there is a project with a six-year span, and there are applications to be made for a couple of two or three-year projects, people think that if they go out of their way to be rigorously honest in evaluating their experience, their name might go to the bottom of the list. I do not think that that is necessarily the case, but that is how people perceive such things. I do not lodge it as a complaint of which Ministers need to take account, but it is a psychological perception that is real for some people. That perception may well be one of the reasons why the evaluation information coming through the formal channels is more positive than that coming through from our experience on the ground.
There are two and a half or three years left of the programme to run. Obviously, economic and social circumstances have changed since the Lisbon agenda was cast in 2000. The labour market in our sister European countries has certainly taken a turn for the worse since then, and circumstances have changed in the UK, too. I encourage the Minister to refocus attention on the programme, and that is what the mid-term evaluation gives us the opportunity to do. I hope that, for the rest of the programme, he will look into a couple of things to do with labour market issues—they go with the grain of the Government's policy on labour market reform, anyway. Helping economically inactive people into work is a substantial problem and always has been. There are still economic inactivity rates of nearly 20 per cent. in some parts of our communities up and down the country. The social fund provisions can be better focused to try to help those hard-to-help groups into work.
Obviously, improving the skills of unemployed and employed people is already a mainstream part of the Government's agenda, but more needs to be done, as Ministers never tire of telling us. We should address the needs of European social fund beneficiaries, such as people with caring responsibilities for children or elderly relatives, people with disabilities and people from ethnic minority communities. Good practice in equal

281WH
development partnerships can also be encouraged and given more focus for the rest of the period up to 2006, as well as beyond.
A couple of implementation issues drawn from the report need to be given increased emphasis. They include simplification, as I have said. Working in partnerships has been hugely successful, certainly in my area. People have been drawn together by the need to get together and lodge focused applications of a strategic kind. That has been entirely positive and constructive, but more could be done. We might usefully start looking for even more new providers, such as people in the social enterprise and community sectors and social firms in Scotland. We visited projects north of the border that were doing very impressive work.
On the need to spend more time monitoring soft outcomes, some of the evidence that we took from the projects suggested that it is easier to record an output success if someone gains employment as a result of training or support from the ESF scheme than it is to show that people have moved nearer to the labour market, but are not yet in it, and to include that in outcome statistics to demonstrate the success of a project. In future, soft outcomes need to be carefully borne in mind when outputs are measured.
Complementarity between objective 2 and objective 3 schemes can and should be improved for the remainder of the scheme. Increased flexibility and innovation in the use of ESF funds are also outcomes that we should redouble our efforts to achieve during the remainder of the programme.
The Minister cannot be certain about what will happen after 2006, as he does not have a crystal ball, so I realise that it is difficult for him to predict what will happen. However, for all the reasons that I have set out, I hope that hon. Members agree that the ESF is crucial. There will be some very important debates and decisions in the next year or so. Some of them will start to flow from decisions that will come from Brussels this weekend. I have no doubt that the Government will arrange a proper consultation on whatever draft regulations on structural funds eventually emerge from the EU. There will be vigorous debates about the volumes of public resources to be spent, which is essentially a Treasury matter, and about what mechanism, if any, is to be used to allocate the ESF. The question about repatriation after 2006 is essentially a Department of Trade and Industry matter.
What is the DWP's view on future funding? What role does it play in the developing arguments? What is its estimate of the timetable to put the new programme in place? Whatever happens, it is in everyone's interests to put the changes in place in good time so that, unlike the last time when this programme started, in 2000, service providers know where they stand.
Before undertaking the inquiry, I was a little sceptical about the effectiveness of the ESF throughout the United Kingdom. In spite of my own very positive constituency experience, I was under the impression that in some areas the social fund was nothing more than a job creation scheme for bureaucrats. I no longer believe that to be the case. There are still difficulties, and improvements need to be made, but I cannot but be
282WH
impressed by the enthusiasm of the service providers that we saw on the ;round when we took evidence. They were dedicated and enthusiastic people, and they were doing everything that they could to improve the lives of their clients in all sorts of circumstances where labour market opportunities were being improved.
At its best, the ESF adds significant value to the lives of the individuals that it seeks to serve. I sincerely hope that the Select Committee report will act as a catalyst for change. Bureaucracy should be reduced, and access to schemes should be increased, not just for the rest of this programme period to 2006, but for the foreseeable future thereafter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now call Mr. David Drew, the first speaker from a very long list.
2.59 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. If the Select Committee Is the engine room of Parliament, perhaps I can play the role of stoker, if for no other reason than to stoke up the debate to ensure that it does not pass without certain comments being made. I thank the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) for leading the debate so positively.
Anyone would h we positive things to say about the ESF, because—I am not sure whether the Committee looked into this—I do not think that there is a constituency in thy, country that has not had some relationship with the fund, so widespread has been its influence. That is something for which the EU as a whole is to be congratulated on, even though most of the decisions are taken nationally. I want to refer to two constituency-based attachments to the ESF, because that is what I know best. I was going merely to intervene on the hon. Gentle man on the subject, but I can say more now that I have the opportunity to make a speech.
First, there is what we in Gloucestershire call the neighbourhood network, which is a series of neighbourhood projects. There is one such project in my constituency in Stonehouse, where I live, and others throughout Gloucestershire, including in Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury. We are immensely grateful for ESF funding, because it enabled those projects to take off. That is one of the tributes that we could pay across the board to the ESF, because it can take the germ of an idea, where a community has seen where it wants to go but is hamstrung by lack of funding. If the money is of plied appropriately, the fund can really make projects take off and we can learn a lot, because there is no point in a project working in one part of the country if it is lot replicated elsewhere. I hope that the success of the neighbourhood project has influenced not just the Department for Work and Pensions but other Ministries such as the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It has shown that communities are crying out for regeneration, but not necessarily purely for economic regeneration. Social regeneration is as important.
Secondly, there is the Painswick Inn, which is a foyer. It is important that we consider the role that ESF money has played in ensuring that the foyer movement has been able to transcend some of the traditional urban

283WH
heartlands, where people would expect problems such as homelessness among the young to be dealt with through a movement. ESF funding has alloyed us to go much further; it brings together social deprivation, lack of housing and the need for retraining so that there is a good level of provision where often it either did not exist or was so limited that most people never got access to it.
Let me take over where the hon. Gentleman left off. In considering the report I should like to amplify some of the points that have been made—making not criticisms but observations. In particular, I shall consider some of the areas that we need increasingly to take into account as we move towards whatever comes out post 2006, which, with the best will in the world, given the changes in the EU, is hardly likely to be more generous. It will be different and mist take account of changes in our society.
Any constituency MP who has been involved in this process will be able to recall in gnat depth that the biggest frustration is the speed with which the process gets under way. The bidding process is fairly blunt, the sharing out of the spoils is sometimes opaque, and it takes time to build the capacity to ensure that the project becomes meaningful as soon as possible. However, I do not want to concentrate on that, because it is well known. I should like to mention instead something that is pertinent to our neighbourhood project.
By chance, a month ago I attended the neighbourhood network's presentation on the evaluation of the ESF money. Now that the funding has come to an end, the network had, as part of the commitment that it gave, to account for how the money was spent. That raises a huge issue. The trouble is that, once we have put in the social capital, raised people's estimation of what they are capable of doing and got people retraining and considering different ways to rebuild their lives, like all such funding, it comes to an end.
I do not cast aspersions on what we are learning in Gloucestershire, but increasingly I say to anyone looking for funding—not necessarily from the ESF, but across the board—that nowadays the exit strategy is probably more important than the enthusiasm and commitment needed to set the thing up. I am not yet able to substantiate my point—we are in the early days of the aftermath of the ESF funding for the neighbourhood network—but I am a little worried I raise the issue of how the end of that funding should be managed, and what will replace it. That is a real-lire concern.
I have concerns even about calling it a project. If there is a perceivable need, which has been met, it seems counter-productive to withdraw that funding in any way. We must be very aware that the organisation that has proved its worth will have to find other means of funding, and that the last thing that we want to do is to raise too many hurdles, which would damage the effectiveness of what is being delivered.
We are talking about a quite well funded project, involving hundreds of thousands of pounds; the situation is somewhat different with smaller-scale projects, and I will say more about that. However, I wonder whether, for the larger projects, we need to include a process on how the money is spent, so that there is a proper brokerage and we can see whether it is
284WH
worth while and necessary to keep things going—in the case of the neighbourhood projects, it certainly is—and how we can enter into new funding streams.
The issue of complexity has been well described by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I urge caution about the idea of co-financing, match funding or additionality—whatever we may call it. All my experience of projects is that once there is the initial financial commitment, match funding comes that much more quickly. However, requiring the securing of match funding as one of the hurdles to be climbed over to start with makes it very difficult for small groups especially. I like the idea—supported by the Government and recommended by the Committee—for greater discretion if the sum is less than £50,000. That would be greatly beneficial. However, we need to understand that, although it may not be the intention, such a requirement is seen by those seeking the money as a way to make their job more difficult.
The name of the game is how, when trying to put together community-based initiatives, we can seek out diversified funding sources, of which—if one is able to access it—the ESF is the largest. I like the fact that the report says that we are talking largely about the voluntary and community sector, although not entirely; it is possible to access the money through local authorities or other organisations.
It is important to consider the key issue of capacity. I hate the term capacity building; it sounds as if a certain amount of something can be ladled into an area, everything gels, and, like osmosis, the whole thing works and somehow we all feel satisfied. The difficulty is that every area and every organisation is different. In a sense, capacity building is about people holding one's hand to ensure that the right bid has been submitted to the right people, lots of time has not been wasted, and one knows what to do with the money if and when one gets it. That is a time-consuming exercise.
My biggest concern is that, inevitably, there are areas that are disadvantaged. That goes back to the point about having slightly fewer hurdles when smaller sums of money are involved. Obviously, as I represent a semi-rural area, I always think that rural areas tend to lose out because they have not got the same level of capacity. They are not able to enjoy economies of scale and either do not have the knowledge or are sometimes seen to be well-off. That means that they do not fit any of the normal objectives, and that can be galling when there are definite social needs and certainly an employment responsibility.
The way around that is to ensure that the funding streams are allocated as fairly as possible and that they are transparent. There needs to be honesty and openness with areas and organisations. They should be told early on that they are not likely to be preferred when it comes to funding streams, so that they do not waste a lot of time and may instead consider the lottery or trusts. The main criticism concerns people who have tried to access such moneys when they were never likely to be able to do so, even if, technically, they were eligible.
Those are my main points, but I will make one last one, which, again, is something that I feel strongly about. It concerns the relationship with the other funders in the statutory sectors, particularly the business aid organisations, such as Business Link and, in my

285WH
county, Gloucestershire First. They are usually very helpful; they are bound to be, because they see the process as a way to get partners to provide social regeneration in the areas in which they are seeking to provide business regeneration. There is a pretty haphazard relationship between the business aid organisations and the ESF. Attention must be paid to that, not least because if and when the ESF comes to an end, those organisations will have to pick up some of the individuals involved—not necessarily those who have been in the scheme when it was the ESF. If the scheme continues to run, somebody, somewhere will have to pick it up, and business aid organisations are likely to be one of the vehicles for that.
Two things need to be borne in mind. People in those organisations should be completely au fait with what is happening with the ESF. That will enable them to be sympathetic to and understanding of what is being done, so that, if and when they are brought in, they have the necessary knowledge. More particularly, because of the changing nature of business and the increasing call for social enterprise—community-driven businesses—there is a real opportunity for those organisations to dovetail or partner the ESF to ensure that we are innovative and turn over every stone to give people the maximum number of opportunities, rather than limit their possibilities. That is what is happening in employment and training nowadays.
The future holds some alarm for some of us, because we know that such funding probably cannot get any better, but we can learn from our experiences and share them. I have not heard bad things about the ESF itself. I have heard bad things about some aspects of it, but no one has ever said to me, "I wish that we had not had that funding. I wish we had gone along a different route. The ESF really constrained us." There are lots of problems when ESF funding is lost, but the money is often a Godsend and has enabled very important things to happen that otherwise would not have been done. I welcome the report and I hope that the Minister has some positive things to say about it and about where he sees things going in future. This debate has therefore been worth while.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has spoken for many hon. Members.
3.15 pm
Paul Holmes: I welcome the excellent and succinct report and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) on the outstanding work carried out by his Committee, as usual, in producing it. I agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), on which I shall elaborate and embellish.
The main points of the report, as summarised by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, cover two matters, one of which is the problem of bureaucracy when administering the fund and the second is the big open-ended matter of what will happen after 2006. Evidence in the report touches on a subtext, which people to whom I have talked separately have also raised. I refer to groups that are hard to reach and those from excluded groups, whom the money is designed to help.
286WH
Some of the projects funded under the scheme have been successful in reaching people in a way in which the general new deal programmes and their approach have not, partly because; the general new deal approach has been a target-led culture—a tick-box culture—and, in some ways, has gone for the easy fixes. Many of the harder-to-reach groups tended to be ignored in the first few years of the programme. However, in recent years, some of the schemes funded by the European social fund have allowed local community-based projects and some Government initiatives to reach those groups in a way that has not happened before. We do not want to lose sight of that and of what might happen to those groups after 2006.
The bureaucracy issue has several aspects. In its summary and conclusion, the report refers to
"the sheer cumulative weight of the bureaucracy … that organisations are expected to shoulder"
in the process of applying for the funding. It points out the
"significant burden on local authorities, Government Offices and other public and voluntary organisations"
and summarises the process as a bureaucratic quagmire.
Many parallels can be made. We hear about such matters all the time in different aspects of the Government's delivery. Smaller community-based and volunteer groups have often lost out from lottery funding because they do not have full-time expert and professional staff who can put together professional bids and wade through the bureaucracy to access the money. On the lottery, it is well known that local schemes in my area of Chesterfield and north Derbyshire lose out massively in terms of the cash that is drawn in from lottery funding compared with large well funded professional bodies, such as opera houses in London. The same process takes place in some aspects of the ESF, too.
I am sure than the Minister will tell us that improvements have been made and that the Government have embarked on a bureaucracy-busting programme. For example, the Learning and Skills Council, which is responsible for many of the co-financing deals, has embarked on a bureaucracy-busting drive under its newt xecutive. So all is well—but perhaps not quite.
Six months ago, in December 2003, Wiltshire college appeared in the national press in a story on how the college principal had to go to the local learning and skills council with information on 2,000 learners to access ESF money under the new streamlined system. However, only 10 per cent. of those learners were in the scheme funded by the ESF, which was designed to provide money to give opportunities in rural areas that might otherwise be missing out—something to which the hon. Member for Stroud referred—so only 200 people benefited from the scheme at the college. The principal said that the time spent on the data collection was simply not worth the income obtained and that he did not think that he would apply again.
Have things got any better? I understand that colleges made their calculations and argued that things had not got better, saying that this was a nationwide problem and that more than one area of the country was affected. This year, colleges with a total of 70,000 people on ESF-funded programmes must provide the various learning

287WH
and skills councils throughout the country with data on 1 million adults. That means that 70,000 people are being funded from this source of money, but that data must be provided on 1 million rather than on only 70,000 adult learners. Some 10 million separate pieces of information must therefore be collected as opposed to 5 million under the previous system.
To add insult to injury, in 2000 the colleges were promised £200 million from the funding scheme to help their adult education programmes. In the financial year 2002–03, however, they received only £117 million. They are providing more data and dealing with more bureaucracy but getting less money than they received in the early stage of the scheme when they bid directly. Bureaucracy busting clearly has some way to go; in fact, it appears to be going in the wrong direction.
There is also the bureaucracy of different requirements and different sets of paperwork to access the money, depending on which co-financing organisation an applicant is working through. One local organisation in Derbyshire told me this week about an organisation making bids to two organisations—the local Jobcentre Plus and the local learning and skills council. It was bidding for money for the same purpose and used the same funding manager to fill in the forms, so the two bids were absolutely comparative.
The learning and skills council rejected all the bids out of hand at stage 1 through its different bureaucratic paperwork stream, yet the identical bids made to Jobcentre Plus were accepted and wont straight through to stage 2. So identical bids prepared for the same purpose by the same funding manager were rejected out of hand by one stream, but accepted immediately to go through to the next stage by another organisation working in a different way. That sort of duplication of application processes can only add to the problems of organisations, especially the smaller community-based ones, which, when faced with a bewildering array of paperwork to fill in, often give up early in the application process and never get through in the end.
Other issues were raised in evidence given to the Committee and by groups to which I have talked. There is, for example, an argument that a favoured status system operates under the co-financing system, which was introduced to overcome the problems of regional direct bidding. It seems that the co-financing system is dominated by the learning and skills councils and Jobcentre Plus. Smaller organisation is argue that there is a clear trend towards money being awarded in-house to learning and skills councils, colleges, Jobcentres and official schemes rather than to them.
The European Structural Funds Voluntary Organisations Northern submitted evidence to the Committee that there was also a move towards competitive tendering instead of bidding against set criteria. So rather than saying, "This is what we want to achieve. Can we have the money?", people have to compete against several other organisations that are also bidding. Like the old-fashioned compulsory competitive tendering that I remember only too well from my time as a councillor in t he ears gone by, people have to go for the cheapest bid rather than the one that is the best value. The Government have made changes in local government tendering to allow for best value bids
288WH
rather than the cheapest bids. It would appear from the organisations on the ground that there is a similar need for that to inform the bidding for the ESF.
Other organisations have asked why no account is taken of the track record of a bidding organisation. They face other organisations that claim that they can do something more cheaply, but are unable to examine their track records. If an organisation has a 76 per cent. success rate in getting hard-to-place people into sustained employment after 12 months as opposed to the new deal target of 13 weeks, why is that not taken into account when awarding new contracts in the next bidding round? Instead, everyone is treated as equals, including brand new groups that have no track record on which they can be judged. That needs to be looked at.
Some specific issues have arisen on costs and accounting. As there has been a big move towards outcome or completion funding, many of the small organisations cannot obtain 100 per cent. of their costs, so when they bid for a programme they do so in the knowledge that they might obtain only 90 to 95 per cent. of their funding and will have to put in some of their own money to make the programme work. HM Treasury's cross-cutting review on the issue said that overhead and core costs of organisations were a legitimate item to include in such bids, but that appears to be ignored. Smaller organisations either carry the cash can themselves to top up the bid or do not bid at all because they do not have the resources. Larger organisations, such as colleges, may be able to absorb some of those costs into their much wider overheads, but smaller organisations may be completely put off. One of the points of ESF funding is to encourage localised, small-scale community initiatives that are bottom up rather than top down. Those are all different issues that relate to the bureaucratic process.
The second major issue highlighted by the report is what happens after 2006. The short-term approach to funding that many people experience is reflected perfectly in other funding schemes, such as the lottery. The hon. Member for Stroud gave examples of that, and no doubt all hon. Members could give similar examples.
I shall give three examples that relate to the short-termism of lottery funding in Chesterfield, which I have mentioned in other debates in years gone by. Shopmobility is thinking about a major retrenchment of the service that it offers in the wider area of Derbyshire because its three-year funding is coming to an end. Fair Play, which works with disabled children and tries to get them involved in mainstream activities, youth clubs, outward bound activities and so on, is about to hit a brick wall because its three-year funding is coming to an end. The Rother community garden in a deprived area of Chesterfield is also struggling with some of the same issues. All those problems are reflected in other Government programmes, and the ESF is in danger of being in the same position.
Many of the organisations that gave evidence documented in the report raised that problem, although at the time the deadline was still three years away and not in the forefront of some people's thinking, although it is becoming increasingly important as the deadline approaches. The report said that there was a great deal of uncertainty about future funding, especially after EU enlargement, which of course has now taken place.

289WH
The Government's response was to say that they would wait and see what negotiations with the rest of Europe brought, but, as has been said, we know to a degree what those negotiations will bring. Inevitably, with a larger European Union, which has more underdeveloped areas to the east, some of the money that went into the ESF and single regeneration budgets will be diverted to those less developed areas that need the money.
We know what is going to happen. It will not be enough for the Minister simply to say that we will wait and see what comes out of negotiations. I hope that he will be more reassuring than that. The comprehensive spending review is taking place and will be announced shortly. It is being negotiated and argued throughout various Departments and will cover the period 2006–08—the two years immediately after we assume that the European funding will be considerably reduced. We cannot just accept a reassurance that the Government will wait and see what happens. We need to know within a few weeks or a couple of months at most what is going to happen and whether the comprehensive spending review will meet the large funding gap that is going to appear on the horizon in the fairly near future.
The report says that many service providers that currently work in employment, training and social inclusion will be in a difficult position by 2006. It recommends that the spending review remove that uncertainty. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that.
I close with a couple of examples, one from the report. Mencap told the Committee that its education and employment services, which work on social inclusion for disabled people—that huge, untapped and deprived group of people who would like to get into work—rely heavily on ESF money. What will happen in two years' time? Will Mencap have to close that operation, or will it have to find large sums from its limited charitable resources or elsewhere?
The Government's progress2work scheme has been piloted in Chesterfield and Derbyshire. I have visited it, and it is an excellent innovation. A group of people—in this case, former drug addicts—are trying to rebuild their lives and get back into work. They are in the hardto-place category, which was largely ignored by the new deal in its early years. It is a great innovation and receives a large chunk of funding from the ESF. What will happen to that?
Phoenix, a company from Rotherham that now runs many schemes in Chesterfield and north Derbyshire, delivers the progress2work scheme on behalf of Jobcentre Plus. It is an excellent scheme, and it is very successful. It does intensive work with those who are trying to rebuild their lives. What will happen in 2006? We assume that the Government will roll such a mainstream programme out across the country—but will they? Where will the funding come from? That group of people was ignored for many years. Essentially, they were told, "It's your fault. You became addicted. You sort it out." To their credit, the Government have been doing something about that over the past year or two, but what will happen after 2006?
290WH
The people who work in that sector—volunteer groups as well as Government agencies—remember only too well that not many years ago, especially before 1997, little was clone to help such people. What reassurance can the Minister offer to groups such as Mencap, Phoenix, progress2work and dozens of other similar groups, whose existence in two years' time will very much depend on his answer?
3.32 pm
Mr. Paul Goodman: It is a pleasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair. I begin with an apology. I have to leave at approximately 4.15 pm to go to an important constituency engagement, so I apologise to you, to the Minister and to the many Members present.
I declare a kind of interest in that, once again, I am uncomfortably wearing two hats. Not only am I an Opposition spokesman, but I am a member of the Select Committee. I did not labour as intensely as the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), but I did labour with him on he report and we travelled together to Spain and Portugal, where we looked at the operation of the social fund abroad. We both observed that circumstances in Lisbon appeared to be rather more deprived than in the parts of southern Spain through which we travelled.
You will be aware. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a distinguished former Select Committee Chairman, that some Select Committee reports receive more publicity than others. The recent Health Committee report into obesity was the sort of report that makes spectacular headlines, but the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will agree that our report, which is substantial and serious, was never likely to stimulate the same kind of dramatic headlines. That, however, may not be to its disadvantage.
In the light of the European elections, and of what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said about some people believing that the social fund might be, as he put it, a job creation scheme for bureaucrats—a view that he might have held before undertaking the inquiry—it is worth pointing something out. A large number of voters—not only UKIP or Conservative voters, but voters from the Minister's party, and some Liberal Democrats—might be inclined to think that although we will have received more than £4.5 million from the fund between 2000 and 2006, and although we are the sixth largest beneficiary of the social fund—the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was correct to say that many projects in our constituencies have benefited from the social fund, and that no one could guarantee that they would hay( been funded if the social fund had not existed—those figures are dwarfed by our contribution to the EU in 2001. The figure, which I checked this morning, was £988 billion, which throws the amounts from the social fund into some relief. It is also a reminder of the fact that the Government's commitment to the fund arises out of our commitments as a member of the EU.
At the start of his speech, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire rightly focused on what the fund actually does. A deputy director general at the

291WH
European Commision, Mr. Lõnnroth—I hope that I am not mispronouncing his name—said that the fund was the only one
"which focuses on the individual. The ultimate beneficiary—if I can use the word because it is a complex term—is the individual."
As the report notes, the fund's aim is to eliminate economic and social disparities across the EU. That is an ambitious aim, given the difficulties that all Governments have in reducing those disparities even in individual nation states.
The report also notes that the fund is set in the context of the EU's 10-year strategic objective, which was set out at the European Council in Lisbon four years ago. The EU aims—the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to this—to become
"the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world."
In the light of current events, that aim, too, can be unambiguously described as ambitious.
There are several main themes in the report. First—the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire went into this in some detail, and everyone who has spoken has referred to it"there was considerable debate about the merits of co-financing as oppose d to direct bidding. The summary at the end of the report says:
"The picture that emerges is that the former group"—
those who favour co-financing—
"are wedded to a top-down, competitive, hard-output, contract-driven provision that supports Government programmes".
The report then says that "the second group"—those who favour direct bidding—
"seems to be associated with a bottom-up, self-motivating and more co-operative approach."
A crucial sentence in the report reads:
"It was argued that although the opportunity of not having to secure match-funding has its attractions, this advantage was reduced if the chance of securing that match-funding was correspondingly reduced."
On the whole, the report tilted a little towards those favouring direct bidding, from whom the Committee heard a good deal of evidence. We recommended that direct bidding be retained as a safely net.
Secondly—this has been a common theme in the debate—there was concern about excessive bureaucracy. As one instance of that, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to records having to be kept for 12 years. In one apposite comment, the report states:
"For example, one training organisation told us that in a project of only 12 trainers, it needed to employ five support staff simply to fulfil the administrative demands required by various funding streams, including the ESF."
Thirdly—this has not been alluded to so much—there was a somewhat esoteric debate about the principle of additionality, which is governed by the structural funding regulation, and which declares:
"In order to achieve a genuine economic impact, the appropriations of the Funds"—
we are not talking about matched funding, but about the funds themselves—
"may not replace public or other equivalent structural expenditure by the Member State".
292WH
I remain to be convinced that circumstances exist that make it impossible for Governments not to put in place programmes that they believe the social fund and the other three structural programmes may fund. Perhaps that is impossible to prove.
Finally, there was great concern about what will happen after 2006, when we will be on a completely new footing. The report states:
"the few references to ESF in the Government's consultation paper and the total omission of any reference to the social inclusion agenda do not suggest that the Government fully recognises the importance that ESF plays in countering social exclusion and helping vulnerable people gain access to the labour market."
For a report from the Work and Pensions Committee, as opposed, perhaps, to the Health Committee, that is the most inflammatory language. In context, the criticism seems fairly strong. In the light of that I want to ask the Minister some brief questions based on the Government response to the report. If he runs out of time—although perhaps he plans to stay later than hon. Members on the Floor of the House—perhaps he will undertake to write to me to deal with my questions.
The Committee recommended that the Department for Work and Pensions should compare the implementation of ESF in areas where there are a few co-financing organisations, such as London. It was not altogether clear to me from the Government's answer whether an actual comparison would be made, although the Department said that it wanted good practice in coordination between co-financing organisations to be identified, disseminated and adopted across England.
A Committee recommendation about direct funding stated bluntly:
"We therefore recommend that some direct funding be retained in all regions and re-introduced in London."
The Government did not really go along with that recommendation:
"In view of the positive conclusions and recommendations of the 2003 evaluation, it does not propose to recommend reintroducing direct funding."
The Department then said:
"Should any gaps in provision arise subsequently that cannot be met by CFOs, it will recommend to the Regional Committee that direct funding be re-introduced to enable these gaps to be filled."
Perhaps the Minister would care to say something about how many such gaps will be identified and how the Government propose to make such an assessment.
The Committee recommended that a detailed statistical analysis of the award of grants would be needed, and commented:
"We suggest that that study also investigates whether there are any marked differences under the two systems with respect to the types of projects supported and rejected."
The Government provided a lengthy answer, but I do not think that that said anything about how they might investigate whether there were differences relating to projects that were supported or rejected. Perhaps the Minister would comment.
The Committee recommended drastic improvement and streamlining of the design of the claim form and the speeding up of the process for settling claims, including making greater use of claiming over the internet. The Department dealt with the internet point. I do not think

293WH
it specified that it would study the design of the claim form again. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.
After the Committee recommended that the DWP press the European Commission for greater clarification of how intense the monitoring regime should be, the Minister replied:
"The Government intends to introduce an annual operational meeting between the ESF programme authorities in the four nations of the UK to discuss their administrative procedures and management issues, with a view to establishing transferable useful practice."
Perhaps the Minister could tell us how plans for that annual operational meeting are going, or, indeed, whether it has happened.
Finally, I return to the subject of 2006. It would be extremely useful if the Minister could, in the light of this debate, say as much as possible about the Government's plans for 2006. I understand that negotiations and discussions are continuing but, even so, I am sure he will acknowledge the danger that after 2006 a useful series of projects, of the kind to which the hon. Member for Stroud referred, will suddenly be left high and dry. Any information that the Minister could share about that would therefore be welcome.
This has been a good debate, in which we have had a thorough opportunity to explore what was undoubtedly a painstaking report. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): You began our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by emphasising the importance of this debate. That importance was underlined by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood)—I always wish that I could refer to him as my hon. Friend. He described the issue as arcane and esoteric. That was my impression about a year ago, when, only days into my current job, I was called before the Work and Pensions Committee to give evidence on the inquiry that we are debating. I am therefore pleased to be in the same post, perhaps knowing a little more now than I did then.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, under whom I served for several years as a member of the Committee, on his presentation of the report. I thank the Committee for a constructive and useful report, which the Government welcomed on its publication last November. In our response we accepted many of the recommendations. The report coincided with two important developments: the mid-term review of the current ESF programmes, which run from 2000 to 2006, and the start of discussions on what should replace them after 2006. In responding to the debate, I should like to update hon. Members on those developments.
The Committee's report welcomed our approach of using the ESF to add value to our mainstream programmes. I assure the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) that that is a guiding principle of the ESF, which is not a substitute for what the Government would be doing anyway. The ESF adds value to those policies and projects. The Committee was encouraged
294WH
by the good performance of our ESF programmes. I am pleased to report that the mid-term evaluation of the ESF, which was completed at the end of 2003, confirms the Committee's findings. The evaluation shows that the ESF supports our national policies of promoting employment opportunities for all to combat poverty and social exclusion. The ESF is adding value to the new deal and other policies, which, with stable economic growth, have helped almost 2 million people into permanent jobs.
I was pleased to see the latest labour market figures that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work released yesterday. They show that claimant unemployment has fallen by more than two fifths to its lowest level for nearly 30 years. There are now more than 28 million people in work, which is one of the highest figures on record. With the measures that the Government have implemented since 1997, I am happy to say that employment has increased in every region of the UK. It is pleasing, too, that the claimant unemployment rate has fallen most in the areas that previously had the highest unemployment. The ESF has made an important contribution to those developments.
So far, the ESF has helped more than 1 million people in England through employability training and guidance projects. It is reaching some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Some 34 per cent. of participants are long-term unemployed people, 23 per cent. have no prior qualifications and 12 per cent. have disabilities. The ESF is achieving excellent results. Three quarters of participants were in jobs or had started further learning when they left their ESF courses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) gave examples of projects in his constituency that the ESF has made possible. I am grateful for his comments about the ESF and foyers. Homeless people are a key target group for the use of the ESF to make the transition into work. In my visits to ESF projects over the past year, I have seen for myself the difference that they make to people's lives. For example, at the end of last year I visited the Somerset "Computers for Charity" scheme in Taunton—a project giving disadvantaged people training and work experience in recycling, upgrading and repairing IT equipment. With ESF funding, it is helping some 140 people, including ex-offenders, homeless people, drug and alcohol misusers, lone parents and women returners. Some 40 per cent. of participants find a long-term job.
There is also the issue of maximising the impact of EU funds. During its inquiry, the Committee suggested—a suggestion that has been echoed by some hon. Members today—that we should maximise the take-up of ESF funds. I am pleased to confirm that our ESF programmes achieved their spending targets in 2003, so we have not had to return any money to Brussels. Last year's evaluation confirmed that our ESF programmes had achieved their interim performance targets, which has resulted in the Commission awarding £128 million of performance funding for objective 3 in Great Britain—£111 million of which is for objective 3 in England.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire made the important point that we need to focus on economic inactivity. That, of course, is one of the biggest challenges that we face. Although we have achieved a considerable amount in getting the

295WH
unemployment figures down and people into permanent jobs, there is nevertheless the continuing problem of those who remain economically inactive. In the second half of the programme, we will continue to target the ESF on people who, despite our record employment levels, remain economically inactive. Key target groups will include people with disabilities and people from ethnic minority groups. As caring responsibilities can be a major barrier to work, all projects will be encouraged to provide child care for those who need it—one of the issues that was raised in the Committee's report.
I should say something about the word "equal", because, in addition, up to £150 million of ESF funding is available from this year for the second round of equal partnerships. Those projects will develop innovative approaches to combating exclusion from the labour market, and will exchange good practice with European partners.
The hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) raised in particular the issue of bureaucracy. I shall say something about that because it is clearly a concern for the Select Committee and for Members who have spoken in this debate. Like the Committee, the Government want to ensure that it is as simple as possible for providers to access and manage ESF funds. I reassure the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that this is an issue over which we are, in his words, constantly vigilant.
Since 2000, we have introduced two major reforms to the administration of the ESF in England. First, there is co-financing, which I will say a little more about later and which has eased many of the burdens on providers by bringing together the ESF and domestic match funding into a single funding stream. Secondly, we have introduced the global grants programme, which allows community groups to access small amounts of the ESF through streamlined procedures. Very often, the application process takes no more than one or two months, and in some cases as little as two or three weeks.
The Committee made the proposal, which we were not able to accept and which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, to have a fast-track procedure for projects of less than £50,000. We considered that, but we came to the conclusion that it would not comply with the Commission's rules on open and competitive tendering. However, we hope that the global grants—fast-track grants of up to £10,000 for small community groups—will fill part of that vacuum.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield used the example of the difficulty that Wiltshire college had in accessing the ESF. It had to provide information on 2,000 learners, but there were only 200 ESF beneficiaries. That information is required under EU funding laws to demonstrate that match funding in place. We agree that the rules need to be simplified That is why one of our post-2006 objectives is simpler administration with greater reliance on national systems and rules. We believe that funding rules are best established at the national level.
The hon. Gentleman also complained that ESF does not fund core activity. That is true. It must add value to core and mainstream activities by funding those additional activities that would not otherwise take place or by enhancing the quality of existing provision.
296WH
We are trying to deal with the legitimate concerns about bureaucracy. There is much more to do, and we are continuously seeking to improve our ESF systems. The Committee recommended a number of areas for improvement, which were also reflected in the mid-term evaluation, and we are implementing them.
We have improved co-ordination between the co-financing organisations; that point was made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield. For example, the five learning and skills councils in London are holding a single application round across the city this year. As the hon. Member for Wycombe mentioned, we have revised the forms that projects use to claim payments to reduce errors and speed up processing. We are now making those forms interactive. We have issued guidance to ensure that all regions in England use risk-based sampling when they select projects for monitoring and audit, and we have improved co-ordination with programmes managed in Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland and have introduced an annual UK ESF operational meeting to share good practice across the UK. The hon. Member for Wycombe mentioned that, too. Jobcentre Plus is one of the co-financing organisations and it has improved the quality of its feedback and support to unsuccessful applicants so that it now offers detailed comments on request, rather than using a tick-box form.
I must say something about the importance of EU regulations in this context. We will continue to improve access to ESF and ease administrative burdens, but there are limitations to what we can do under current EU regulations. I am afraid that that includes the requirement—described as "bizarre" by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—to keep records for 12 years. It is one reason why our objectives in negotiations on the next set of regulations will include making ESF administration simpler and more flexible.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, along with other Members, made important comments about the process of co-financing. The hon. Gentleman knows that the introduction of co-financing occurred on a gradual and managed basis from the end of 2001. We had substantial consultation with the voluntary sector, which was represented on the national committee, regional committees, the evaluation steering groups and the co-financing implementation board. Indeed, co-financing organisations are required to consult on their plans.
The Committee found no convincing evidence that the role of the voluntary and community sector was being lost under co-financing—although I want to come back to the hon. Gentleman's question and anxiety about whether a distinction has been drawn in the voluntary and community sector and the larger organisations benefit while the smaller organisations lose out.
The Committee's finding on the overall impact is supported by the second evaluation of co-financing, which found that the co-financing organisations were contracting with significant numbers of voluntary organisations that were new to ESF. Indeed, about 32 per cent. of co-financing providers are voluntary organisations. The evaluation also found that most ESF providers think that co-financing has improved the quality and availability of provision for hard-to-help groups. Some 60 per cent. of the organisations

297WH
considered that co-financing had improved the process, but 25 per cent. felt that it had made matters worse. On the question of whether there is a distinction between the small organisations and the larger ones, the second evaluation found that co-financing was drawing into ESF significant numbers of new small and specialised voluntary organisations. Indeed, it is fair to say that it was the larger organisations that often found that they were not successful in the process. It is important to recognise that one purpose of co-financing is to establish a level playing field and to allow some of the smaller organisations that might otherwise not be able to access match funding to become involved in the process. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will keep a close eye on that. If his anxieties are well founded, we will need to see what we can do about the matter, as that outcome is not our intention.
The hon. Member for Wycombe made some points about co-financing versus direct bidding, which he suggested was top down versus bottom up. The report suggested that overall the ESF was adding value to mainstream programmes and that co-financing represented a good balance between centralised contracts and ESF systems. He will be aware that some direct bidding is retained in eight of the nine regions. He said that direct bidding should be retained as a safety net. That is true everywhere, except in London, where there is a wider range of co-financing organisations and it is less likely that people will fall through the net. We are keeping that under review.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked us to keep an eye on the soft outcomes—the extent to which organisations had made improvements in capacity—as well as some of the harder outcomes. The key outputs on which performance is measured are jobs and qualifications, but we also encourage projects to measure the distance that they have travelled, especially where they are seeking to help people with multiple disadvantages move towards the labour market. We recognise the challenges that many of those projects face, and that sometimes soft outcomes are difficult to measure. The DWP has issued guidance to projects on measuring soft outcomes and the distance travelled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Chesterfield raised concerns about organisations in rural areas, social enterprise, capacity building, and so on. The recent evaluation report on local development, which was published on 11 June, found that ESF was helping to build capacity-providers in rural areas to meet the needs of the people there. That activity, including supporting social enterprises, will continue during the remainder of the current programme.
Finally, before we lose the hon. Member for Wycombe to his important constituency engagement, I should like to say a few words about the situation post-2006. We must think about what will happen to provision that is funded by ESF when current programmes finish. Understandably, hon. Members have raised that issue during this afternoon's debate. Those who attended Tuesday's European scrutiny debate in the House will understand that the future of ESF funding is inevitably wrapped up with negotiations on the future of structural funds as a whole and the
298WH
wider issue of the EU"s overall budget after 2006. That will disappoint the hon. Member for Chesterfield, who would like me to give a clearer commitment this afternoon on what will happen to funding. I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him. However, it may be helpful if I give the Chamber an indication of the timetable that we are working on.
We are still at an early stage in the negotiations. In February, the European Commission published its initial proposals for 2007 to 2013 in its cohesion report. The Commission has suggested that it will publish draft legislation in July. Formal negotiations will then begin, and are likely to continue into 2005, and perhaps even into the UK presidency. It is likely that the early stage of negotiations will focus on delivery systems, and that budgetary issues will be taken later on, as they will depend on the settlement of the overall budget for 2007 to 2013. If legislation is agreed in 2005, new programmes would be developed in the following year, in time to start in 2007.
In Tuesday's debate, my right hon. Friends the Paymaster General and the Minister for Industry and the Regions set out the Government's approach to the negotiations. As hon. Members will know, we believe that fundamental review and reform of the structural funds is required if we are to respond to the unprecedented enlargement of the EU and to meet the challenge posed by the Lisbon agenda. At the Lisbon Council in 2000, member states agreed the objective of raising employment rates to a level that will deliver the most dynamic and prosperous economy in the world, setting the target of an employment rate of 70 per cent. by 2010. That has seen mentioned at least twice this afternoon, and I agree that it is ambitious, but it is realistic.
Although the UK and a few other countries have already achieved the target, the EU as a whole has some way to go, as the Wim Kok taskforce pointed out. It urges EU member states to take swift action if we are to achieve that target. The Government's proposals for reforming the structural funds aim to address the challenge faced by the Lisbon Council now that there is an enlarged Union In our view, all member states should continue to work towards the Lisbon employment targets but as of now their policies need not be EU-financed EU resources including the ESF should be concentrated where they can add most value to the poorest member states. For example, the ESF in new member states should be invested in labour market reform and human resources, so as to help them to take forward the recommendations of the employment taskforce.
Focusing EU resources on the poorest countries is consistent with our commitment, which is shared with five other member states—Germany, France, Netherlands, Austria and Sweden—to maintaining an overall EU budget of no more than 1 per cent. of EU gross national income. Under that approach, richer member states would finance and deliver their own policies to meet the Lisbon goals, ending the inefficient recycling of funds between the net contributors.
Sir Archy Kirkwood: The Minister is doing his best to be helpful. I attended the structural funds debate, and one question that I left the debate puzzled by was how

299WH
the Government can possibly hope to repatriate structural funds. I understand that these are regional fund arguments, rather than work and pensions arguments. How can the Government possibly stay on the right side of European Union competition rules? It is hard for us to make a decision about the relative merits of the Commission scheme. Hon. Members can find the scheme in the third cohesion report.
The Government scheme was "a guarantee", but it was not a guarantee that we would get a programme equivalent to the ESF. It is hard to make comparisons and judgments. It may be early days, but it would be helpful if the Minister could say a little more about what would replace the structural funds, and whether they will be whisked away after 2006.
Mr. Pond: I noted the hon. Gentleman's contribution to Tuesday's debate, which was helpful and constructive, as always. To respond to his question—to which I think my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General would have responded—it is early days in the negotiations, and it is therefore difficult to give any clear commitments on what will happen to the overall structural funds post-2006. We have given that guarantee, and I shall later say a few words about what that actually means.
Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked for reassurances about the continuation of projects after the current ESF round ends. Of course, the challenges facing UK nations and regions will not disappear when the current structural funds programme ends; we recognise that. We have given the guarantee to which the hon. Gentleman just referred: if our reform proposals are successful—there is an "if", because we are at the early stages of negotiation—we will increase domestic spending so that UK nations and regions do not lose out in comparison with the EU funding that they would have received in 2007 had the existing structural funds arrangements been applied across the enlarged EU.
The hon. Gentleman is displaying—
Sir Archy Kirkwood: A wry smile.
Mr. Pond: The hon. Gentleman may be displaying a wry smile, but that is as far as we can go in giving a
300WH
guarantee at the moment. He will understand that we are seeking to make sure that we can continue the good work already done, particularly under the ESF, after the current arrangements come to an end. However, we cannot give commitments on actual levels of funding at this moment. First, we do not know the outcome of the negotiations, and secondly, we do not know what will happen to overall prosperity in the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union over that period. Of course, we expect the UK to continue to grow in prosperity, but the issues have to be carefully considered.
We are making the transitional arrangements that people have rightly asked for. We are actively planning to ease the transition of current ESF providers to the post-2006 arrangements. I am pleased to confirm today that we have agreed with the Commission that project activity in England under the current ESF programmes can continue until at least December 2007. That will ensure that ESF funding will not be cut off suddenly at midnight on 31 December 2006.
In conclusion, I confirm that we will continue to use the current ESF programmes to support our policies to promote economic prosperity and social justice, and we will work for a reform of structural funds so that, in an enlarged EU, spending is targeted where it can add most value. That way, our nations and regions can have the resources that they need to promote their productivity and employment.
As you said at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, today's debate has been important, timely and appropriate. I thank the Work and Pensions Committee again for its hard work in preparing a constructive report, which has helped us move forward in our thinking about the ESF. It will inform those discussions into the future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chamber thanks the Minister for his reply. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wycombe, can leave for his next engagement with an entirely clear conscience.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Four o'clock.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Housing
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list(a) the number of council housing stock option appraisals signed off by the Government to date and (b) the number of these which have involved (i) retention of the stock, (ii) transfer of the stock to a registered social landlord, (iii) delegation to an arm's length management organisation and (iv) mixed solutions, (c) the number of local authorities that have submitted an options appraisal which has not yet been signed off and (d) the number of authorities that have not yet submitted an appraisal to be signed off in (A) London and (B) England. [178472]

  Keith Hill
  Local authorities were only required to have signed off option appraisals from April 2003. Prior to that date 157 local authorities had already opted for transfer or Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) of which 11 are in London.

  The table as follows shows the position regarding the sign-off requirement as of 9 June 2004, as reported by Government Offices for the Regions

  England (including London)

  London

  (a) Total number. of OAs signed off

  27

  2

  (b)(i) Number of these that have involved retention

  13

  Nil

  (b)(ii) Number of these that have involved transfer

  13

  Nil

  (b)(iii) Number of these that have involved ALMO

  10

  2

  (b)(iv) Number of these that have involved mixed solutions

  2

  Nil

  (c) Number of LAs that have submitted an options appraisal without sign off as of 9 June 04

  6

  1

  (d) Number of LAs that have not yet submitted an options appraisal as of 9 June 2004

  164

  19

  Coverage Care
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answers of 15 March 2004,Official Report, columns 59–60W and 29 April 2004, Official Report, column 1227W, on Coverage Care (Gloucestershire Ltd.), what estimate he has made of the maximum contingent liability to be borne by (a) council tax payers in Gloucestershire and (b) the general tax payer; if he will list the information which the county council has resolved should remain confidential; under what circumstances a specific consent would need to be sought by the county council; and what discussions he
  1026W
  has held on the county council's invocation of confidentiality provisions in local government legislation in relation to this matter. [173029]

  Yvette Cooper
  The bulk of Government support is paid as block grant, so local authorities have considerable freedom to determine their spending priorities and decide how to apportion their revenue budget between services. The provision of local authority services is for individual authorities, bearing in mind their statutory responsibilities. The Government does not have a power to intervene in local authorities' day to day decisions.

  It is for local authorities to determine the level of council tax. Local authorities should be consulting their local tax payers on issues about levels of council tax and what the money is spent on.

  Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 describes the types of "exempt information" which a local authority can decide to keep confidential. Gloucestershire county council has resolved to keep confidential the types of information specified in paragraphs 5, 7 and 9. These paragraphs cover information relating to financial assistance provided by the authority, the financial or business affairs of other parties and terms proposed in the course of commercial contract negotiations. No discussions have been held between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the county council about the council's use of confidentiality provisions in local government legislation. The circumstances under which a specific consent would need to be sought by the county council are set out in sections 24 and 25 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Economic Regeneration Funding
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what financial support was given by his Department to each of the areas designated as a priority area for economic regeneration as defined by Regional Planning Guidance 9 in 2003–04. [179230]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funds a large number of programmes either through its agencies, such as English Partnerships, or directly. In 2003–4 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's direct initiatives which assisted economic regeneration in the South-East included the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, Wardens Schemes, Neighbourhood Management Pilots, New Deal for Communities, the Community Empowerment Fund, Community Chest, Community Learning Chest, Single Regeneration Budget and European Structural Fund Objective Two. The information on how much was given in 2003–4 in each of the priority areas for economic regeneration is not held centrally, and could only be provided at a disproportionate cost.

  Fire Service (Recruitment)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many recruits there were to each fire authority in England and Wales in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) gender and (b) ethnicity. [178770]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information in the form requested is not readily available for the years 1999–2001. Information on the number of successful applicants for
  1027W
  each fire authority in England and Wales from 1999 to 2001 by gender and ethnicity is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Information on the number of successful applicants for each authority in England and Wales in each of the last two years by (a) gender and (b) ethnicity is available in the Library of the House.

  Housing Stock Transfer
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what receipts there were from stock transfer of council housing, broken down by local authority and

  Local authority

  Date of transfer

  Number of dwellings

  Price per dwelling (£)

  Gross transfer price (£ million)

  ERCF grant paid for negative valuation X

  Cotswold DC

  28 February 1997

  4,282

  12,818

  53.45

  —

  South Staffs C

  7 March 1997

  5,273

  7,998

  42.67

  —

  Lichfield DC

  19 March 1997

  4,921

  8,416

  40.88

  —

  South Oxfordshire DC

  7 July 1997

  5,018

  13,618

  68.33

  —

  Eden C

  22 September 1997

  1,510

  11,253

  16.99

  —

  LB Lambeth * Moorlands

  5 January 1998

  515

  -24,660

  -12.80

  X

  LB Bexley

  9 February 1998

  4,118

  11,996

  49.40

  —

  LB Bexley

  9 February 1998

  4,097

  8,540

  34.99

  —

  Congleton BC

  2 March 1998

  4,061

  7,939

  32.24

  —

  Oldham BC* Limehurst

  9 March 1998

  642

  -8,941

  -5.74

  X

  Liverpool CC * Windermere

  19 March 1998

  493

  -13,164

  -6.49

  X

  LB Merton* Pollards Hill

  23 March 1998

  1,018

  -13,635

  -13.88

  X

  LB Tower Hamlets* Poplar 1

  23 March 1998

  1,852

  -19,006

  -35.20

  X

  Kerrier DC

  23 March 1998

  3,732

  8,579

  32.02

  —

  LB Hackney * Kingsmead

  30 March 1998

  951

  -11,199

  -10.65

  X

  LB Brent * Fortunegate/Church End

  30 March 1998

  1,481

  -16,874

  -25.00

  X

  Basildon DC* Vange

  30 March 1998

  708

  -9,562

  -6.77

  X

  West Somerset DC

  30 March 1998

  1,869

  13,750

  25.70

  —

  Stoke-on-Trent CC * Bentilee

  31 March 1998

  917

  -11,221

  -10.29

  X

  Tewkesbury BC

  27 April 1998

  3,066

  7,985

  24.48

  —

  Rother DC

  1 May 1998

  3,058

  10,072

  30.80

  —

  LB Lambeth * Lansdowne Green

  20 July 1998

  681

  -12,555

  -8.54

  X

  LB Tower Hamlets* Poplar II

  7 December 1998

  2,431

  -7,805

  -18.97

  X

  Wirral* Leasowe

  25 January 1999

  1,082

  -4,799

  -5.19

  X

  Tameside * West Ashton

  1 February 1999

  901

  -10,655

  -9.57

  X

  West Devon BC

  22 February 1999

  1,446

  9,200

  13.52

  —

  South Somerset DC

  1 March 1999

  8,883

  7,795

  69.25

  —

  East Lindsey DC

  1 March 1999

  5,102

  8,820

  45.00

  —

  Liverpool CC* Pinehurst

  5 March 1999

  646

  -9,505

  -6.14

  X

  Manchester CC Darnhill

  8 March 1999

  1,030

  82

  0.85

  —

  LB Hackney* Morningside

  15 March 1999

  1,084

  -9,339

  -10.12

  X

  South Hams District Council

  22 March 1999

  3,096

  13,243

  41.00

  —

  LB Hammersmith and Fulham* Old Oak

  17 March 1999

  668

  -14,027

  -9.37

  X

  LB Hackney * Upper Clapton

  22 March 1999

  1,000

  -19,975

  -19.98

  X

  Telford and Wrekin C

  25 March 1999

  13,081

  9

  113.37

  —

  LB Enfield

  29 March 1999

  1,194

  n/a

  0.00

  —

  Worthing BC

  29 March 1999

  2,525

  14,095

  35.59

  —

  Bath and North East Somerset C

  29 March 1999

  9,887

  8,040

  79.49

  —

  Manchester CC* East Wythenshawe

  29 March 1999

  6,667

  -3,165

  -20.81

  X

  LB Greenwich* Charlton Triangle

  29 March 1999

  1,280

  -14,077

  -18.02

  X

  LB Hackney* Haggerston

  29 March 1999

  661

  -20,030

  -13.24

  X

  Allerdale BC

  31 March 1999

  3,704

  8,261

  30.60

  —

  Allerdale BC * Salterbeck

  31 March 1999

  727

  -5,451

  -3.96

  X

  Preston BC * Avenham

  14 June 1999

  1,121

  -8,576

  -9.61

  X

  LB Lambeth* Central Stockwell

  5 July 1999

  2,358

  -6,667

  -17.53

  X

  Birmingham CC* Central Areas

  21 June 1999

  2,813

  -17,401

  -50.55

  X

  LB Islington* Barnsbury

  26 September 1999

  647

  -6,646

  -4.29

  X

  LB Islington* Ten Estates

  26 September 1999

  739

  -24,898

  -18.41

  X

  Liverpool CC* Speke Garston

  4 October 1999

  4,382

  -9,990

  -43.78

  X

  West Lindsey DC

  18 October 1999

  3,929

  7,814

  30.70

  —

  LB Lambeth* St. Martins

  25 October 1999

  1,033

  -6,805

  -7.03

  X

  Boston BC

  29 November 1999

  4,871

  8,907

  43.40

  —

  Tynedale DC

  20 December 1999

  3,564

  9,5

  33.86

  —

  Newcastle under Lyme BC

  31 January 2000

  9,887

  5,462

  54,00

  —

  Restormel BC

  7 February 2000

  3,577

  7,018

  25,11

  —

  1028W
  giving the number of homes involved, the unit transfer price, and the total capacity receipt in each case, in each year since 1997. [178905]

  Keith Hill
  To reflect the intended continued use of the properties for social housing and the need for capital investment, the price paid to each local authority per council dwelling and reflected in the following table, accords with a Tenanted Market Value (TMV) rather than an open market value. Where there is a negative value a grant equal to this amount was paid by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as part of the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund (ERCF) programme. The table shows the receipts from stock transfer, broken down by local authority, showing the number of dwellings, price per dwelling and the gross transfer price in each year since 1997.
  1029W

  Local authority

  Date of transfer

  Number of dwellings

  Price per dwellings (£)

  Gross transfer price (£ million)

  ERCF grant paid for negative valuation X

  Manchester CC (Colshaw Farm)

  14 February 2000

  600

  1,500

  0.90

  —

  North Devon DC

  21 February 2000

  3,293

  13,438

  44.25

  —

  LB Hackney* Stamford Hill

  6 March 2000

  1,095

  -12,082

  -13.23

  X

  LB Hackney* Pembury Estate

  6 March 2000

  1,241

  -12,379

  -15.35

  X

  Burnley BC

  8 March 2000

  5,330

  4,205

  22.41

  —

  Manchester CC Sale Estate

  20 March 2000

  1,655

  1,419

  2.35

  —

  Weymouth and Portland C

  20 March 2000

  3,105

  9,983

  30.99

  —

  Huntingdon DC

  20 March 2000

  6,650

  9,534

  63.40

  —

  Elmbridge BC

  27 March 2000

  4,894

  11,626

  56.90

  —

  Test Valley BC

  27 March 2000

  5,495

  14,559

  79.99

  —

  Wyre Forest DC

  27 March 2000

  6,056

  6,762

  40.95

  —

  Manchester CC Whitefield Estate

  27 March 2000

  1,033

  1,942

  1.97

  —

  LB Tower Hamlets* THCH

  27 March 2000

  1,551

  -13,718

  -21.43

  X

  Tameside

  27 March 2000

  8,532

  6,489

  127.50

  —

  MBC

  1—

  7,934

  7,057

  —

  LB Richmond

  17 July 2000

  7,139

  8,335

  59.50

  —

  Coventry CC

  22 September 2000

  20,125

  2,460

  49.50

  —

  Fylde BC

  2 October 2000

  1,905

  6,300

  12.00

  —

  Chester CC

  27 November 2000

  7,096

  6,341

  45.00

  —

  Horsham DC

  11 December 2000

  4,650

  14,462

  67.25

  —

  LB Tower Hamlets* Poplar 1

  12 February 2001

  1,859

  -1,894

  -35.22

  X

  East Northamptonshire DC

  19 February 2001

  3,495

  6,150

  21.49

  —

  Torbay BC

  19 February 2001

  2,947

  6,480

  19.10

  —

  Staffordshire Moorlands DC

  23 February 2001

  3,132

  6,290

  19.67

  —

  Calderdale MBC

  6 March 2001

  12,759

  2,825

  36.00

  —

  Chichester DC

  13 March 2001

  5,321

  14,752

  78.50

  —

  Mendip DC

  19 March 2001

  4,326

  8,091

  35.00

  —

  West Wiltshire DC

  26 March 2001

  3,284

  6,423

  21.00

  —

  West Oxfordshire DC

  26 March 2001

  3,643

  13,972

  50.90

  —

  East Staffordshire BC

  26 March 2001

  5,637

  3,643

  24.50

  —

  Manchester CC Handforth Estate

  26 March 2001

  659

  535

  0.37

  —

  Sunderland CC

  26 March 2001

  36,356

  6,045

  219.80

  —

  Blackburn with Darwen BC

  28 March 2001

  9,886

  4,195

  35.40

  —

  Shrewsbury and Atcham BC

  1 October 2001

  5,500

  11,527

  63.40

  —

  Mid-Bedfordshire DC

  5 November 2001

  3,084

  10,159

  31.33

  —

  Derbyshire Dales

  4 March 2002

  3,287

  7,616

  24.80

  —

  Chelmsford BC

  11 March 2002

  6,902

  11,530

  79.60

  —

  East Hertfordshire

  18 March 2002

  2,687

  11,937

  32.10

  —

  East Hertfordshire

  1—

  3,237

  13,725

  44.40

  —

  Erewash BC

  25 March 2002

  5,847

  6,460

  38.10

  —

  Reigate and Banstead BC

  25 March 2002

  4,846

  13,212

  64.00

  —

  St. Edmundsbury

  24 June 2002

  5,947

  7,489

  45.10

  —

  Vale Royal BC

  1 July 2002

  6,813

  7,462

  51.07

  —

  St. Helens MBC

  1 July 2002

  14,632

  1,974

  28.90

  —

  Redcar and Cleveland BC

  15 July 2002

  11,625

  5,180

  60.20

  —

  Knowsley MBC

  15 July 2002

  17,090

  1,794

  30.66

  —

  LB Waltham Forest

  30 September 2002

  2,242

  832

  1.87

  —

  LB Hackney cc sheltered stock

  14 October 2002

  954

  0

  0.00

  —

  LB Harrow

  14 October 2002

  518

  0

  0.00

  —

  Manchester cc Langley Estate

  18 November 2002

  3,360

  0

  0.00

  —

  County of Herefordshire C

  25 November 2002

  5,696

  6,945

  39.56

  —

  Carlisle CC

  9 December 2002

  7,198

  1,803

  12.98

  —

  Rushcliffe BC

  20 January 2003

  3,445

  12,934

  44.56

  —

  Liverpool CC Eastern Fringe (south)

  23 January 2003

  2,833

  1,800

  5.10

  —

  Liverpool CC Eastern Fringe (central)

  30 January 2003

  3,702

  0

  0.00

  —

  City of Bradford

  24 February 2003

  24,764

  2,831

  70.10

  —

  Amber Valley BC

  24 February 2003

  5,632

  5,077

  28.57

  —

  Crewe and Nantwich BC

  10 March 2003

  5,515

  6,181

  34.10

  —

  Liverpool CC Eastern fringe north

  10 March 2003

  6,183

  0

  0.00

  —

  Oldham MBC Limeside (Hollins/The Avenues)

  17 March 2003

  634

  0

  0.00

  —

  Walsall MBC (majority of stock)

  27 March 2003

  22,971

  1,026

  24.00

  —

  Walsall MBC (tenant managed stock)

  27 March 2003

  1,828

  0

  0.00

  —

  Craven DC

  31 March 2003

  1,541

  5,201

  17.60

  —

  Forest of Dean DC

  31 March 2003

  3,577

  6,849

  24.50

  —

  North Hertfordshire DC

  31 March 2003

  8,570

  3,128

  27.00

  —

  Manchester CC (East Manchester)

  8 September 2003

  2,823

  0

  0.00

  —

  Scarborough BC

  15 December 2003

  4,632

  5,232

  24.25

  —

  Maidstone BC

  2 February 2004

  6,810

  5,685

  35.82

  —

  Teignbridge

  4 February 2004

  3,647

  3,651

  12.90

  —

  Oldham MBC Fitton Hill

  15 March 2004

  1,285

  0

  0.00

  —

  Cherwell

  29 March 2004

  3,656

  7,397

  42.85

  —

  Bromsgrove

  29 March 2004

  3,096

  5,218

  16.50

  —

  Hartlepool

  29 March 2004

  7,509

  427

  3.20

  —

  Liverpool (Kensington)

  29 March 2004

  289

  0

  0.00

  —

  Worcester

  31 March 2004

  4,714

  1,128

  5.31

  —

  1030W 1031W

  Local authority

  Date of transfer

  Number of dwellings

  Price per dwellings (£)

  Gross transfer price (£ million)

  ERCF grant paid for negative valuation X

  South Norfolk

  17 May 2004

  4,214

  7,499

  31.60

  —

  Copeland BC

  7 June 2004

  3,787

  317

  1.20

  —

  1 Two transfers to separate RSLs.

  Lone Parents (Accommodation)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many lone parents aged 16 and 17 years are resident in local authority accommodation with(a) on-site support, (b) floating support and (c) no specialist support. [177542]

  Keith Hill
  Information obtained from the 2002–03 Housing Investment Programme (HIP) statistical returns shows that on 1 April 2003 the following number of lone teenage parents under 18 were occupying local authority non self-contained accommodation: 201 in accommodation with on site support; 393 in accommodation with floating support. There were 2,869 lone teenage parents in supported accommodation provided by a housing association. The HIP returns for 2002–03 show that 1,242 lettings were made to lone teenage parents under the age of 18 in unsupported accommodation.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will examine whether there is a conflict of interest in the Government's adviser on geographic information being Chief Executive of the Ordnance Survey. [148478]

  Yvette Cooper
  Ordnance Survey is a Government Department. As the National Mapping Agency it has an aim, agreed with Government, to satisfy the national interest and customer need for accurate and readily available geospatial data and maps of the whole of Great Britain in the most effective and efficient way.

  It is entirely appropriate that the Director General and Chief Executive of Ordnance Survey should be adviser to Government on matters of geographic information.

  Proposals for a wider advisory panel as recommended by the Select Committee are currently under consideration.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 28 April,Official Report, column 1141W, on the Advisory Group on Home Buying, how much the minimal cost was which he refers to for financial years (a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [179025]

  Keith Hill
  Meetings of the Home Buying and Selling Advisory Group are hosted by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which take place in one of our buildings and the costs fall within our general administration and staff budget. The Group met once in each of the years 2002–03 and 2003—04. We estimate that the staff costs were approximately £1,000 per meeting. The catering costs were £41.40 per meeting.
  1032W
  Following a reorganisation of the structure for stakeholder involvement in the home buying and selling reform programme, the Advisory Group has now been replaced by two new groups: the Home Buying and Selling Forum which represents all stakeholder interests and; and the Central Stakeholder Group which comprises representatives of the main industry and consumer groups most affected by the reform proposals.

  Planning Decisions
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of planning decisions were delayed by more than eight weeks in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [178530]

  Keith Hill
  For district planning authorities in England, the average percentages of planning decisions determined outside of eight weeks from the date of receipt of application in 2001, 2002 and 2003 were:

  2001: 36 per cent.

  2002: 34 per cent.

  2003: 29 per cent.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reasons the recommendations of the Stewart Report on the Precautionary Approach on the placement of masts near schools have not been carried forward, with particular reference to recommendation 1.42; and if he will make a statement. [172312]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government gave careful consideration to recommendation 1.42 on the beam of greatest intensity. We have sought to address the concerns that the Stewart Group identified in the following ways.

  Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 on Telecommunications recognises that when operators are siting mobile phone base stations schools must be given special consideration. It makes clear that, where it is proposed to install, alter or replace a mobile base station near a school or college, operators should discuss the proposed development with the relevant body of the school or college concerned before submitting an application for planning permission or prior approval to the local authority.

  Department for Education and Skills has issued advice to local education authorities and schools about base stations in and around school premises and the use of mobile phones by children. Where parents and/or schools wish to know whether the beam of intensity falls on school grounds or buildings, the school should contact the base station's operator. The operators have agreed to provide schools with information on the level of intensity of radio frequency radiation. If there is major concern from the school or parents, they could ask the network operator to adjust the antenna.
  1033W
  Another recommendation (1.41) of the Stewart Report was the auditing of emissions from base stations particularly near schools and other sensitive sites. In an ongoing audit, OFCOM (formerly the Radiocommunications Agency) has measured exposures around nearly 300 base stations to date (www.ofcom.org.uk). In all cases exposures have been below, and mostly thousands of times below, the guidelines.

TREASURY

  Overseas Aid
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on the comprehensive spending review with regard to a timetable to reach the 0.7 per cent. of gross national income target for development aid by 2008. [179138]

  John Healey
  We remain committed to reaching the 0.7 per cent. target as demonstrated by our record on aid spending since 1997. This induces the largest ever increase of UK development assistance to nearly £5 billion by 2005–06.

  We will announce in the 2004 Spending Review what we will do up to 2007–08, but at this stage I cannot preempt the final announcement.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on the comprehensive spending review with regard to the timetable to reach the overseas development assistance target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national income by 2008. [179140]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, (Ann McKenchin) earlier today.

  International Finance Facility
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of Exchequer, what progress has been made on the international finance facility. [179139]

  John Healey
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Bristol Eest, (Valerie Davey) earlier today.

  Poor Countries (Debt Relief)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made in persuading the G8 to support his plans for further debt relief for the poorest countries. [179141]

  John Healey
  Further cancellation of debt for the world's poorest countries was an important item of discussion at the recent G8 Summit in Sea Island.

  The UK pressed for, and secured, G8 support for the extension of the HIPC initiative by another two years, potentially allowing another 10 countries to benefit from debt relief in excess of $30 billion.

  Finance Ministers will report back by the end of the year on progress, and on further measures to ensure that the poorest countries have a sustainable exit from debt.

  Consumer Price Index
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of the consumer price index. [179142]

  Ruth Kelly
  Thanks to the macro-economic reforms this Government put in place upon coming to power, the UK economy is enjoying the longest period of sustained low inflation for 49 years.

  CPI inflation stood at 1.5 per cent. in May. The 2004 Budget forecast is for it to rise back to its symmetrical 2 per cent. target by the second half of next year.

  Efficiency Review
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the efficiency review being conducted by Sir Peter Gershon. [179143]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers meet their Ministry of Defence counterparts frequently to discuss a range of issues, including the Efficiency Review. The Ministry of Defence is working closely with Sir Peter Gershon and his team to maximise the benefits of the efficiency review for front-line services.

  House Prices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to moderate the rise in house prices. [179144]

  Ruth Kelly
  In Budget 2003, the Chancellor noted that a reduction in housing market volatility would enhance macro-economic stability. He asked Kate Barker to review housing supply in the UK, and David Miles to review the UK mortgage market.

  At the time of Budget 2004, both reviews presented their final reports. The Government have welcomed their analysis and recommendations for action.

  As recommended in the Barker Review, the Government are implementing a programme of change to the planning system and to the delivery of development, consulting with stakeholders as necessary.

  The Government endorses David Miles' conclusion that urgent reform is desirable to make the UK mortgage market work better for consumers in a number of areas. The FSA has in train reforms in the mortgage market, which will move to statutory regulation on 31 October. The Chancellor has asked the FSA to consider and report on the further reforms proposed by David Miles.

  Fuel Efficiency (Vehicles)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to use the tax system to improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles. [179145]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor considers all relevant environmental, economic and social factors in deciding taxation policy. He will announce any changes to taxation policy in the context of his Budget statement.
  1035W
  The Government already has a good record in using taxation to improve fuel efficiency through, for example, duty differentials in favour of cleaner fuels and graduated vehicle excise duty and the reform of company car taxation which provide incentives for more fuel efficient cars.

  Development Aid
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans to set a timetable to reach the 0.7 per cent. of gross national income target for overseas aid by 2008. [179146]

  John Healey
  I refer to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) earlier today.

  Better Regulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 27 May 2004,Official Report, column 1727W, on Regulation, (1) what assessment he made of the recommendation of the Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation Final Report of 13 November 2001 that simplification does not mean deregulation; and what his assessment is of the adoption of this recommendation in the Better Regulation Action Plan published by the European Commission in June 2002; [178859]

  (2) which section of the European Commission's Better Regulation Action Plan provides for the removal of existing legislation which is in force; and if he will make a statement. [178861]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government is working with its partners, through the joint initiative on regulatory reform, to ensure that the framework of existing European law is subject to thorough review.

  In doing this it is building on the Commission's Better Regulation Action Plan, which was developed in response to the Mandelkern Report as well as the Commission's White Paper on European Governance, and other submissions.

  The simplification workstream of this Action Plan covers a broad range of tools. Its aim is to reduce the costs of regulation while preserving overall policy objectives. This can include removal or revision of existing legislation. The Commission's progress report stated that simplification includes "efforts to simplify the substance of a policy … in such cases it may be necessary to adapt or to entirely rethink the legislative approach,"1

  1 COM (2003) 623 final: First Report on the Implementation of the Framework Action Plan Updating and Simplifying the Community Acquis, p8

  Burmese Imports
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value of imports of(a) marine products, (b) shrimp and prawns and (c) timber from Burma has been in the past five financial years; and which companies import each type of product. [179228]
  1036W
  John Healey
  I refer my hon. friend to the answer I gave her on 5 March 2003,Official Report, column 1104W. The value of imports requested is shown in the table as follows.

  £ million

  Goods

  Financial year

  Value

  Marine products

  1999–2000

  1.787

  (exc shrimps and prawns)1

  2000–01

  3.362

  2001–02

  4.359

  2002–03

  4.082

  2003–04

  3.372

  Shrimps and prawns2

  1999–2000

  2.433

  2000–2001

  3.324

  2001–2002

  3.462

  2002–2003

  4.025

  2003–2004

  1.547

  Timber3

  1999—2000

  2.022

  2000–2001

  3.434

  2001–2002

  3.624

  2002–2003

  1.637

  2003–2004

  1.541

  1 Live fish; fish and fish fillets, molluscs and other aquatic invertebrates fresh, chilled, frozen, smoked, dried, salted or in brine; fish products not fit for human consumption

  2 Fresh, chilled, frozen, boiled, salted, dried or in brine.

  3 Rough, worked, planed, moulded etc, including plywood, fibreboard etc, but excluding made up artless of wood

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics, HMCE

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total value of imports from Burma was in 2003, broken down by import. [179231]

  John Healey
  The total value of imports from Burma in 2003, broken down by commodity is published in the Overseas Trade Statistics and is available on Customs' website www.uktradeinfo.com). It is shown in the table as follows:

  Imports from Burma to the United Kingdom: General Trade: 2003

  Value (£)

  Articles of apparel and clothing accessories

  51,313,636

  Fish, crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic invertebrates and preparations thereof

  5,881,650

  Power generating machinery and equipment

  1,153,475

  Furniture and parts thereof, bedding, mattresses etc.

  1,055,213

  Cork and wood manufactures (excluding furniture)

  998,606

  Cork and wood

  968,649

  Vegetables and fruit

  439,924

  Parcel post

  195,853

  Miscellaneous manufactured articles not elsewhere specified

  109,966

  Textile yarn, fabrics, made up articles etc.

  78,304

  Footwear

  13,983

  Non-metallic mineral manufactures not elsewhere specified

  13,621

  General industrial machinery and equipment and machine parts not elsewhere specified

  7,806

  Other transport equipment

  7,088

  Manufactures of metal not elsewhere specified

  5,793

  Coffee, tea, cocoa, spices and manufactures thereof

  4,227

  Tobacco and tobacco manufactures

  1,482

  Machinery specialized for particular industries

  704

  Elsewhere specified

  625

  Total

  62,250,605

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics, HMCE

  Compensation Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many compensation payments were made to members of the public by his Department and its agencies in each year since 1997–98, broken down by the(a) amount paid and (b) reason for payment. [172895]

  Ruth Kelly
  Compensation payments made to members of the public by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments and agencies are made in a wide variety of circumstances, including:costs following Tribunal/Court rulings and those arising from Adjudicator and Ombudsman reviews;
  property damage;
  compensation paid by HM Customs and Excise, VAT, tax regimes;
  compensation paid to meet out of pocket expenses, inconvenience or hardship caused by officials failure or delay.

  Losses and special payments are required to be published in Departmental Annual Accounts in accordance with the Resource Accounting Manual.

  Developing Countries (Poverty)
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on UK investment in tackling poverty in developing countries. [1791361

  Ruth Kelly
  UK investment in tackling poverty has doubled in real terms since 1997 and will rise to nearly £5 billion by 2005–06—the highest ever level of UK development aid.

  By 2005–06, 90 per cent. of the aid budget will be spent in the world's poorest countries, including a record £1 billion bilateral aid programme in Africa. We are also working closely with do eloping countries to ensure that aid is spent effectively and reaches those in greatest need.

  As I announced in the Budget, we will not cut aid in the new spending round, but will continue to increase the resources that we give to the developing world.

  Employment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of(a) men, (b) women and (c) men and women in total of working age were in employment in each quarter since 1984. [177958]

  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. David Willets, dated 17 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parlimentary Question about employment. (177958)

  The attached table gives the available rates of working age employment by gender for 3 months periods since 1984. These estimates, from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), have been seasonally adjusted Estimates are only available for a single 3 month period of the years 1984 to 1991 inclusive.

  As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.
  1038W

  Working age employment rates1,2 by sex—1984 to 2004, for three month periods as shown

  United Kingdom

  Per cent.

  Three month period (ending in month shown)

  All people of working age

  Males aged 16–64

  Females aged 16–59

  1984—May

  68.8

  77.9

  58.7

  1986—May

  69.6

  78.3

  60.1

  1986—May

  69.7

  77.8

  60.9

  1987—May

  70.4

  78.1

  62.1

  1968—May

  72.7

  80.5

  64.2

  1989—May

  74.5

  82.2

  66.1

  1990—May

  74.9

  82.4

  66.8

  1991—May

  73.2

  799

  66.0

  1992

  May

  71.2

  76.5

  65.4

  August

  70.8

  76.2

  65.1

  November

  70.6

  75.6

  65.2

  1993

  February

  70.3

  75.2

  65.0

  May

  70.3

  75.0

  65.2

  August

  70.3

  75.1

  65.1

  November

  70.4

  75.2

  65.1

  1994

  February

  70.4

  75.4

  65.1

  May

  70.7

  75.6

  65.4

  August

  70.8

  75.8

  65.6

  November

  71.0

  76.1

  65.5

  1995

  February

  71.0

  76.1

  65.6

  May

  71.2

  76.4

  65.8

  August

  71.5

  76.5

  66.1

  November

  71.6

  76.5

  66.3

  1996

  February

  71.8

  76.6

  66.7

  May

  71.8

  76.6

  66.7

  August

  71.9

  76 8

  66.7

  November

  72.2

  77.1

  67.0

  1997

  February

  72.5

  77.5

  67.2

  May

  72.7

  77.7

  67.4

  August

  72.8

  77.9

  67.4

  November

  73.1

  78.2

  67.6

  1998

  February

  73.2

  78.5

  67.6

  May

  73.3

  78.4

  67.9

  August

  73.6

  78.7

  68.2

  November

  73.7

  78.7

  68.5

  1999

  February

  73.9

  78.8

  687

  May

  73.8

  78.7

  68.6

  August

  74.0

  79.0

  688

  November

  74.2

  79.1

  68.9

  2000

  February

  74,2

  791

  69.0

  May

  74.4

  79.4

  69.1

  August

  74.7

  79.4

  69.6

  November

  74.4

  79.2

  69.2

  2001

  February

  74.6

  79.5

  69.5

  May

  74.6

  79.5

  69.4

  August

  74.5

  79.3

  69.3

  November

  74.5

  792

  69.4

  2002

  February

  74.4

  79.1

  69.4

  May

  74.4

  79.0

  696

  August

  74.5

  79.0

  69.7

  November

  74.6

  79.3

  697

  2003

  February

  74.6

  79.2

  69.7

  May

  74.7

  79.3

  69.7

  August

  74.6

  79.3

  69.5

  November

  74.6

  79.1

  69.7

  2004

  February

  74.9

  79.5

  70.1

  1 Working age people in employment as a percentage of the working age population in the relevant gender group.

  2 Seasonally adjusted

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Equitable Life
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about Equitable Life. [17913]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) earlier today in the House.

  EU Unemployment Rates
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the latest Eurostat figures for state unemployment rates among young people in each EU country are. [177970]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 17 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about unemployment amongst young people in the UK and other EU countries. (177970)

  The table overleaf gives the latest Eurostat figures for seasonally adjusted unemployment rates amongst young people, defined as 16–24 year olds for the UK and 15–24 year olds for other countries. UK data are taken from the latest UK Labour Force Survey results published in May 2004. Data for other countries are taken from Eurostat's Unemployment Press Release published on 2 June 2004. In some cases, these figures may appear more up-to-date than the UK figure; however, as the table illustrates, these more recent figures are often based on modelled extrapolation of the data from the most recent Labour Force Surveys in each country, rather than on direst survey measurement.

  Unemployment rates (seasonally adjusted) for young people in the UK and other EU countries1

  Country

  Latest Labour Force Survey reference period supplied to Eurostat—Period ending

  Reference period for extrapolated Eurostat estimates

  Unemployment rate (Percentage)

  Austria

  June 2003

  April 2004

  7.3

  Belgium

  December 2003

  April 2004

  22.0

  Cyprus

  June 2003

  April 2004

  9.6

  Czech Republic

  December 2003

  April 2004

  20.0

  Denmark

  December 2003

  March 2004

  10.5

  Estonia

  December 2003

  April 2004

  20.3

  Finland

  December 2003

  April 2004

  20.6

  France

  December 2003

  April 2004

  20.7

  Germany

  June 2003

  April 2004

  11.1

  Greece

  December 2003

  December 2003

  27.1

  Hungary

  December 2003

  April 2004

  12.8

  Ireland

  December 2003

  April 2004

  8.1

  Italy

  December 2003

  January 2004

  27.1

  Spain

  December 2003

  April 2004

  22.5

  Latvia

  December 2003

  April 2004

  17.3

  Lithuania

  December 2003

  April 2004

  23.8

  Luxembourg

  March 2003

  April 2004

  12.1

  Malta

  December 2003

  April 2004

  21.2

  Netherlands

  December 2003

  March 2004

  9.0

  Poland

  December 2003

  April 2004

  39.6

  Portugal

  December 2003

  April 2004

  15.4

  1040W

  Unemployment rates (seasonally adjusted) for young people in the UK and other EU countries1

  Country

  Latest Labour Force Survey reference period supplied to Eurostat—period ending

  Reference period for extrapolated Eurostat estimates

  Unemployment rate (Percentage)

  Slovak Republic

  December 2003

  April 2004

  29.3

  Slovenia

  December 2003

  April 2004

  15.7

  Sweden

  Decemebr 2003

  April 2004

  16.1

  United Kingdom

  March 20042

  Not applicable

  211.8

  1 As published by Eurostat, 2 June 2004.

  2UK estimate published by Office for National Statistics on 12 May 2004 for the period January to March 2004.

  G8 Summit (Scotland)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to make specific funding available for security arrangements for the G8 summit in Scotland next year. [179204]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is too early to say what the actual costs will be. The Treasury and Scottish Executive will assess and agree what the additional costs are. Extra funds will be made available by the UK Government to help meet the agreed additional policing costs.

  Housing Stock Transfer
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what stamp duty is payable on large-scale voluntary stock transfer of council housing. [179112]

  Ruth Kelly
  Section 71 of Finance Act 2003 exempts such transfers from Stamp Duty Land Tax provided the transfer is to a Registered Social Landlord.

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what life expectancy in the UK was in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) region, (b) sex and (c) social class. [178935]

  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. Mike Hancock, dated 17 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what life expectancy in the UK was in each year since 1997, broken down by (a) region, (b) sex and (c) social class. (178935)

  Figures for life expectancy at birth for the UK and its constituent countries are published annually by the Government Actuary's Department. Figures for life expectancy at birth for English regions are published annually by ONS. Both sets of figures are based on three-year rolling averages and are calculated separately for males and females. The most recent available figures are for 2000–02. Figures covering the years requested are given in the attached tables 1 and 2.

  Figures by social class are derived using the ONS Longitudinal Study. This is a 1 per cent sample of the population and therefore annual comparisons cannot be made reliably. The most recent available figures are for 1997–99 and are provided in the attached table 3.
  1041W

  Table 1: Life expectancy at birth United Kingdom and constituent countries, since the period 1996–98

  Life expectancy in years Three-year rolling averages

  Area

  1996–98

  1997–99

  1998–2000

  1999–01

  2000–02

  Male

  United Kingdom

  74.50

  74.73

  75.00

  75.33

  75.68

  England

  74.76

  74.99

  75.28

  75.62

  75.97

  Wales

  74.24

  74.36

  74.66

  74.92

  75.41

  Scotland

  72.40

  72.64

  72.84

  73.10

  73.31

  Northern Ireland

  74.16

  74.27

  74.48

  74.79

  75.20

  Female

  United Kingdom

  79.56

  79.69

  79.90

  80.13

  80.39

  England

  79.76

  79.89

  80.10

  80.34

  80.60

  Wales

  79.28

  79.36

  79.59

  79.80

  80.08

  Scotland

  78.04

  78.18

  78.35

  78.56

  78.78

  Northern Ireland

  79.49

  79.46

  79.55

  79.75

  80.13

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department (http://www.gad.gov.uk/Life_Tables/Interim_Life_tables.htm)

  Table 2: Life expectancy at birth Government Office Regions in England, since the period 1996–98

  Life expectancy in years Three-year rolling averages

  Area

  1996–98

  1997–99

  1998–2000

  1999–01

  2000–02

  Male

  North East

  73.2

  73.5

  73.8

  74.2

  74.5

  North West

  73.4

  73.5

  73.8

  74.1

  74.5

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  74.2

  74.4

  74.7

  75.1

  75.4

  East Midlands

  74.9

  75.1

  75.3

  75.7

  76.1

  West Midlands

  74.5

  74.6

  74.8

  75.1

  75.4

  East of England

  76.1

  76.3

  76.5

  76.8

  77.0

  London

  74.4

  74.8

  75.0

  75.4

  75.7

  South East

  76.1

  76.3

  76.6

  76.9

  77.2

  South West

  76.0

  76.4

  76.6

  76.9

  77.1

  Female

  North East

  78.4

  78.5

  78.7

  79.0

  79.3

  North West

  78.5

  78.6

  78.9

  79.1

  79.4

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  79.3

  79.5

  79.7

  80.0

  80.2

  East Midlands

  79.8

  79.9

  80.1

  80.3

  80.5

  West Midlands

  79.6

  79.7

  79.8

  80.0

  80.3

  East of England

  80.7

  80.8

  81.0

  81.2

  81.4

  London

  79.9

  80.0

  80.3

  80.5

  80.7

  South East

  80.7

  80.9

  81.1

  81.3

  81.5

  South West

  81.0

  81.1

  81.3

  81.5

  81.7

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vink = 8841)

  Table 3: Life expectancy at birth by social class England and Wales, period 1997–99

  Life expectancy in years Three-year rolling average

  Social class

  Male

  Female

  I

  Professional

  78.5

  82.8

  II

  Managerial and technical/intermediate

  77.5

  81.5

  III N

  Skilled non-manual

  76.2

  81.2

  III M

  Skilled manual

  74.7

  79.2

  IV

  Partly skilled

  72.7

  78.5

  V

  Unskilled

  71.1

  77.1

  Source:

  Donkin A, Goldblatt Pand Lynch K. (2002) Inequalities in life expectancy by social class, 1972–1999. Health Statistics Quarterly 15, 5–15.

  1042W

  Mental Health
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have left employment in his Department because of(a) anxiety, (b) stress, (c) depression and (d) other mental health reasons in each year since 1997. [175678]

  Ruth Kelly
  The number of staff leaving the Treasury on ill-health retirement since 1997 is as follows:

  Number

  1997

  2

  1998

  2

  1999

  1

  2000

  —

  2001

  1

  2002

  —

  2003

  1

  2004

  None to date

  None of these ill-health retirements was specifically related to anxiety, stress, depression or other mental health reasons.

  National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to launch the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship. [179250]

  John Healey
  The Department for Education and Skills and the Small Business Service are working with the chairman and board to develop the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship. It is expected to be launched by the end of 2004.

  Penalty Notices (Tax Returns)
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cheques were encashed from penalty notices incorrectly issued by the Inland Revenue for filing late tax returns in each of the past five years; and what their total value was in each of those years. [179205]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not hold this information.

  Where a penalty notice has been issued incorrectly we apologise unreservedly and cancel it straight away. There is no question of anyone who sent in their return on time being required to pay a penalty.

  Property Taxation (Indexation)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the linking of stamp duty and inheritance tax thresholds to house price growth indices; and if he will make a statement on homeowners' tax liabilities. [178740]

  Ruth Kelly
  All tax rates and thresholds are kept under review. Current receipts from Stamp Duty Land Tax and Inheritance Tax are provided in Table C8 of the Red Book.

  Redundancies
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many redundancies were notified, broken down by 1044W
  nation and region, in each year since 2002; what these figures represent as a percentage of the total work force, broken down by nation and region; and if he will make a statement. [178013]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Holmes, dated 17 June 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about redundancy. (178013)

  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of redundancies experienced by survey respondents in the three month period before their inclusion in the survey. The attached table gives LFS estimates for the numbers of redundancies in each country and region of the UK in the three month periods ending in February of the years 2002 to 2004.

  The table also shows the rate of redundancies per 1,000 employees in each county and region of the UK for these periods. Redundancies are presented as rates per 1,000 employees rather than as percentages for consistency with published sources.

  The data are not seasonally adjusted. As with any statistical sample survey, estimates for the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  Redundancy levels by region, three months ending February each year from 2002–04

  2002

  2003

  2004

  United Kingdom

  209

  183

  137

  Great Britain

  204

  179

  134

  England

  173

  149

  116

  North East

  11

  1—

  1—

  North West (Inc. Merseyside)

  25

  20

  22

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11

  13

  10

  East Midlands

  14

  13

  11

  West Midlands

  20

  21

  10

  Eastern

  17

  16

  16

  London

  24

  21

  15

  South East

  35

  24

  17

  South West

  15

  11

  1—

  Wales

  11

  13

  1—

  Scotland

  21

  18

  13

  Northern Ireland

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Note:

  Data are not seasonally adjusted.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey.

  Redundancy rates1 by region (redundancies per 1,000 employees in area), three months ending February each year from 2002–04

  2002

  2003

  2004

  United Kingdom

  8.6

  7.5

  5.7

  Great Britain

  8.7

  7.6

  5.7

  England

  8.5

  7.3

  5.7

  North East

  11.8

  2—

  2—

  North West (Inc. Merseyside)

  9.5

  7.3

  8.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5.4

  6.4

  4.9

  East Midlands

  7.6

  7.3

  6.0

  West Midlands

  9.4

  9.5

  4.8

  Eastern

  7.4

  7.0

  6.8

  London

  8.2

  7.3

  5.3

  South East

  10.0

  7.1

  5.1

  South West

  7.5

  5.3

  2—

  Wales

  10.2

  11.7

  2—

  Scotland

  9.8

  8.3

  6.1

  Northern Ireland

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1 The redundancy rate is based on the ratio of the redundancy level for the given quarter to the number of employees in the previous quarter, multiplied by 1,000.
  1045W
  2 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Note:

  Data are not seasonally adjusted.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the statement of 10 December 2003,Official Report, column 1064, on the Pre-Budget Report, how many regulatory impact assessments produced by his Department referring to the 147 regulations for reform or removal have been placed in the Library, including their reference numbers; and what the estimated benefit to business is in each case. [178831]

  Ruth Kelly
  None of the 147 deregulatory measures announced in the Pre-Budget Report were the responsibility of HM Treasury. The Department did not, therefore, produce any of the Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) linked to the 147 regulations for reform or removal which were announced with the Pre-Budget Report in December 2003. Among the regulations to reform there were several measures with direct benefits for business, including the increase to the statutory audit threshold, which freed 69,000 businesses from the obligation to undergo an independent audit. Final RIAs are laid in the House Library, and all published RIAs are also available from departmental websites.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Travel Office
  Dame Marion Roe
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what the arrangements are for the future of the Travel Office; and if he will make a statement. [179743]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The Travel Office contract, managed jointly by the two Houses, has been let for a number of years to American Express. This contract will expire at the end of August. Following a full open competition under EU procurement rules, it has been decided to award the new contract to Carlson Wagonlit Travel (CWT). CWT will offer a wide range of services, including a continuing implant in the Palace of Westminster, access to preferential prices for both air and rail travel, foreign exchange, and an internet self-booking facility for those who wish to book online. It is expected that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations will apply, and the jobs of existing staff in the Travel Office will thus be protected.

TRANSPORT

  "O" Licence
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the minimum number of hours per month is that a CPC-qualified transport manager has to work to qualify for the "O" Licence. [179009]
  1046W
  Dr. Howells
  There are no minimum limits to how much time transport managers should spend on their duties. The requirement is for the individual to have continuous and effective responsibility for the transport operations of a business. It is for the licensing authority, a traffic commissioner, to decide in each case if an applicant for a goods operator's licence satisfies this requirement.

  Bus Subsidy Review
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the timetable is for the(a) completion and (b) publication of the Government's bus subsidy review. [179193]

  Mr. McNulty
  The bus subsidy review is nearing completion and the outcome will be announced later this summer.

  Donaldson Inquiry
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many recommendations from the May 1994 Donaldson Inquiry have been implemented; and which recommendations have yet to be implemented. [178922]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Lord Donaldson made 103 recommendations (some of which are subdivided still further), and the vast majority have been implemented. Additionally, there are a small number of instances where legislative developments in the International Maritime Organization or the European Community have made the recommendation redundant.

  The following recommendations remain outstanding: recommendations 59 (Marine Environmental High Risk Areas) and 64 (ship-to-ship transfer in Lyme Bay), on which a substantial amount of work has been done, but which have not yet been fully implemented; recommendations 58 and 60, which are consequential to recommendation 59; and recommendation 67d, awaiting the development of experience of transponders on merchant ships.

  Irish-registered Vehicles
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the number of Irish-registered vehicles on the roads of the United Kingdom; and how many of these vehicles have up-to-date road tax. [178952]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No figures are available for the number of Republic of Ireland vehicles in use on UK roads. Visiting Irish vehicles are exempt from UK licensing and registration requirements providing they are in this country for less than six months in any 12 and are registered and licensed in Ireland. If at any time a vehicle used here on Irish plates is stopped by the police, the driver is responsible for demonstrating that he/she is entitled to use it in the UK.

  Keepers of Irish registered vehicles who fail to observe these requirements are subject to the same enforcement and prosecution procedures as UK motorists.
  1047W
  DVLA is currently working with the police and local authorities to gather information on all visiting vehicles to clarify the extent of the evasion problem and to introduce effective counter measures.

  London Underground (Crime)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 8 June 2004,Official Report, column 284W, on crime (public transport), how many crimes were committed on each London Underground line in each year since 1998; and how many were (a) assaults, (b) of a sexual nature and (c) robberies, broken down by individual Underground line. [179176]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have advised me that this information is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mobile Phones (Accidents)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) deaths and (b) injuries have been caused in each of the last five years by people using mobile phones while driving. [178447]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: The information requested is not currently available. However, research has shown that using a mobile phone while driving is distracting and drivers are four times more likely to have an accident if they do so.

  ONS Reports (Emissions)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether Ministers or officials have made representations to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) regarding the omission of figures relating to greenhouse gas emissions from air and freight transport from ONS reports; and if he will make a statement. [177231]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers have made no representations to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) regarding the content of their reports. The content of ONS reports is a matter for ONS on which they alone take the final decision after consultation as appropriate. The Department for Transport (DfT) is involved in the quality assurance process for some ONS reports, which involves discussion at official level. The quality assurance process may identify data quality or methodological issues that lead to ONS changing their reports.

  As part of the quality assurance process, DfT officials contacted ONS seeking clarifications on the methodology used to produce the figures on GHG emissions in the Environmental Accounts published on 20 May. Subsequently, the DfT Head of Freight

  Directorate

  Headcount at 16 October 2002

  Headcount at 31 March 2003

  Headcount at 31 March 2004

  Freight

  21

  23

  21

  Operations

  126

  134

  135

  Strategic planning

  36

  40

  84

  Technical

  4

  6

  9

  Finance and commercial

  77

  88

  100

  Deputy Chief Executive

  30

  31

  46

  1048W
  Statistics informed ONS they were unable to reconcile the figures in the Environmental Accounts with DfT data on the road freight industry. In this case, DfT Statisticians were concerned about data quality and methodological issues. ONS agreed that further investigation was required. ONS has publicly made clear that: "The Office for National Statistics (ONS) alone took the decision on the final wording of the news release on the environmental accounts (report, 27 May 2004). There was no improper pressure from the Department for Transport or anywhere else. ONS could not satisfy itself fully on technical concerns over the reconciliation of figures on road freight emissions based on alternative definitions and hence decided that it would not be appropriate to focus upon transport emissions. There was nothing unusual about the process adopted on this occasion and it is completely wrong to suggest that the figures were "withdrawn" or "removed from the … report". The published datasets were not amended in any way and were published on the National Statistics website in their entirety."

  Once the reconciliation work is completed it will be made publicly available.

  Timetables
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require train operating companies and bus companies to consult each other in advance of making changes to timetables. [178753]

  Mr. McNulty
  Provision already exists to promote integration between different local transport modes. Local authorities take into account rail and bus modes when drawing up local transport plans. For rail timetables, the Strategic Rail Authority requires franchise operators to consult with stakeholders during their preparation. Train operators are also required to participate in Integrated Transport Schemes designated in the agreements.

  The arrangements for the provision of bus services differ significantly from those of the franchised rail services. The majority of bus services are provided on a commercial basis by private operators. Decisions by bus operating companies on whether to consult with train operators in advance of making timetable changes are a commercial judgment for the company involved.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff were employed by the Strategic Rail Authority in each year since its creation, broken down by department. [178866]

  Mr. McNulty
  At its inception, in February 2001, the SRA employed 337 people. Records of staff numbers by Directorate have been kept in their present form since October 2002 and the figures are as follows:
  1049W

  Directorate

  Headcount at 16 October 2002

  Headcount at 31 March 2003

  Headcount at 31 March 2004

  Communications

  30

  29

  26

  Chairman's office

  18

  29

  28

  Community Rail Development

  0

  0

  5

  Total

  342

  380

  454

  Oxford-East Anglia Rail Link
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress of the proposed East West railway link between Oxford and East Anglia. [178917]

  Mr. McNulty
  An updated Business Case has now been put forward by the East-West Rail Consortium for the Western End of the East West Rail Link. This proposal involves upgrading and re-opening the line between Oxford and Bedford. Officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are considering the updated business case, particularly in light of the potential impact of the scheme on the delivery of the Sustainable Communities Plan. The Strategic Rail Authority is also considering the Western End business case. Any appraisal will need to be considered against other priorities, the outcome of the current rail review and the Government's spending review.

  Ship-to-ship Transfers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department first started reviewing draft proposals concerning the regulation of ship-to-ship transfer activities within UK waters; and when his Department expects to complete the review. [178921]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Draft legislation and guidelines to control ship-to-ship transfer operations within UK waters were developed in 1998. Since that time, owners and operators of ships carrying out ship-to-ship transfer operations in UK waters have adhered to guidelines based on the draft legislation.

  With the increased traffic in heavy fuel oil coming out of the Baltic area, we are reconsidering this draft legislation. I anticipate that revised draft legislation will go out to consultation in the autumn.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Attainment Gap
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to decrease the gap in attainment between children from higher and lower socio-economic groups. [177941]

  Mr. Miliband
  All our education policies are based on the conviction that every child should be able to achieve at the highest level of their potential, irrespective of background. Our national key stage strategies have an essential role to play in narrowing the attainment gap by raising expectations of all our children.

  But we also have targeted programmes aimed at narrowing the gap. We are investing heavily in our Sure Start programmes, with additional funding of
  1050W
  £669 million by 2007–08 compared with 2004–05, because we know that the early years of a child's life are crucial in determining the outcomes for children when they grow up.

  The Excellence in Cities programme which now includes Leadership Incentive Grant (LIG) and Behaviour Improvement Plans (BIP) is making a real difference—as are measures to tackle underperformance which provide support and challenge to schools and authorities falling below floor targets. In terms of five good GCSEs, schools in EiC whole authority areas improved at more than twice the average of non-EiC schools. And after the first year of the BIP (2002–03), unauthorised absence across secondary schools in the programme in the initial 34 LEAs dropped from 3.03 per cent. to 2.94 per cent. In primary schools the corresponding figures were a drop in unauthorised absence from 1.29 per cent. to 1.17 per cent. Fixed term exclusions dropped by 11 per cent. in secondary schools.

  The number of schools below the Government's floor targets for attainment at Key Stage 4 has dropped sharply: in 2000, the number of schools below 20 per cent. was 241—that figure had dropped to 114 in 2003.

  Child Care
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what definition the Government use of a child care place; and if he will make a statement. [175695]

  Margaret Hodge
  Child care places are defined to include: places for pre-school children in day nurseries or with child minders which last four hours or longer per days1; places for children receiving nursery education which, combined with the nursery education, last at least four hours per day2; and places for statutory school age children aged up to 14 (16 for those with special educational needs or disabilities) in breakfast or after school clubs or with child minders for any length of time, or in holiday play schemes of four hours or longer per day. In addition, the Government also provide a guarantee of a free nursery education place for every three and four-year-old whose parents want one. A nursery education place consists of a minimum of five two and half hour sessions per week for 33 weeks of the year.

  The number of child care places created between April 1997 and March 2004 is 1,006,000 helping some 1,812,000 children. This shows an increase in the stock of child care places, taking into account turnover, of 541,000 helping some 991,000 children.

  1 Where places are provided for pre-school children as part of the Children's Centre or Neighbourhood Nurseries programme, the provision must have the capacity to deliver a minimum of 10 hours care per day.
  1051W
  2 Prior to April 2004 the definition of a child care place for pre-school children included any place lasting at least three and a half hours per day.

  Children's Homes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what quality standards have to be met for privately-run children's homes to operate and to accommodate children placed by local authorities. [178493]

  Margaret Hodge
  All children's homes are statutorily required to comply with the Children's Homes Regulations 2001 and are expected to meet the Children's Homes National Minimum Standards. The standards are intended to be qualitative in that they provide a tool for judging the quality of life experienced by children cared for in a home, but they are also designed to be measurable. The Commission for Social Care Inspection is responsible for the registration and inspection of children's homes against these standards and encourages improvement in the quality of the care provided.

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what work his Department has undertaken on the potential for domestic violence work to be done via the new children's centres. [178993]

  Margaret Hodge
  Children's centres have the flexibility to develop family support services according to local need. Many Sure Start local programmes already operate a range of initiatives related to tackling domestic violence, and we will look to build on this good practice as the children's centre network expands.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skill (1) what assessment he has made of the availability of materials to educate children and young people about domestic violence; how many schools had access to such material in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003; and how many now have access to such material; [178819]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary with regard to including information about domestic violence in the personal health and social education curriculum. [178822]

  Margaret Hodge
  Within Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) and Citizenship there is already scope to discuss domestic violence, including how families deal with it and where to go for help. Individual schools and teachers decide on the materials they use in the delivery of PSHE. The Department does not assess the availability of materials.

  Last year the DfES supported the production of a resource pack for schools called "Watch Over Me" which deals with a range of personal safety issues including a domestic violence scenario. The resource was sent to all secondary schools and pupil referral units. A teaching pack called "Does Sex Make a Difference?" which includes a module on domestic violence, is available to all schools through the teachernet website.
  1052W
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what work the Minister for Children has undertaken to ensure that information sharing systems provide adequate protection for children whose mothers have experienced domestic violence and moved away from a violent partner. [178820]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information-sharing databases that we propose to establish and operate under clause 8 of the Children Bill will have stringent security arrangements to ensure that only appropriate practitioners are able to access a child's record. Audit trails will enable those managing the databases to identify attempts to gain inappropriate access. Regulations will be made in due course governing the disclosure of information from the databases. Detailed guidance will be produced for practitioners and those managing the databases, to ensure that information on the databases is handled properly and consistently. This guidance will draw on the experience of the Trailblazer pilots currently and way.

  We will als examine with these pilots what is the best way to handle the details of children whose mothers have experienced domestic violence and have moved away from a violent partner. A number of pilots have the facility for certain details, such as address, to be blocked out where that is considered necessary to provide reassurance. Subject to the passage of the Children Bill, the proposed regulations and guidance for wider roll-out of information-sharing databases will include any specific arrangements we conclude are necessary for the records of children in such circumstances.

  Education Bodies (Staffing)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the full-time equivalent headcount of the(a) Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, (b) Learning and Teaching Support Network and (c) Higher Education Academy was in each year since 1997; and how much funding was allocated to each body in each year. [178206]

  Alan Johnson
  The available staffing and funding figures for the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILTHE) and Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) are given in the table. The bulk of LTSN funding is spread over 24 subject centres for setting up, supporting and developing learning and teaching networks and promoting and sharing good practice through projects and events. The HE Academy is currently being set up and both the LTSN and ILTHE have recently joined the academy. It advises that it currently has 60 stall (including those from the ILTHE and LTSN). HEFCE have allocated a budget of £1.9 million for the academy until the end of the 2003/04 academic year.
  1053W

  Academic year

  HEFCE funding (£ million)

  Staffing

  ILTHE

  LTSN

  ILTHE

  LTSN

  1998/99

  11.19

  —

  —

  —

  1999/2000

  1

  5

  14

  1 (plus 1 secondee)

  2000/01

  2—

  6

  23

  15

  2001/02

  2—

  6

  25

  18

  2002/03

  2—

  6.5

  28

  23

  2003/04

  2—

  6.5

  30

  22

  1 Initial start up costs—no staff in post.

  2 From 2000/01—no HEFCE funding. ILTHE sustained through membership fees.

  Education Costs (London)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost of educating a child to age 16 was in each London borough in the most recent period for which figures are available. [169998]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is available for the 2003—04 financial year and is contained within the following table:

  Funding per pupil to age 16

  LEA name

  £

  Camden

  70,900

  Greenwich

  64,600

  Hackney

  75,500

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  70,000

  Islington

  71,600

  Kensington and Chelsea

  73,500

  Lambeth

  73,600

  Lewisham

  67,900

  Southwark

  69,000

  Tower Hamlets

  75,100

  Wandsworth

  63,800

  Westminster

  68,600

  Barking and Dagenham

  54,300

  Barnet

  51,200

  Bexley

  47,300

  Brent

  60,000

  Bromley

  47,300

  Net current expenditure

  Pre-primary education

  Primary education

  Pre-primary and primary

  Secondary education

  £ Special

  1996–97

  —

  n/a

  1,880

  2,640

  19,520

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  1,890

  2,630

  20,190

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  2,010

  2,690

  19,950

  1999–2000

  4,690

  2,170

  2,180

  2,780

  23,920

  2000–01

  16,780

  2,330

  2,410

  3,010

  26,120

  2001–02

  30,560

  2,570

  2,740

  3,430

  27,410

  2002–03

  2,840

  —

  3,640

  —

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Sefton LEAs' Section 52 outturn statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement previously. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the Section 52 outturn statement in 1999–2000. Hence, for consistency, the combined unit cost is provided since 1996–97 but due to LEA expenditure on pupils in independent nurseries the unit cost for primary education is a more robust measure.

  2. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly, comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  3. Spending in 1997–98 reflects the transfer of monies from local government to central Government for the nursery vouchers scheme. These were returned to local government from 1998–99.

  4. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.
  1054W

  Funding per pupil to age 16

  LEA name

  £

  Croydon

  51,900

  Ealing

  57,300

  Enfield

  53,500

  Haringey

  64,100

  Harrow

  51,700

  Havering

  47,100

  Hillingdon

  50,000

  Hounslow

  55,500

  Kingston upon Thames

  47,600

  Merton

  51,700

  Newham

  61,500

  Redbridge

  49,300

  Richmond upon Thames

  47,400

  Sutton

  48,000

  Waltham Forest

  57,700

  Notes:

  1. Funding includes education formula spending plus all revenue grants in DfES departmental expenditure limits relevant to pupils aged 3–15. EMAs and grants not allocated at LEA level are excluded.

  2. The pupil numbers used are those underlying the EFS settlement calculations.

  3. Figures are provisional as some grants in 2003–04 have not yet been finalised/audited.

  4. Figures are rounded to the nearest £100.

  5. Figures are based on eight years of funding for pupils ages three to 10 and five years of funding for pupils ages 11–15.

  6. Calculations are based on an LEA's total funding per pupil in 2003–04 multiplied by the average number of years in school.

  Education Funding
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent per pupil in Crosby in each of the last seven years. [177864]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than districts within an area. Crosby is a district of Sefton LEA. The information for Sefton LEA is as follows:
  1055W
  5. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  6. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.

  7. The NCE per pupil figures for special schools relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained special schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained special schools sector.

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

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent in Crosby from the(a) Connexions Programme, (b) the Positive Activities for Young People Programme, (c) Millennium Volunteers Programme, (d) Transforming Youth Work Development Fund, (e) Community Champions Fund and (f) Pathfinder Young Community Champions Fund. [177893]

  Initiative/funding steam

  Local accountable body (i.e. area covered)

  Amount paid (£)

  Initiative start date

  (a) Connexions Service

  Greater Merseyside Connexions Partnership

  43,286,000

  2001

  Greater Merseyside Connexions Partnership

  (b) Positive Activities for Young People

  (but note that figure relates to Crosby area)

  69,000

  2003

  (c) Millennium Volunteers

  Various (figure relates to Sefton area)

  369,000

  2000

  (d) Transforming Youth Work Development Fund

  Sefton Council

  176,000

  2002

  (e) Community Champions Fund

  Various (figure relates to Sefton area)

  19,000

  2001

  (f) Pathfinder Young Community Champions Fund

  (see note 2 below)

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. The amounts shown relate to the period from the start of each initiative until the end of the 2003–04 financial year (and are rounded to the nearest £000).

  2. PYCCF is delivered in Community Cohesion Pathfinder Areas. In the North West these include Bury, Rochdale and East Lancashire but not Sefton/Crosby.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent per pupil in(a) Kent and (b) Liverpool in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2003. [166957]

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

  Net current expenditure per pupil

  Primary

  Pre-primary and primary

  £ Secondary

  Kent LEA

  1997–98

  n/a

  1,890

  2,900

  2002–03

  2,790

  —

  3,620

  Liverpool LEA

  1997–98

  n/a

  1,880

  2,640

  2002–03

  3.250

  —

  4,150

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Kent and Liverpool's Section 52 Outturn Statements submitted to the DfES; the 1997–98 financial data is taken from the ODPM's RO1 statement. The 1997–98 figures are Kent LEA prior to local government reorganisation. From 1998–99 onwards parts of Kent LEA became Rochetter and Gillingham LEAs. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA.

  2. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the Section 52 Outturn Statement in 1999–2000.
  1056W
  Margaret Hodge
  Most of this funding is directed through local accountable bodies that cover a wider geographical area than Crosby. In each case, that body has the freedom to use its funding flexibly, within a broad overall framework, to meet local priorities. Each of the respective local bodies may have used some of its funding in the Crosby area but, in most cases, it is not possible to identify expenditure at that level of detail. The table shows how much funding has been paid by the DfES to each of the relevant local bodies for the initiatives concerned.

  3. The outturn 2002–03 captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers.

  4. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEAs.

  5. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  6. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.

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

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent per pupil in Stoke-on-Trent North in each of the last seven years. [177643]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than constituency level and as such the figures provided are for Stoke-on-Trent LEA.
  1057W

  Net current expenditure

  £

  Pre-primary education

  Primary education

  Pre-primary and primary

  Secondary education

  Special

  1996–97

  n/a

  n/a

  1,660

  2,290

  9,630

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  1,790

  2,540

  11,240

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  2,040

  2,580

  14,560

  1999–2000

  4,610

  2,180

  2,240

  2,880

  14,130

  2000–01

  5,570

  2,330

  2,400

  3,170

  14,690

  2001–02

  8,070

  2,650

  2,760

  3,440

  15,840

  2002–03

  —

  2,710

  —

  3,430

  —

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from local education authorities l Section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement previously. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA. Prior to local government reorganisation (LGR) in 1997–98 Stoke-on-Trent LEA was part of Staffordshire LEA. Consequently figures for 1996–97 are for pre-LGR Staffordshire LEA and figures for 1997–98 onwards are for Stoke-on-Trent LEA.

  2. Spending in 1997–98 reflects the transfer of moneys from local government to central government for the nursery vouchers scheme. These were returned to local government from 1998–99. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  3. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the Section 52 outturn statement in 1999–2000.

  4. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting frame work and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers.

  5. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.

  6. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  7. The NCE per pupil figures for second try relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.

  8. The NCE per pupil figures for special schools relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained special schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained special schools sector.

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

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent per pupil in 2003–04 for each school in the London borough of Wandsworth. [179041]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not yet available. The Department is due to collect the data relating to the 2003–04 financial year in October 2004.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the change in the average amount spent(a) per primary school pupil and (b) per secondary school pupil has been in Warrington, North since 1997. [174658]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than districts within an area. Warrington, North is a district of Warrington local education authority. The information for Warrington LEA is as follows:

  Net current expenditure

  £

  Primary education

  Pre-primary and primary education

  Secondary education

  1997–98

  n/a

  2,080

  2,900

  1998–99

  n/a

  2,130

  2,760

  1999–2000

  2,210

  2,240

  2,870

  2000–01

  2,390

  2,480

  3,070

  2001–02

  2,580

  2,720

  3,240

  2002–03

  2,690

  2,840

  3,500

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from local education authorities' Section 52 Outturn Statements submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement previously.
  1058W
  2. Spending in 1997–98 reflects the transfer of moneys from local government to central government for the nursery vouchers scheme. These were returned to local government in 1998–99. Prior to local government reorganisation (LGR) in 1998–99 Warrington LEA was included as part of Cheshire LEA and consequently the 1997–98 figures are for Cheshire LEA (pre-LGR). 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of Section 52 in 1999–2000.

  3. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA.

  4. Real terms figures used are adjusted to 2002–03 prices using the March 2004 GDP deflators.

  5. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.

  6. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  7. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.

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

  Educational Psychologists
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment his Department
  1059W
  has made of future (a) demand and (b) supply of educational psychologists across local education authorities; and if he will make a statement; [176060]

  (2) how many qualified educational psychologists were employed by local education authorities in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [176061]

  Margaret Hodge
  Decisions on the recruitment, retention and deployment of educational psychologists (EPs) are matters for local authorities as employers to determine in light of local circumstances and available resources.

  We are aware that there are shortages of EPs in some areas and that, as with other professions, there is a likelihood of a good many experienced staff retiring in the near future. In view of this, the Department has facilitated discussions involving a range of partners, including representatives of the Local Government Association, on developing a new shorter entry training route for EPs. The scheme under discussion would ensure EPs qualifying in six rather than eight years. Years 1–3 would be the Psychology degree course followed by a further three years of postgraduate training built around work placements. Years 4–6 would be managed by higher education institutions in partnership with local authorities.

  The new route would require significant additional funding, the case for which will need to be considered within the wider context of the 2004 Spending Review. Ministers are currently considering the final allocation of the SR settlement in the light of our overall priorities.

  As regards the number of EPs employed by local authorities, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 4 May 2004, Official Report, column 1420W.

  Excellence in Cities (Leyton)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how Leyton schools have benefited from the Excellence in Cities initiative. [178193]

  Mr. Miliband
  Waltham Forest has been part of the Excellence in Cities programme since it was launched in 1999 and the following Leyton Schools have benefited from EiC funding: Barclay Infant School, Barclay Junior School, Belmont Park School, Church Mead Junior School, Dawlish Primary School, George Mitchell School, Newport Infant School, Newport Junior School, Norlington School for Boys, The Beaumont School and The Lammas School.

  EiC in Waltham Forest has given Leyton schools access to enhanced opportunities for their gifted and talented pupils, learning mentors for those with barriers to learning, and Learning Support Units to tackle disruption. The programme also provides City Learning Centres and EiC Action Zones as well as leading on to Aim Higher and incorporating the Behaviour Improvement programme and Leadership Incentive Grant.

  The following table shows the number of children in Leyton benefiting from EiC, and the annual spend per pupil for the years that Leyton schools have been part of EiC.
  1060W

  Number of children

  Total EiC expenditure (£)1

  Spend per pupil (£)

  1999–2000

  1,196

  58,854

  49.21

  2000–01

  3,865

  2229,446

  59.37

  2001–02

  4,017

  420,027

  104.56

  2002–03

  4,150

  460,277

  110.91

  2003–04

  4,338

  905,957

  208.84

  1 All funding figures supplied by Waltham Forest Excellence in Cities Team.

  2 Estimated.

  Note:

  The increase in the rate of EiC funding and the number of pupils benefiting in 2000–01 was due to the Leyton primary schools becoming part of the EiC Primary Extension Pilot. The increase in funding in 2003–04 was due to the introduction of the Leadership Incentive Grant and the Behaviour Improvement Programme.

  Implementation Review Unit
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many members of staff are employed by the Implementation Review Unit, broken down by(a) civil servants including grade, (b) advisers and (c) salary. [177003]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: Three civil servants employed by DfES work for the secretariat to the Implementation Review Unit as part of their role. A Grade 7 works 0.5 of the full-time equivalent for the Unit's secretariat, and a Higher Executive Officer and Higher Executive Officer (Developmental) both work 0.8 of the full-time equivalent.

  Two advisers work for the Implementation Review Unit; an LEA adviser for 50 days per year, and an education adviser for 20 days per year.

  Salary ranges for London DfES staff are as follows:

  Grade 7: £41,114 to £51,574

  HEO(D): £24,881 to £35,814

  HEO: £24,881 to £29,615

  The salary range for the LEA adviser is £42,777 to £47,058 pro rata. The salary range for the education adviser is £53,586 to £75,147 pro rata.

  Muslim Schools
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his policy to encourage the setting up of single-sex Muslim schools. [178253]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government's overriding aim is to raise standards. As part of this we welcome faith schools in the maintained sector, to meet clear demand from parents. Decisions about whether or not new schools should open are made at a local level by the School Organisation Committee for the area or by the Schools Adjudicator if the Committee cannot reach a unanimous decision.

  Nursery Day Care (Wandsworth)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many nursery day care places there are in the London borough of Wandsworth; and what contribution towards the cost of these places is paid by(a) central Government and (b) local authorities. [179050]
  1061W
  Margaret Hodge
  There were 3,520 registered full day care places in Wandsworth at March 2004. The total expenditure and breakdown of local authority subsidy on day care in Wandsworth is not held centrally.

  All three and four-year-olds are entitled to a free part-time early education place, of 2.5 hours per day, 33 weeks of the year, which may be offset against the cost of full day care. From April 2003, funding to support the delivery of that entitlement was consolidated within the under fives sub-block of each LA's Education Formula Spending Share (EFSS)—the main source of education funding. The under fives sub-block for Wandsworth is £18.5 million for 2004–05.

  Wandsworth have been allocated Sure Start General Grant Funding of almost £3 million for 2004–06, which includes a target to create 1,138 child care places, including full day care and wrap around care to early education places. A ring-fenced element within the Grant can be used to support and sustain existing good quality child care.

  The Government are also supporting the creation of full day care in Wandsworth through Neighbourhood Nursery funding. Wandsworth has been developing seven nursery projects to deliver 140 places. 35 of these places are already open across four existing nurseries and revenue grant of £189,000 is available over the next three years to support them. We have made available £343,000 of capital funding to help with the building works.

  Child care fees payable by parents are also subsidised by central Government through the tax credit system. This amounts in total to approximately £700 million per year, although it is not possible to provide a figure for the amount claimed in Wandsworth.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 26 May 2004,Official Report, column 1690W, on test and examination costs, if he will make a statement on the initial costs of (a) AS, (b) A-level and (c) A2 examinations for all schools for 2002–03. [179101]

  Mr. Miliband
  Through the examinations modernisation programme, which was referred to in the answer to the previous question, we are continuing to analyse the costs incurred by colleges and school on general examinations, and to look at ways of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of school and college exam office administration.

  PFI Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much capital funding was made available through private finance initiative projects for(a) primary school and (b) secondary school buildings in Stoke-on-Trent North in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [177628]

  Mr. Miliband
  There is a private finance initiative project in Stoke-on-Trent which provides energy, energy management and repair and maintenance work to all 122 maintained schools in the Local Education Authority. The contract was signed in November 2000 with Transform Schools (Stoke) and was supported by 1062W
  £93 million PFI credits. Of the £93 million PFI credits, £13.4 million were made available for the primary school buildings and £7.7 million for the secondary school buildings in the Stoke-on-Trent North constituency.

  Probationary Teachers
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what monitoring he has carried out of the support for probationary teachers; and what evidence he has collated on the effect probationary teacher support has on teacher retention. [178808]

  Mr. Miliband
  An independent report from the Institute of Education, "Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Statutory Arrangements for the Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers", in May 2002 found that the quality of provision for newly qualified teachers has improved since the introduction of induction.

  Research by the General Teaching Council for England has shown that teachers who are exposed to any sort of professional development opportunities are more likely to be in teaching in five years time compared with those who have not had such opportunities.

  Qualifications
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people of working age in(a) Merseyside and (b) the UK had no qualifications in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [177914]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The table shows the proportion and number of working age1 people with no qualifications in (a) Merseyside and (b) the United Kingdom. Data comes from the winter quarter of the Labour Force Survey (LFS) in 2003–04.

  No qualifications

  Percentage

  Number

  Qualification level

  Merseyside

  23.3

  194,000

  United Kingdom

  14.4

  5,223,000

  Reducing the number of people with no qualifications is a major priority for the Government. The Skills Strategy announced a number of measures to address this issue. In particular, we are introducing a new entitlement to free learning for all those studying for those first Level 2 qualifications as a foundation for employability. We have also said that we will introduce a new adult learning grant of up to £30 a week for full-time learners studying for their first Level 2 qualification. We want to improve the quality of information, advice and guidance to help people choose the right course for them. Basic skills needs for those without qualifications are being addressed through the Government's Skills for Life strategy. We have also asked regional development agencies to work with the Learning and Skills Council, the Small Business Service, Jobcentre Plus, Skills for Business and others to ensure that the aims of Skills Strategy are delivered in a more co-ordinated way that connects with the needs of employers and individuals at the regional, local and sectoral level through the creation of strong and effective Regional Skills Partnerships.

  1 Working age population refers to males aged 16–64 and females aged 16–59.

  Schools (Use Outside School Hours)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of(a) primary and (b) secondary school buildings are used outside of school hours, broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [179100]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not currently hold the data requested and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) of 27 May 2004,Official Report, column 1699, if he will list the successful schools that have expanded; and whether these schools were in areas with surplus places. [177876]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The local School Organisation Committee has approved proposals for the expansion of the following successful and popular schools, and the necessary capital support has been agreed by the DfES.

  Fairfield High School, Bristol

  Maiden Erlegh School, Wokingham

  Bury Church of England High School, Bury

  Parrenthorn High School, Bury

  The percentage of secondary surplus places in Bristol is 11 per cent., in Wokingham it is 3 per cent., and in Bury it is 2 per cent.

  DfES is working with a number of further schools that wish to expand.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many sector skills councils are(a) operational and (b) planned for the next three years. [177376]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are making good progress in setting up sector skills councils (SSCs). To date there are 16 licensed SSCs. Plans are well advanced for the development of proposals for a further eight SSCs and, in addition, the SSDA continues to work with a number of other sectors. We currently anticipate that there will be around 23 SSCs in place by the end of the year covering the majority of the work force. Any further additions to the network will depend on employers coming forward with appropriate proposals.

  Sure Start
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action his Department is taking to support disadvantaged children who do not live in wards targeted by the Sure Start programme. [177942]

  Margaret Hodge
  The broad Sure Start programme benefits children, parents and communities across the country, delivering free early education for all three and four-year-olds, improving the quality and affordability of child care, and creating at least 250,000 new child care places by 2006. Sure Start children's centres are initially being established in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged 1064W
  wards in England. We recognise however that disadvantage exists outside of these wards, and the Sure Start Unit is considering proposals from local authorities to locate centres in such areas. The Government's long-term aim is to develop a children's centre in every community.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to assess the effectiveness of Sure Start programmes. [178360]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Sure Start Unit carries out thorough evaluations of all its major programmes. A comprehensive national evaluation of Sure Start Local Programmes began in 2001 and is examining the effectiveness of Sure Start for children, families and communities by tracking a sample of 8,000 children and their families over time. Local Sure Start programmes also undertake their local educations to inform their programmes delivery. An evaluation of the Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative began in 2003 and is assessing how far it is helping to reduce unemployment by providing high quality child care in disadvantaged areas. Further information, including findings to date, is available on the Sure Start website www.surestart/ensuringquality/research

  Teaching Posts (Greater London)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on recruitment and retention of primary and secondary school teachers at schools in the Greater London area. [179039]

  Mr. Miliband
  Recruitment and retention of both primary and secondary teachers across the Greater London area has improved considerably over the last couple of years. The provisional figures for 2004 show an increase of a further 600 FTE teachers across London taking the total to 61,500, compared to the figure in 1997 of 56,800. The full-time vacancy rates across all the maintained sectors—nursery, primary, secondary and special schools have dropped each year from 3.5 per cent. in 2001 to a provisional 1.4 per cent. in 2004; leaving a total of 680 vacancies across London as at January this year.

  Training
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skill, what funding has been given for the training of people in Stoke-on-Trent, North constituency since 1997; under what projects; and if he will make a statement. [177631]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department allocates funds for education and training in the post-16 learning and skills sector to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The LSC then decides the funding allocations at local level to learning providers. Information about these allocated is not collected by the Department. This is an operational matter and the responsibility of the LSC. Mark Haysom, the LSC's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library. Some information will only be available from 2001 when the LSC assumed responsibility for funding some programmes from Training and Enterprise
  1065W
  Councils and the Department. Information for these programmes prior to 2001 is not available at parliamentary constituency level.

  Truancy
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what targets his Department has set in relation to reducing truancy in each year up to 2006; and what levels of funding will be made available in each year. [177886]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: Promoting regular school attendance and reducing levels of absence are key components of the Government's strategy to raise educational standards. The current national Public Service Agreement (PSA) target is to reduce the 2002 level of unauthorised absence by 10 per cent. in this school year; and to sustain the new lower level and improve overall attendance levels thereafter.

  To help achieve the current PSA target, the Department set the 56 LEAs facing some of the greatest challenges individual stretching targets to reduce unauthorised absence in 2003/04. these LEAs received extra resources to assist in improving support to schools and pupils with poor attendance and in devising better strategic approaches to attendance management.

  In all, the National Behaviour and Attendance Strategy is investing around £120 million in 2004–05 and £155 million in 2005–06 on measures to reduce exclusions or provide education for excluded pupils, to support vulnerable and disaffected pupils back into the classroom, to improve behaviour and to tackle truancy and improve school attendance. As many of the measures schools and LEAs implement will improve both pupils' behaviour and their attendance—and action in respect of one will often have an impact on the other—it is not possible to identify separately the level of expenditure allocated to tackling truancy alone.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken as a result of his meeting with Lockerbie relatives on 24 May; and what next steps he proposes to take. [179210]

  The Prime Minister
  We are taking forward issues raised by the representatives of the Lockerbie families at the meeting on 24 May. The families will be informed of the outcome.

DEFENCE

  Airfield Support Services Project
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what opportunities have been given, and what further opportunities are planned, to allow bidders for the Airfield Support Services Project to explain their proposals to relevant trade union officials and to respond to any concerns raised. [178930]
  1066W
  Mr. Ingram
  The opportunity for trade union involvement with the Airfield Support Services Project has been continuous throughout the project and remains ongoing. Each bidding consortia formally briefed the trade union side during September 2002 and it is believed that at least one consortium subsequently arranged additional meetings. There is no restriction on the bidding consortia in this regard and they are free to engage with the trade unions if requested or if they see fit to do so.

  Army Medal Office
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff have been employed at the Army Medal Office to assist in the issuing of the Iraq medal since the beginning of the year; and how many are on(a) casual and (b) fixed-term contracts. [178995]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Army Medal Office established a section to deal specifically with the Iraq medal on 4 May 2004. The section comprises eight staff, including four on casual contracts and one on a fixed-term appointment.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications for the Suez Canal Zone(a) medal and (b) clasp have been (i) received and (ii) processed by the Army Medal Office in Droitwich Spa. [179020]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 11 June 2004, the Army Medal Office has received over 28,500 applications for the Suez Canal Zone medal or clasp. Information that would distinguish applications for the medal and the clasp is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Of the 6,650 applications that have been processed, 5,315 medals and 418 clasps have been issued.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he first became aware of a letter from the then director of the Serious Fraud Office written on 8 March 2001 to Sir Kevin Tebbit, the Permanent Secretary of his Department, regarding allegations of fraud involving BAE Systems. [176076]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on 25 May 2004,Official Report, column 1613W.

  Baha Musa
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the investigation into the death of Baha Musa. [177578]

  Mr. Ingram
  The investigation into the death of Baha Musa has been completed and the case is currently under consideration by Army Legal Services. It is therefore not appropriate for me to give any further details at this stage.

  Detainee Interviewing Training
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any members of the British armed forces have(a) received training and (b) been involved in providing

  1067W
  training at the United States army training school at Fort Benning in Georgia for the interviewing of detainees. [174014]

  Mr. Ingram
  No members of the British armed forces have received training, or been involved in providing training, at Fort Benning for the interviewing of detainees.

  Detainees (Hooding)
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the issue of the hooding of detainees was raised by officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross during meetings with British Army officers in 2003. [174281]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 25 May 2004]: Details of discussions between the armed forces and the International Committee of the Red Cross are confidential, but the issue was discussed.

  Iraq
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he first made representations to his US counterpart regarding the International Committee of the Red Cross report on maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US forces in Iraq. [174592]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) on 26 May 2004, Official Report, column 163SW.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department provided the classified examples on targets chosen in the war to which reference is made at paragraph 30 of the Government's response to the Defence Committee report on Lessons of Iraq, HC635. [178745]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence wrote to the Committee on 14 July 2003.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 8 June 2004,Official Report, columns 4–5WS, on Iraq, what the average time between an allegation by an Iraqi civilian of (a) ill-treatment, (b) injury and (c) death as a result of British military action and the opening of investigations into the allegations has been. [179018]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Military Police have a standard target of initiating an investigation within 24 hours of notification of an incident or allegation and this target has been met in all 75 cases investigated in Iraq which I referred to in my statement on 8 June 2004,Official Report, column 4–5WS.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 17 May 2004,Official Report, column 663W, on Iraq, on what date in March 2003 Mr. Zaher died. [179027]

  Mr. Ingram
  Mr. Zaher Sabti Zaher died on 24 March 2003.
  1068W
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) the names of the individuals and (b) the (i) date and (ii) nature of the incident concerned is in each of the 75 cases of civilian deaths that are subject to investigation in Iraq. [179052]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: Of the 75 investigations of incidents involving civilians, 37 relate to deaths. The names of the deceased individuals (where known), together with the date and nature of the incident, are shown in the following table:

  Date of incident

  Name

  Nature of incident

  24 March 2003

  Zaher Sabti Zaher

  Operations

  12 April 2003

  Kuwaiti national—further details unknown

  RTA

  12 April 2003

  Manik S. Mahmud

  Detainee

  29 April 2003

  Ather Khalaf Mohammed

  Operations

  3 May 2003

  Ali Salaam

  Operations

  7 May 2003

  Dyab Rehman Nasser

  RTA

  8 May 2003

  Radhi, Nama

  Detainee

  11 May 2003

  Nadhem Abdullah

  Operations

  17 May 2003

  Abdul Al Jubba Mousa Ali

  Detainee

  18 May 2003

  Hamza Abdul Hussein Al Askary

  RTA

  18 May 2003

  Ahmed Jabber Kareem

  Detainee

  24 May 2003

  Said Shabram

  Detainee

  26 May 2003

  Wael Jaber Raheem

  Operations

  15 June 2003

  Jassim Yassim Jabbar Al Shimillwy

  RTA

  2 August 2003

  Hassan Abbad Saied

  Operations

  7 August 2003

  A. J. Khalif

  Detainee

  21 August 2003

  Hanan S. Matrud

  Operations

  24 August 2003

  W. F. Muzban

  Operations

  15 September 2003

  Baha Daoud Salim Musa

  Detainee

  27 December 2003

  N. S. Khoulief

  Operations

  1 January 2004

  G. G. H. D. Roomi

  Operations

  2 February 2004

  S. A. Maltouf

  Operations

  3 February 2004

  S. Kazim

  RTA

  18 February 2004

  M. D. Habash

  RTA

  5 March 2004

  Unknown

  Operations

  7 March 2004

  S. A. A. Hamdy

  Operations

  27 March 2004

  A. A. A. Abdullah

  RTA

  4 April 2004

  Unknown

  Operations

  6 April 2004

  Unknown

  Operations

  6 April 2004

  Unknown

  Operations

  7 April 2004

  Unknown

  Operations

  12 April 2004

  Unknown

  Operations

  3 May 2004

  Unknown

  Operations

  8 May 2004

  Unknown

  Operations

  8 May 2004

  Unknown

  Operations

  10 May 2004

  Unknown

  Operations

  14 May 2004

  Unknown

  Operations

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the families of Iraqi individuals whose deaths are or have been the subject of Special Investigation Branch inquiries have been given copies of official autopsy reports or equivalent documents. [177580]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the majority of cases under investigation by the Special Investigations Branch into deaths of Iraqi civilians, families have refused to allow autopsies to be conducted on their relatives.

  A United Kingdom pathologist has carried out autopsies on two Iraqi civilians whose deaths are being investigated by the Special Investigation Branch. Once these investigations are complete, and subject to the permission of the pathologist who conducted the autopsy, these reports could be made available to the relatives, if requested.

  Prisons
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which independent observer groups are given permission to visit British-run military and civilian prisons in Iraq; to whom their reports have been made on prison conditions; to what level within his Department such reports are sent; and if he will make a statement. [177247]

  Mr. Ingram
  The International Committee of the Red Cross regularly visit the British-run Divisional Temporary Detention Facility in Iraq. Discussions routinely take place between local ICRC representatives and British military staff to resolve any issues relating to the conditions in which internees are held. The ICRC produce confidential working papers which are passed to the UK General Officer Commanding in Iraq, and are staffed through the chain of command to the permanent joint headquarters and to the MOD head office if appropriate. Ministers are routinely kept abreast of the results of the ICRCs continuing scrutiny of British-run detention facilities in Iraq, and any substantive issues raised by the ICRC are promptly brought to their attention.

  Medals
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the findings were of the review referred to in his Department's press statement of 17 May relating to the award of an Arctic medal. [175437]

  Mr. Caplin
  No press statement was issued on 17 May. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 1 March 2004,Official Report, columns 595–96.

  Sensory Deprivation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what directives are in force in the armed forces on the use of sensory deprivation techniques. [158884]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]: Members of the armed forces may temporarily obscure the vision of apprehended individuals, for reasons of operational security, for example, while they are being transported through militarily sensitive areas. Vision may not be obscured during interrogation. The directive issued by the Chief of Joint Operations to the Commander of British Forces in Iraq covers methods that may be used when obscuring vision, and circumstances in which these methods may be applied.

  No other forms of sensory deprivation are permitted. Joint Warfare Publication 1–10 (Prisoner of War Handling) states that no forms of physical or mental pressure may be used for the purpose of inducing answers to questions, which would preclude the use of 'white noise' or any other sensory deprivation techniques.

  Special Investigation Branch
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the freedom of information rules are governing access to completed reports of the Special Investigation Branch in which no further action is recommended. [158885]
  1070W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 March 2004]: From 1 January 2005 any request for information held by the Ministry of Defence will be considered in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. A number of exemptions might apply to information contained in Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch reports, and requests will therefore need to be given case-by-case consideration.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average length of Special Investigations Branch investigations was in the last five years; and in what proportion of cases action was taken. [158862]

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

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Children Victims of War
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what requests he has received from the organisation, Children Victims of War for a meeting to discuss the current situation in(a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan. [178726]

  Hilary Benn
  I have not received any requests from the organisation Children Victims of War to discuss either Iraq or Afghanistan.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings the British ambassador to UNESCO has attended since 1 January in his official capacity. [178123]

  Hilary Benn
  Our ambassador to UNESCO has attended a large number of meetings so far this year in his official capacity. These include the UNESCO Executive Board biannual session and related preparatory meetings with other board members, the European Union Group, the Commonwealth Group and the Geneva Group; UNESCO-hosted meetings on a wide range of issues falling within the organisation's Education, Science, Culture and Communications portfolio; meetings with DFID and other government Departments on policy towards UNESCO; and, a series of meetings in the UK and Paris on the re-establishment of the UK National Commission for UNESCO.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Investment
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will introduce legislation that will enable the Government to ban investment in countries where investment will have a negative impact and is contrary to British Government advice. [179229]

  Mr. MacShane
  Investment usually has a positive, not a negative, impact. It is essential for sustainable economic development. In some exceptional circumstances, the Government have considered it
  1071W
  appropriate not to encourage investment on the grounds that investment is not appropriate so long as the regime in question continues to suppress the basic rights of its people. In certain cases, British companies have disinvested at the request of the British Government. The Government have no plans however to introduce legislation in these cases. Any such legislation would in any event have to be compatible with the prohibitions on restrictions on the free movement of capital in the EC Treaty.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the medical records of United Kingdom citizens who were detained in Guantanamo Bay were made available to the interrogators; and whether Her Majesty's Government has received representations from those former British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay in respect of their treatment while under detention. [179023]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government are not aware of any requests from the US authorities for the UK medical records of the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay, The question of whether medical teams at Guantanamo Bay have made their medical records of the detainees available to the interrogators is a matter for the US authorities.

  We have made it very clear to the US authorities that the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay are entitled to be treated humanely. British officials have visited Guantanamo Bay on seven occasions to check on the welfare of the British detainees, most recently in March. None of the former British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have made representations to the British Government about their treatment there since their return to the UK.

  Rwanda
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom Government first received reports of acts of genocide being carried out in Rwanda; what action the Government took in immediate response; and when. [177663]

  Mr. Mullin
  Rwandan President Habyarimana, and his Burundian counterpart President Cyprien Ntaryamira, were killed on 6 April 1994 when their aircraft was shot down over Kigali. Very soon afterwards, the British Government became aware of media and NGO reports of large-scale violence and mass killings in Rwanda. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mark Lennox-Boyd) set out the Government's position and reaction to these events in a debate on Rwanda on 24 May 1994,Official Report, columns 312–15.

  Working Holidaymaker Scheme
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people applied in 2003 for a visa under the Commonwealth working holidaymaker scheme; and from which countries they came. [178778]
  1072W
  Mr. Mullin
  There are 53 Commonwealth Member countries, including the United Kingdom. Zimbabwe is no longer a Commonwealth Member. However, for immigration purposes Zimbabwean nationals continue to be treated as Commonwealth nationals. Zimbabwean nationals remain, therefore, eligible to apply working holidaymaker visas No applications from Kiribati, Nauru, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu or Vanuatu nationals were received in 2003. The following table shows the number of applications made for working holidaymaker visas during 2003, broken down by nationality.

  Number of applications

  Antigua and Barbuda

  2

  Australia

  32,614

  Bahamas

  2

  Bangladesh

  217

  Barbados

  45

  Belize

  6

  Botswana

  192

  BNO's and BOC's1

  87

  Brunei

  3

  Cameroon

  72

  Canada

  6,612

  Cyprus

  25

  Dominica

  15

  Fiji

  30

  Gambia

  8

  Ghana

  4,684

  Grenada

  7

  Guyana

  81

  India

  10,860

  Jamaica

  894

  Kenya

  173

  Lesotho

  15

  Malawi

  125

  Malaysia

  3,469

  Maldives

  4

  Malta

  96

  Mauritius

  125

  Mozambique

  10

  Namibia

  1,824

  New Zealand

  8,796

  Nigeria

  331

  Pakistan

  128

  Papua New Guinea

  3

  Seychelles

  19

  Sierra Leone

  16

  Singapore

  247

  South Africa

  34,242

  Sri Lanka

  5,184

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  4

  St. Lucia

  33

  St. Vincent

  24

  Swaziland

  228

  Tanzania

  28

  Tonga

  1

  Trinidad and Tobago

  749

  Uganda

  68

  Zambia

  111

  Zimbabwe

  996

  1 British National Overseas (BNO) and British Overseas Citizen (BOC).

  Source:

  These statistics are obtained from UK visas Central Reference System.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications under the working holidaymaker scheme from(a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) Sri Lanka, (d) Nigeria, (e) Ghana, (f) Sierra Leone, (g) Jamaica and (h) all new Commonwealth countries have been (i) received, (ii) refused, (iii) granted and (iv) appealed against since 25 August 2003. [178782]
  1073W
  Mr. Mullin
  There are 53 Commonwealth member countries, including the United Kingdom. The following table provides the figures requested between 25 August 2003 and 28 May 2004. These statistics are obtained from UK visas central reference system. The figures in the table may not add up due to some applications received in 2003 overlapping into 2004 and equally the same applies for some received in 2002 but processed in 2003. Some applications are also withdrawn by the applicant before a decision is made.

  Received

  Refused

  Issued

  Appealed

  India

  9,995

  5,276

  1,728

  1,445

  Pakistan

  96

  29

  56

  4

  Sri Lanka

  4,935

  3,873

  1,075

  638

  Nigeria

  220

  97

  114

  42

  Ghana

  3,143

  987

  1,977

  161

  Sierra Leone

  13

  11

  3

  2

  Jamaica

  442

  145

  269

  30

  All CC1

  73,468

  13,287

  53,476

  2,763

  1 All Commonwealth countries, including those broken down within the table.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Support Agency
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what percentage of cases relating to Child Support the Child Support Agency has made an error in(a) January 1997, (b) January 2000 and (c) January 2004; and if he will make a statement. [177452]

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

  Letter from Elaine Fox to Miss Anne McIntosh, dated 17 June 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently on leave I am replying on his behalf.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in what percentage of cases relating to Child Support the Child Support Agency has made an error in (a) January 1997, (b) January 2000 and (c) January 2004; and if he will make a statement.

  The Agency does not hold statistically valid information for the percentages of cases where the Agency has made errors in the months quoted in the question.

  Financial Assistance Scheme
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to what date he has instructed his Department to work for the publication of draft regulations for the Financial Assistance Scheme. [178593]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to my Statement during report stage of the Pensions Bill on 19 May 2004,Official Report, columns 984–85.

  New Deal for 50 Plus
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the New Deal 50 Plus Training Grant will be retained after the changes to the New Deal announced on 19 May. [178863]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Following the publication of a preliminary paper on the 19 May, today we published our full strategy paper "Building on New Deal: Local solutions meeting individual needs".

  The New Deal has already helped over a million people to find jobs and we are continuing to build on this success. The strategy published today will introduce greater flexibility into our employment programmes, providing a service tailored to the needs of individuals, local areas and local employers. Jobcentre Plus District Managers will have increased flexibility to provide whichever type of support is needed to help people move into sustained work.

  Our strategy for employment programmes is developing in parallel with the development of the Government's overall skills strategy. As the strands of these strategies develop we will continue to explore the most appropriate way of ensuring that older workers can access the training they need.

  Objectives' Programmes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much public funding has been spent from the(a) Objective 1, (b) Objective 2 and (c) Objective 3 programmes in Crosby, since the programmes' inception. [177866]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is the Managing Authority for the European Regional Development Fund in Merseyside. The Department for Work and Pensions hold a similar role for the European Social Fund. Merseyside does not receive Objective 2 or Objective 3 funding and information on levels of European funding at ward level is not held. However Objective 1 public funding is available in the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton, which includes Crosby, and the following table shows how much has been spent from the start of the current programme in 2000 to 14 June 2004. Final figures for domestic match funding only become available as projects complete. As the majority of projects are still under way the figures given for domestic public match funding are estimated using data from the Merseyside Objective 1 programme plan. In addition to the funding shown here it should be noted that almost 50 per cent. of the Objective 1 programme delivers pan-Merseyside projects, to which residents and businesses in the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton also have access.

  £

  Fund

  European structural funds grant paid

  Estimated domestic public match funding

  European Regional Development Fund

  6,557,069

  12,854,600

  European Social Fund

  8,428,073

  26,850,000

  Totals

  14,985,142

  39,704,600

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Competitiveness
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact which the UK National Allocation Plan will have on the competitiveness of UK industry. [178483]

  Mr. Timms
  The UK has set out to implement the EU ETS in a way that meets the twin goals of maintaining UK industry's competitiveness, while maintaining commitment to our environmental goals. As the EU ETS is a new instrument, and, before the start of the first Phase, there remain great uncertainties as to what the EU allowance price may be, detailed analysis of the potential impact on the UK of the scheme was necessary to inform our decisions on implementation. An additional and crucial uncertainty has been how other member states will implement the scheme.

  The DTI published an analytical paper on the impact of the EU ETS on UK industry, examining in particular the trading patterns of EU ETS sectors and possible regional dimensions to the impacts. This is available on the DTI website at www.dti.gsi.gov.uk/energy/sepn/euets.shtml. in addition, we commissioned ILEX Energy consultants to examine the possible impact on electricity prices of differing EU allowance prices and the impact on power sector investment. This paper is available on the DTI website, as above. Further work has been commissioned to examine the cross EU impacts on power prices.

  This analysis informed the decision for the UK to allocate allowances equal to estimates of what sectors will require in the 2005–07 period under 'with measures' projections. This is to ensure that EU ETS will not impose a reduction in emissions beyond what is expected given current measures. The exception to this is electricity generation, which due to the very limited international competition that the industry faces, has been allocated a reduction below 'with measures' projections in the 2005–07 period.

  When the Commission's assessment and decisions on all NAPs have been made, a more informed assessment of the impact of EU ETS on UK industry will be possible.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on UK competitiveness of the national allocation plans of other EU member states; and if she will make a statement. [178485]

  Mr. Timms
  The UK has closely followed the publication of other member states National Allocation Plans (NAPs), and, has actively called for robust and consistent review by the Commission. The need for the Commission to ensure there is consistent adherence to the principles of the Directive's rules for allocation in each NAP, as well as an assessment of possible State Aid implications from allocation, is crucial to ensure that there is minimal distortion of competition between the EU member states.

  The Commission has yet to make final decisions on the 14 NAPs submitted to date, so no detailed assessment of the competition implications for the UK
  1076W
  can be made. However, ECOFYS consultancy has been commissioned to analyse key aspects of other member states NAPs that are published, which inform UK comments in the peer review process of NAPs. We will continue to work with the Commission to highlight where clear distortions of competition arise from implementation and breaches of the directive establishing the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards the 5 per cent. reduction in real terms in her Department's administration budget by 2008, announced by the Chancellor in the House on 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 331 [176502]

  Ms Hewitt
  The real terms reduction of 5 per cent. or more will be a central feature of the public spending settlements for 2006–08 to be announced in detail later this year.

  EU Emissions Trading Scheme
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will urge the European Commission to delay the start of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme until it has approved the National Allocation Plan of each member state. [178484]

  Mr. Timms
  The EU Emissions Trading Directive and related regulations on the monitoring and reporting of emissions from installations covered by the scheme comes into force in every member state from 1 January 2005.

  It is crucial that NAPs from member states that have not been submitted to the Commission in sufficient time ahead of January 2005 are not subject to less thorough or differing assessment or approval mechanisms by the Commission. The UK has asked for clarification on this, and the Commission has stated that the three month period for assessment of the plan by the Commission will be retained, regardless of when the date of notification of the NAP is. Late submissions of National Allocation Plans will not lift the requirements to comply with the directive in any member state, rather it will deny industry the certainty and access to use of the market from the outset to help in compliance. There are no plans to call for a delay in the start of the scheme.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of reliance other EU member states are placing on project credits available from the Kyoto project mechanism to meet their national targets for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. [178486]

  Mr. Timms
  To date, 14 National Allocation Plans for the EU ETS, including the UK's, have been submitted to the European Commission. Of these, seven have indicated an intention to use purchase of JI and CDM to meet Kyoto targets in 2012. The level of these planned purchases as well as the state of advancement of these policies differs in each plan. In some cases, there are clear plans and substantiated programmes and funding for this, in others there is less clarity as to how firm the policy is, whether it has been budgeted for and from what sources.
  1077W
  The Commission has stated in a letter to all 25 member states on 17 March 2004.that the plans will be assessed for any State Aid implications that allocations may imply, in particular the use of public funds to buy Kyoto credits.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to enable UK companies fully to utilise the Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism components of the Linking Directive. [178487]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are committed to ensuring that UK industry has access to the cost effective reduction potential that the JI and CDM mechanisms offer. The UK Climate Change Programme assumes some of the reductions envisaged to meet the 2010 goals and beyond may be made via use of these mechanisms.

  In the context of the EU ETS, the linking amendment on the use of project credits from JI and CDM allows member states the discretion to consider whether or not such credits can be used for compliance against emissions covered by the EU ETS. The decision must be notified to the European Commission by June 2006. The Government are keen to allow the use of project credits from Phase One of the EU ETS and negotiated in favour of allowing early linking of the CDM from 2005. A final decision on how UK companies will be able to use such credits in the 2005–07 period of the EU ETS has not been made.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated value in sales was of the fur farming industry in the final year of production. [178285]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  Figures on fur farming industry sales could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We estimate that profits were roughly £650,000 a year before production tailed off leading up to the ban.

  Northern Cyprus (Trade)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of(a) imports from and (b) exports to the Turkish Cypriot regime in Northern Cyprus was in the last three years. [178772]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am told that information on UK trade in goods is classified by HM Customs and Excise according to the "Geonomenclature of the European Communities". This geographic classification is an internationally agreed list of countries and territories against which figures for overseas trade are represented. It does not distinguish between Turkish Cyprus and Greek Cyprus and so the information requested is not available.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of nuclear waste held at approved storage centres in the United Kingdom is from the nuclear weapons programme. [174977]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Of the total combined high level and intermediate level nuclear wastes held at approved storage centres in the United Kingdom and identified in the 2001 United Kingdom Radioactive Waste Inventory, some 24 per cent. is attributable to the nuclear weapons programme. It is predicted that, by the year 2100, this figure will reduce to less than 14 per cent. Approximately 2.6 per cent. of the intermediate level waste is held at AWE Aldermaston and the remainder of the waste is held at British Nuclear Fuels and United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority sites.

  Offshore Renewables
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place between her Department and the offshore renewables industry in the last 12 months. [178723]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI Ministers and officials have had a large number of meetings on a range of issues with the offshore renewable energy industry over the past 12 months, including with representative organisations such as the British Wind Energy Association. We have also spoken at and attended various industry conferences.

  Post Office Reinvention Programme
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she intends to take to ensure that most people in Birmingham will be within half a mile of a post office at the completion of the Post Office urban reinvention programme. [177700]

  Mr. Timms
  The commitment to ensure that at least 95 per cent. of the urban population nationally will still live within one mile of a post office at the end of the urban reinvention programme is an operational responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to respond direct to the hon. Member.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from Post Office Ltd. on the Post Office urban reinvention programme since 18 May; and if she will make a statement. [177703]

  Mr. Timms
  I can confirm that there have been contacts since 18 May between Post Office Ltd. and my officials about the company's urban reinvention programme.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Advisers/Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on external consultants and advisers in each of the last three years. [172438]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The available information held by the Home Office on the cost of using external consultants in each of the financial years; 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 is as follows:

  £

  2000–2001

  27,877,286

  2001–2002

  21,147,058

  2002–2003

  N/a

  The increase in expenditure on external consultancy in 2000–01 was primarily, due to costs incurred on the Home Office modernisation programme, in particular Information Technology (IT) related consultancy.

  The high spend figures for 2001–02 includes the cost of setting up the National Probation Directorate and various consultancies on IT Business Change.

  We do not hold information on the cost to the Home Office of using external consultants for 2002–03 and to obtain this information would incur disproportionate cost.

  The use of external consultants has helped the Department to successfully deliver projects across the office, which has resulted in improved business processes. A further benefit has been the transfer of specialist skills and knowledge to staff.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum decisions

  Initial decisions on applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom1 excluding dependants: 1999–2003

  Cases considered under normal procedures3

  Initial decisions2

  Granted asylum

  Granted exceptional leave to remain

  Granted humanitarian protection

  Percentage4

  Percentage4

  Percentage4

  Percentage4

  1999

  33,720

  (100)

  7,815

  (36)

  2,465

  (12)

  n/a

  —

  2000

  109,205

  (100)

  10,375

  (11)

  11,495

  (12)

  n/a

  —

  20016

  120,950

  (100)

  11,450

  (9)

  20,190

  (17),

  n/a

  —

  20027

  83,540

  (100)

  8,270

  (10)

  20,135

  (24)

  n/a

  —

  20037

  64,605

  (100)

  3,880

  (6)

  3,970

  (6)

  135

  (0)

  Cases considered under normal procedures3

  Backlog clearance exercise4

  Granted discretionary leave

  Refused

  Granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain under bucklog criterial

  Refused under backlog criteria5

  Percentage4

  Percentage4

  Percentage4

  Percentage4

  1999

  n/a

  —

  11,025

  (52)

  11,140

  (90)

  1,275

  (10)

  2000

  n/a

  —

  75,680

  (78)

  10,325

  ('89)

  1,335

  (11)

  20016

  n/a

  —

  89,310

  (74)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1080W
  on average over the last five years were initially rejected and subsequently accepted on appeal; and what percentage of these appeals were accepted on (a) first, (b) second and (c) subsequent appeal. [161053]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available on average over the last five years, and could be produced only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files.

  However, a cohort analysis up to and including appeals at the IAA was carried out for asylum applications made in 2002. It is estimated that around four in ten (42 per cent.) of applications in 2002 resulted in the granting of asylum (101 per cent.) or of exceptional leave to remain (231 per cent.) or in appeals which were allowed by the IAA adjudicators (a further 10 per cent).

  Based on cases where data are available, it is estimated that 77 per cent. of initial refusals of applications made in 2002 resulted in an appeal (i.e. 54 per cent. of applications in 2002 resulted in appeals), and that 10 per cent. of applications made in 2002 resulted in appeals allowed at the IAA.

  Asylum cases are determined according to their individual merits. The rates of refusal at initial decision and at appeal change over time reflecting a variety of factors including the changing mix of applicant nationalities, and changing situations in source countries. Over the last five years the vast majority of appeals have been dismissed, at the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) and at the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (IAT).

  Applications for leave to appeal to the IAT may be brought either by appellants or by the Secretary of State. The majority of applications for leave to appeal to the IAT are dismissed.

  The latest available data on initial decisions and appeal outcomes and Judicial Reviews is given in the tables.

  1 Figures may not sum due to rounding.
  1081W

  Cases considered under normal procedures3

  Backlog clearance exercise4

  Granted discretionary leave

  Refused

  Granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain under backlog criterial

  Refused under backlog criteria5

  Percentage4

  Percentage4

  Percentage4

  Percentage4

  20027

  n/a

  —

  55,130

  (66)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20037

  3,105

  (5)

  53,510

  (83)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  4 Percentages for cases considered under normal procedures and those within the backlog clearance exercise are calculated separately.

  5 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  6 Revised figures.

  7 Provisional figures

  n/a = Not applicable.

  Asylum appeals determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding dependants: 1999 to 20031

  Number of principal appellants

  Allowed3

  Dismissed3

  Withdrawn3

  Total determined2

  Total

  As percentage of total determined

  Total

  As percentage of total determined

  Total

  As percentage of total determined

  1999

  19,460

  5,280

  27

  11,135

  57

  3,050

  16

  2000

  19,395

  3,340

  17

  15,580

  80

  475

  2

  2001

  43,415

  8,155

  19

  34,440

  79

  825

  2

  2002

  64,405

  13,875

  22

  48,845

  76

  1,685

  3

  2003

  81,725

  16,070

  20

  63,810

  78

  1,845

  2

  1 Figures, other than percentages, rounded to the nearest 5. Numbers might not add up due to rounding.

  2 Based on information supplied by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Determinations do not necessarily relate to appeals received in the same period. Appeals determined by the IAA may relate to initial decisions made in previous years.

  4 Based on data supplied from the Presenting Officers Unit within the Home Office.

  Data for 2002 and 2003 are provisional.

  Further appeals to the Tribunal, decisions, and the outcome of Tribunal hearings, excluding dependants: 1999 to 20021

  Number of principal appellants

  Applications for leave to appeal to the Tribunal2

  Appeals to the Tribunal2

  Applications

  Decisions

  Received

  Determined

  1999

  8,635

  9,575

  2,135

  1,790

  2000

  6,020

  5,490

  1,615

  2,635

  2001

  15,540

  13,540

  3,860

  3,190

  20024

  25,600

  22,825

  6,920

  5,565

  Outcome of Tribunal Hearings3

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Remitted to adjudicators for further consideration

  1999

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2000

  815

  1,385

  220

  215

  2001

  475

  1,140

  150

  1,430

  20024

  620

  2,015

  225

  2,700

  Outcome of Tribunal Hearings3

  Number of principal appellants

  Appellant

  Secretary of State

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  1999

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2000

  650

  1,225

  185

  170

  165

  35

  2001

  315

  1,020

  125

  160

  120

  25

  20024

  410

  1,880

  210

  215

  130

  15

  1082W
  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5. Numbers might not add up due to rounding.

  2 Figures based on data supplied by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Decisions and determinations do not necessarily correspond to applications and appeals received in any given year. Appeals determined by the I AT may relate to cases determined at the IAA made in previous years

  3 Figures supplied by the Presenting Officers Unit. Figures for October-December 1999 are based on data for November-December.

  4 Provisional figures.

  Applications for Judicial Review, and outcomes, excluding dependants, 1999 to 2002

  Applications for leave to move for judicial review1

  Applications

  Decisions2

  Of which granted leave to move

  Percentage of applicants granted leave to move3

  19996,7 Q1, Q2 and Q4

  1,790

  1,125

  395

  (35)

  20006

  1,920

  2,095

  555

  (26)

  20016

  2,210

  2,300

  290

  (13)

  20028

  3,075

  2,980

  260

  (9)

  1083W

  The outcome of judicial review hearings

  Allowed4

  Dismissed5

  Withdrawn

  Total

  As percentage of total determined

  Total

  As percentage of total determined

  Total

  As percentage of total determined

  19996,7 Q1,Q2 and Q4

  135

  (57)

  25

  (11)

  75

  (32)

  20006

  365

  (48)

  300

  (40)

  95

  (12)

  20016

  260

  (68)

  60

  (16)

  60

  (16)

  20028

  25

  (30)

  60

  (67)

  5

  (3)

  1 Figures based on administrative court data. Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest 5

  2 Decisions do not relate to applications in any given period.

  3 The number of which granted leave to move as a percentage of decisions.

  4 Figures exclude judicial reviews brought in cases relating to asylum support (NASS).

  5 Estimated figures.

  6 The decision of the respondent (in this case, the Home Office or the Department for Constitutional Affairs) was quashed. These figures include consent orders where the JR was conceded by the respondent.

  7 The decision of the respondent was upheld.

  8 Provisional figures.

  Figures on asylum initial decision and appeals outcomes are published in the annual Home Office statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom, and in the quarterly asylum statistics web pages. Copies are available from the Library of the House and on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many potential immigrants were refused admission to the UK following advice from medical inspectors on a Port Form 104 for each of the last five years at(a) Heathrow and (b) other United Kingdom ports; and how many other immigrants were refused entry in each of those five years. [156846]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of people refused leave to enter the UK following advice given on a port form 104 is not collated centrally.

  Information on the number of passengers refused entry in each of the last five years is detailed as follows. The table contains data on the total number of passengers (including those removed on medical grounds) refused entry and removed for all ports 1998–02. Information on a particular port of entry is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Below is an extract from information 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/hobpubs1.html

  Passenger refused entry at port and subsequently removed1, 1998 to 2002

  United Kingdom

  Total (units)

  1998

  27,605

  1999

  31,295

  2000

  38,275

  2001

  37,865

  2002

  50,360

  1 Not necessarily in the same year as arrival.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers were refused entry at port and subsequently removed in each year 1084W
  since 1992, broken down by ports of entry; and to what he attributes the fall between 2002 and 2003 indicated in the rounded figures released on 4 April. [169253]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of people who were refused leave to enter at port and were subsequently removed in each year from 1992 to 2002 is shown in the table.

  Persons refused entry at port and subsequently removed: 1992 to 20021,2,3

  Number of persons

  Total

  1992

  14,950

  1993

  16,740

  1994

  17,220

  1995

  19,150

  1996

  21,200

  1997

  24,535

  1998

  27,605

  1999

  31,295

  2000

  38,275

  2001

  37,865

  20024

  50,360

  1 Figures up to March 2001 may include a small number of dependants of port asylum applicants.

  2 Not necessarily in the same year as arrival.

  3 Figures are rounded to nearest five.

  4 Provisional figures.

  Information on the port of entry of these individuals is not available except by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  The information released on 6 April was management information. Although no in-depth analysis has yet been conducted on the apparent fall in the numbers of passengers refused and removed, early indications are that the decrease may have been a result of the overall deterrent effect of our strategies, in particular, the imposition of visa regimes for Zimbabwean and Jamaican nationals; Direct Airside Transit Visas; and the expansion of the Airline Liaison Officer network.

  Official statistics on the number of people removed from the UK in 2003, including those people who were removed after being refused leave to enter will be available later this year in the Home Office statistical bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2003" on the Home Office web-site www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  CCTV
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions have arisen from the use of CCTV in(a) South Road, Waterloo and (b) Crosby in each of the last five years. [177844]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of convictions arising from the use of CCTV surveillance is not recorded. The statistics held centrally on court proceedings do not include information on methods of detection.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to extend CCTV schemes in the London borough of Wandsworth. [177829]

  Ms Blears
  The London borough of Wandsworth has received £13,000 from the Building Safer Communities Fund and £10,000 from the Basic Command Unit Fund to support the work of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership initiative on dealing with night time disorder in town centres.

  The money will provide extra staff hours for the surveillance of CCTV town centre cameras in disorder hotspots on Friday and Saturday evenings. This initiative has been successful in monitoring the build up of disorder and in directing resources to potential problems.

  Correspondence
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central of(a) 27 January regarding Mrs. FAW, reference A 1065094, (b) 19 January regarding Mrs. KS, reference P0983/4 and S1037919/3, (c) 19 January regarding Miss YN, reference P0951/4 and N1064754 and (d) 2 February regarding Mr. AKN, reference A1087763. [174364]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: The information is as follows.

  Table 2: Offenders found guilty of certain drug offences Number of offenders found guilty1 of certain drug offences at magistrates courts in Greater London2 including those found guilty at the Crown court where the committing court was based in Greater London, 1993 to 2002

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Possession of:

  Class A drug

  1,111

  1,406

  1,352

  1,413

  1,503

  2,046

  2,505

  2,355

  2,425

  2,367

  Class B drug

  2,680

  4,122

  3,428

  3,391

  4,184

  5,499

  5,218

  4,758

  4,283

  5,844

  Class C drug

  1

  4

  1

  4

  13

  11

  11

  8

  5

  9

  Dealing3:

  Class A drug

  484

  556

  718

  705

  676

  924

  984

  1,021

  1,446

  1,364

  Class B drug

  577

  786

  900

  860

  923

  946

  798

  530

  585

  693

  Class C drug

  6

  7

  6

  11

  10

  11

  4

  4

  4

  6

  Other drug offences4:

  Class A drug

  3

  1

  6

  7

  5

  8

  8

  3

  4

  5

  Class B drug

  10

  14

  17

  16

  30

  17

  14

  6

  8

  14

  Class C drug

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Covers Metropolitan Police and City of London Police Force Area.

  1086W
  (a) A reply to the letter of 27 January was sent by an Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) Senior Director on 4 March. IND wrote to my hon. friend on 21 May to confirm that the necessary action had been taken.

  (b) I wrote to my hon. friend on 16 June.

  (c) I replied to my hon. friend on 20 May.

  (d) IND wrote to my hon. friend on 18 May.

  Crime Statistics (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug-related offences were recorded in Greater London in each of the last 10 years; and how many successful prosecutions were brought in each year, broken down by type of drug involved. [177074]

  Ms Blears
  Information on drug related offences is not collected centrally for recorded crime. The available information relates to recorded drug offences. Information for the Metropolitan Police District is given in the following table.

  Table 1: Recorded drug offences in the Metropolitan Police District

  Number of offences

  19941

  2,574

  19951

  3,243

  19961

  3,704

  19971

  4,695

  1997–981,2

  4,849

  1998–993

  32,152

  1999–2000

  26,233

  2000–01

  23,626

  2001–02

  26,204

  2002–034

  33,311

  1 Relates only to trafficking in controlled drugs.

  2 Financial year data from 1997–98 onwards.

  3 Coverage was expanded to include offences of drug possession and other drug offences.

  4 The number of offences recorded will be influenced by the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard on 1 April 2002.

  The number of offenders found guilty of certain drug offences is given in Table 2. These figures are not directly comparable with those for recorded crime.
  1087W
  3 Includes offences of: Unlawful importation and exportation, production of or being concerned in the production of a controlled drug, supplying or offering to supply (or being concerned in supplying or offering to supply) a controlled drug, having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply.

  4 Includes offences: Permitting premises to be used for unlawful purposes, person has a controlled drug in his possession on a ship, person is knowingly concerned in the carrying or concealing of a controlled drug on a ship.

  Dedicated Security Posts Scheme
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been provided by central Government for the Dedicated Security Posts Scheme in each year since its inception. [177173]

  Ms Blears
  Grant support for policing generally, including security arrangements common to all police authorities, is allocated using the police grant funding formula. In addition, one particular component of the formula supports additional security costs that vary between police authorities. Provision is allocated between police authorities in line with professional assessment of relative security pressures.

  The component for additional security pressures has been included as part of the police funding formula since its inception in 1995–96. It represented 1.8 per cent. of total formula provision in 1998–99, increasing to 2 per cent. from 1999–2000 to 2002–03. Following wider formula changes in 2002, the proportion has been 2.3 per cent. since 2003–04. The provision is an integral part of the overall calculation on which general police grants for each authority are based.

  The available figures included in the funding formula for additional security pressures are set out in the table.

  £ million

  1998–99

  121.4

  1999–2000

  142.5

  2000–01

  146.8

  2001–02

  154.5

  2002–03

  155.3

  2003–04

  196.5

  2004–05

  203.4

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has given in the last 12 months to Crime and Disorder Partnerships on improving good practice in reducing domestic violence. [178814]

  Ms Blears
  A domestic violence 'mini-site'—has been set up within the Government's Crime Reduction website. This is designed to be an information resource for Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and local domestic violence coordinators. On this site, we are piloting a 'Web Helpdesk' allowing practitioners to seek information or guidance on any aspect of domestic violence work.

  In addition, the Home Office Development and Practice Report 30, "Safety and justice: sharing personal information in the context of domestic violence—an overview", was published at the National Victims
  1088W
  Conference on 28 April 2004. The Information Sharing guide and the 'Virtual Helpdesk' can be found in the domestic violence mini-site http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/dv01.htm.

  Fixed-penalty Notices
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions a Merseyside local authority officer, community support officer or person accredited by the chief constable has issued a fixed penalty notice for minor graffiti and fly-posting offences since the inception of this power. [178327]

  Ms Blears
  The power to issue fixed penalty notices for minor graffiti and fly posting under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 was commenced on 31 March this year. To date this power has not been used on Merseyside by anyone from the categories mentioned.

  Honours
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much time his Department spent dealing with honours in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by civil service grade. [173041]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office Honours Section provides advice and support to the Home Secretary, Permanent Secretary and Home Office stakeholders on all issues relating to the application of the UK honours system. To this end, it co-ordinates nominations for the new year and birthday honours lists, departmental nominations for the yearly round of royal garden parties and for other ad-hoc events.

  The Home Office honours team comprises two full-time staff: one higher executive officer; and one administrative officer.

  During the period April 2003 to March 2004 a total of six hours was spent formally discussing honours nominations. These discussions involved three permanent secretaries; three directors (senior civil service) and the honours secretary (higher executive officer).

  The majority of the work on honours is undertaken by the departmental honours team. Information is not available on time spent on honours related work by departmental staff who are not members of the Department's honours team.

  Leave to Remain
  Mr. Dominic Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees and people granted exceptional leave to remain have been granted settlement since 1979, broken down by nationality. [177034]
  1089W
  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: The latest available data relating to the number of refugees and people granted exceptional leave to remain, that have been granted settlement are shown in the table.

  To provide data for the entire period requested would incur disproportionate cost.

  Grants of settlement, recognised refugees and people granted exceptional leave to remain, by nationality, 1992 to 2002

  United Kingdom

  Geographical region and nationality

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  20011

  2002

  All nationalities (excluding EEA)

  1,780

  3,990

  3,290

  1,600

  4,190

  4,830

  6,680

  22,500

  25,355

  17,965

  18,235

  Europe

  Bulgaria

  0

  4—

  4—

  4—

  10

  4—

  4—

  50

  10

  5

  5

  Cyprus

  0

  0

  0

  4—

  4—

  10

  4—

  70

  65

  20

  10

  Czech Republic

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  4—

  15

  30

  25

  Estonia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  4—

  0

  4—

  4—

  Hungary

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  10

  4—

  4—

  4—

  5

  0

  4—

  Latvia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  4—

  0

  5

  5

  Lithuania

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  20

  15

  10

  5

  Malta

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4—

  0

  4—

  0

  Poland

  10

  20

  10

  10

  10

  10

  4—

  10

  25

  30

  25

  Romania

  4—

  10

  4—

  4—

  10

  4—

  30

  40

  30

  15

  15

  Russia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  30

  180

  85

  35

  30

  Slovakia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  4—

  10

  10

  10

  Switzerland

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4—

  0

  Turkey

  4—

  240

  410

  80

  820

  1,080

  510

  1,790

  1,485

  715

  725

  Ukraine

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  20

  15

  15

  10

  Other former USSR

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4—

  30

  45

  40

  55

  Former Czechoslovakia

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  10

  4—

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Former USSR

  4—

  4—

  10

  20

  4—

  4—

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Former Yugoslavia

  0

  0

  4—

  0

  4—

  20

  660

  4,970

  1,955

  2,400

  1,260

  Of which:

  Croatia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  40

  120

  255

  310

  90

  Serbia and Montenegro2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  450

  4,590

  1,175

  1,390

  710

  Slovenia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  4—

  0

  0

  0

  Other former Yugoslavia3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  170

  260

  525

  740

  460

  Other Europe

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  70

  45

  85

  35

  Europe

  30

  280

  450

  120

  890

  1,130

  1,280

  7,240

  3,815

  3,460

  2,230

  Americas

  Argentina

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4—

  4—

  5

  4—

  Barbados

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brazil

  0

  4—

  4—

  0

  4—

  4—

  4—

  10

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Canada

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  5

  5

  5

  Chile

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  0

  4—

  0

  5

  5

  5

  Colombia

  4—

  20

  20

  20

  10

  10

  70

  170

  190

  210

  170

  Guyana

  0

  0

  4—

  0

  0

  0

  4—

  10

  4—

  0

  0

  Jamaica

  0

  4—

  0

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  5

  5

  10

  Mexico

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4—

  0

  Peru

  0

  4—

  10

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  30

  20

  15

  5

  Trinidad and Tobago

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  0

  USA

  4—

  4—

  0

  0

  4—

  4—

  4—

  10

  20

  5

  10

  Venezuela

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4—

  4—

  5

  0

  4—

  Other Americas

  n/a

  0

  4—

  0

  4—

  10

  60

  50

  50

  50

  30

  Americas

  4—

  30

  40

  20

  30

  40

  140

  290

  310

  300

  240

  n/a = not applicable

  1 Revised data

  2 Former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  3 Includes Bosnia and Macedonia

  4 1 or 2

  Note:

  Data rounded, as such they may not sum to the totals shown.

  Grants of settlement, recognised refugees and people granted exceptional leave to remain, by nationality, 1992 to 2002

  United Kingdom

  Geographical region and nationality

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  20011

  2002

  Africa

  Algeria

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3—

  10

  310

  590

  240

  140

  125

  Angola

  0

  0

  10

  10

  10

  20

  50

  230

  120

  125

  250

  Congo (Dem. Rep.)2

  0

  0

  30

  40

  30

  20

  50

  1,030

  315

  390

  480

  Egypt

  n/a

  3—

  n/a

  n/a

  3—

  3—

  3—

  30

  35

  5

  15

  Ethiopia

  80

  390

  240

  70

  40

  60

  80

  1,520

  1,915

  260

  200

  Ghana

  80

  80

  60

  40

  110

  50

  70

  1,290

  110

  35

  55

  Kenya

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  20

  70

  145

  85

  70

  Libya

  10

  3—

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  40

  70

  65

  70

  Mauritius

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3—

  n/a

  10

  5

  3—

  3—

  1090W
  Historical data on immigration control can be found in the Command Papers "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom", copies of which are available from the Library of the House.
  1091W

  Grants of settlement, recognised refugees and people granted exceptional leave to remain, by nationality, 1992 to 2002

  United Kingdom

  Geographical region and nationality

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  20011

  2002

  Morocco

  n/a

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  3—

  5

  Nigeria

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  3—

  50

  190

  105

  65

  100

  Sierra Leone

  n/a

  n/a

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  3—

  10

  320

  135

  125

  100

  Somalia

  160

  790

  720

  220

  220

  290

  1,340

  1,420

  7,015

  4,690

  5,485

  South Africa

  20

  40

  20

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  15

  10

  10

  Sudan

  10

  40

  30

  3—

  80

  800

  140

  190

  660

  190

  160

  Tanzania

  n/a

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  n/a

  20

  30

  35

  20

  15

  Tunisia

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  3—

  10

  30

  15

  20

  5

  Uganda

  30

  80

  50

  160

  490

  320

  190

  720

  1,500

  210

  210

  Zambia

  n/a

  n/a

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  3—

  3—

  n/a

  10

  3—

  10

  Zimbabwe

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  3—

  20

  45

  135

  1,875

  Other Africa

  0

  0

  50

  10

  50

  30

  170

  500

  595

  755

  945

  Africa

  390

  1,450

  1,280

  590

  1,080

  1,650

  2,550

  8,230

  13,100

  7,330

  10,185

  Asia

  Indian sub-continent

  Bangladesh

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  80

  25

  15

  15

  India

  3—

  3—

  10

  3—

  10

  50

  170

  300

  205

  50

  50

  Pakistan

  3—

  3—

  10

  10

  80

  40

  120

  390

  340

  270

  285

  Indian sub-continent

  3—

  10

  20

  10

  100

  110

  290

  770

  575

  335

  350

  Middle East

  Iran

  190

  250

  240

  230

  550

  270

  200

  640

  725

  655

  710

  Iraq

  80

  110

  120

  50

  380

  480

  630

  1,080

  1,340

  950

  1,095

  Israel

  n/a

  3—

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  3—

  3—

  Jordan

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3—

  3—

  10

  3—

  30

  45

  5

  5

  Kuwait

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  10

  10

  15

  5

  20

  Lebanon

  20

  60

  60

  60

  230

  230

  190

  340

  395

  45

  110

  Saudi Arabia

  n/a

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  10

  5

  n/a

  Syria

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  30

  40

  30

  25

  Yemen

  0

  0

  3—

  n/a

  3—

  3—

  3—

  20

  25

  35

  25

  Other Middle East

  0

  0

  3—

  3—

  3—

  20

  30

  40

  60

  20

  35

  Middle East

  300

  420

  440

  360

  1,170

  1,020

  1,070

  2,200

  2,660

  1,750

  2,025

  n/a = not applicable

  1 Revised data

  1 The Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly known as Zaire

  11 or 2

  Note:

  Data rounded, as such they may not sum to the totals shown.

  Grants of settlement, recognised refugees and people granted exceptional leave to remain, by nationality, 1992 to 2002

  United Kingdom

  Geographical region and nationality

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  20011

  2002

  Remainder of Asia

  China

  2—

  10

  30

  40

  70

  150

  260

  310

  110

  45

  55

  Hong Kong

  0

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  2—

  2—

  10

  5

  2—

  5

  Indonesia

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  0

  Japan

  0

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  5

  5

  5

  Malaysia

  0

  2—

  10

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  10

  10

  5

  2—

  Philippines

  0

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  2—

  10

  5

  2—

  5

  Singapore

  0

  n/a

  2—

  0

  2—

  2—

  0

  2—

  5

  2—

  5

  South Korea

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  0

  0

  2—

  5

  2—

  2—

  Sri Lanka

  230

  770

  490

  170

  580

  450

  800

  2,840

  3,930

  2,285

  865

  Taiwan

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Thailand

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  2—

  Other Asia

  n/a

  n/a

  30

  30

  50

  70

  100

  230

  410

  2,295

  2,205

  Remainder of Asia

  230

  800

  570

  250

  710

  680

  1,170

  3,410

  4,490

  4,650

  3,150

  Total Asia

  530

  1,220

  1,030

  630

  1,980

  1,810

  2,530

  6,390

  7,725

  6,735

  5,520

  Oceania

  Australia

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  2—

  0

  2—

  10

  2—

  5

  New Zealand

  0

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  2—

  2—

  5

  2—

  2—

  Other Oceania

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  Oceania

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  2—

  2—

  10

  15

  5

  10

  British Overseas

  Citizens

  2—

  20

  20

  2—

  2—

  10

  20

  10

  20

  10

  15

  Stateless

  790

  830

  560

  240

  220

  190

  160

  330

  370

  125

  35

  All nationalities (excluding EEA)

  1,780

  3,990

  3,290

  1,600

  4,190

  4,830

  6,680

  22,500

  25,355

  17,965

  18,235

  n/a = not applicable

  1 Revised data

  2 1 or 2

  Note:

  Data rounded, as such they may not sum to the totals shown.

  1092W

  Neighbourhood Watch
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on discussions he has held with the National Neighbourhood Watch Association regarding the Neighbourhood Watch logo. [177731]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]:: Earlier this year the Home Office began receiving complaints from local schemes and one police force that the National Neighbourhood Watch Association (NNWA) had registered the logos as trademarks. This was done without consulting or obtaining agreement from the Police, the Home Office, local authorities or Neighbourhood Watch generally.

  The Neighbourhood Watch logos are Crown copyright. We are taking steps to resolve the situation with NNWA and to restore ownership and control of the Neighbourhood Watch trademarks to the Home Office. Our aim is to protect the rights of local and regional schemes to continue to use the logos. Discussions are still under way to resolve the situation.

  Police (London)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of Metropolitan police officers per 100,000 of population is within the Greater London area. [177832]

  Ms Blears
  At the end of December 2003 (the latest date available) the Metropolitan police had 412 police officers to 100,000 of the population. The average for England and Wales is 259 officers to 100,000 population.

  Security Industry Authority
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether, during the security firm authorisation pilot in Hampshire, security personnel employed by firms from outside Hampshire will be able to work without authorisation; [177232]

  (2) what representations he has received about postponing the security firm authorisation pilot in Hampshire; [177233]

  (3) how many applications from security companies in Hampshire wishing to participate in the Security Industries Agency have been (a) received and (b) authorised; and what the average period of time between receipt and authorisation has been; [177234]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the Security Industry Authority about the outcome of the pilot project in Hampshire; [177279]

  (5) what representations he has received about the preparedness of the Security Industry Authority to license security personnel. [177280]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]: On 4 June it became a requirement for any door supervisor working in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, including any employed by a company outside those areas, to possess a licence issued by the Security Industry Authority (SIA).
  1094W
  It was announced on 11 November 2003 that Hampshire and the Isle of Wight would be the initial pilot area for the SIA's licensing arrangements, which are to be rolled out across the whole of England and Wales by April 2005. At the same time, it was made clear that applications in the pilot area could be made from 1 March 2004 and that the legal requirement to hold a licence would come into force from 4 June. The SIA has since undertaken considerable consultation with stakeholders, local authorities and the police, and has carried out a wide-ranging publicity campaign. A small number of representations were received from pub and club owners requesting an extension of the 4 June deadline. We have kept in close touch with the SIA throughout the pilot scheme and have received regular updates on progress, and we concluded that the 4 June deadline should stand.

  The responsibility to apply for an SIA licence rests with the individual. As at 4 June, 722 applications had been received from within the pilot area and 193 licences had been granted. The great majority of applications are being processed within the SIA's published target time of four to six weeks.

  Some representations have been received about the SIA's state of preparedness, including from a small number of right hon. and hon. Members. The main concerns have related to training requirements and the availability of training providers, the cost and affordability of the SIA. licence, and the possibility that inability to meet the 4 June deadline might lead to the closure of businesses and loss of jobs. We have made it clear that all of the necessary procedures and arrangements are in place and that sufficient training capacity has been available for some time.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police authorities have applied for approval to introduce an allowance for special constables under the Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 2002; and which ones he has(a) approved and (b) refused. [178786]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: Allowance schemes for special constables have been approved in Cumbria (Workington), West Midlands (H2 Operational Command Unit), Humberside (force wide) and Thames Valley (Thames Forest area). No applications have been refused.

  Spray Paint Sales
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions a person has received a level 4 fine for selling spray paints to someone under the age of 16 years on Merseyside since the inception of this power. [178329]

  Ms Blears
  No fines for this offence have been handed down by Merseyside courts yet. We are in discussion with relevant stakeholders as to what further measures might be necessary to ensure the effective enforcement of these provisions.

  Stowaways
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many stowaways were detected at border controls in mainland Europe in(a) vehicles and (b) cargo bound for the UK in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [160374]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government does not hold figures on the number of clandestines or stowaways detected at border controls in mainland Europe en route to the UK.

  We do work closely with EU member states, Accession States, the "Near Neighbours" and countries in wider Europe on a wide range of migration issues, including measures aimed at strengthening borders within Europe.

  Although we do not hold figures on the number of clandestines or stowaways detected at border controls in mainland Europe en route to the UK locally collated management information indicates that; enhanced juxtaposed controls, deployment of new detection technology and close co-operation with our EU counterparts, port authorities and carriers prevented more than 9,000 people crossing the channel illegally from Calais and Coquelles to the United Kingdom during 2003.

  UK Settlement
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers were given leave to enter the United Kingdom in each year since 1979(a) as visitors, (b) as people returning after a temporary absence abroad, (c) as passengers in transit, (d) as students, (e) as work permit holders and their dependants, (f) as working holidaymakers, (g) as a spouse or fiancée, (h) as au pairs, (i) on the basis of UK ancestry, (j) on the basis of acceptance for settlement on arrival, (k) for other reasons and (l) in total. [177033]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: The latest available data relating to the number of passengers admitted to the United Kingdom by the requested categories are given in the table. The data relate to the number of journeys made.

  To provide data for the entire period would incur disproportionate cost.

  Detailed statistics on immigration control are published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom" obtainable from the Library of the House, and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/commandpubs1.html. The latest edition is that for 2002 (Cm6053).

  Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom by purpose of journey, excluding EEA nationals, 1993 to 2003

  United Kingdom

  Number of journeys

  Passengers admitted by purpose of journey

  Total admitted

  Visitors

  Students

  Au pairs

  1993

  9,840,000

  7,080,000

  238,000

  12,700

  1994

  9,180,000

  6,570,000

  249,000

  9,400

  1995

  9,620,000

  6,800,000

  285,000

  11,700

  1996

  10,300,000

  7,350,000

  298,000

  13,400

  1997

  10,900,000

  7,760,000

  278,000

  15,300

  1998

  11,500,000

  8,040,000

  266,000

  15,900

  1999

  12,000,000

  8,370,000

  272,000

  14,600

  1096W

  Passengers given leave to enter the United Kingdom by purpose of journey, excluding EEA nationals, 1993 to 2003

  United Kingdom

  Number of journeys

  Passengers admitted by purpose of journey

  Total admitted

  Visitors

  Students

  Au pairs

  2000

  13,000,00

  8,930,000

  313,000

  12,900

  2001

  12,800,000

  8,170,000

  339,000

  12,000

  2002

  12,600,000

  7,850,000

  369,000

  12,800

  20031

  12,200,000

  7,580,000

  319,000

  15,300

  Passengers admitted by purpose of journey

  Work permit holders and their dependants

  Working holiday-makers

  Admitted as a spouse or financeé(e)

  Passengers in transit

  1993

  48,000

  21,600

  19,200

  936,000

  1994

  47,500

  31,600

  18,800

  852,000

  1995

  52,100

  36,000

  19,100

  948,000

  1996

  58,200

  33,000

  20,900

  1,000,000

  1997

  63,000

  33,300

  26,400

  1,090,000

  1998

  68,400

  40,800

  32,200

  1,150,000

  1999

  76,200

  45,800

  30,300

  1,170,000

  2000

  92,000

  38,400

  33,000

  1,270,000

  2001

  109,000

  35,800

  29,100

  1,310,000

  2002

  120,000

  41,700

  30,300

  1,300,000

  20031

  119,000

  46,500

  31,400

  1,140,000

  Passengers admitted by purpose of journey

  Passengers returning after a temporary absence aborad

  UK ancestry

  Others given leave to enter2

  Granted settlement on arrival3

  1993

  1,380,000

  4,080

  94,300

  3,620

  1994

  1,300,000

  5,170

  88,200

  2,610

  1995

  1,370,000

  6,620

  90,400

  2,400

  1996

  1,470,000

  7,420

  94,500

  2,120

  1997

  1,560,000

  8,370

  103,000

  2,350

  1998

  1,780,000

  10,200

  104,000

  2,900

  1999

  1,910,000

  11,800

  110,000

  2,530

  2000

  2,200,000

  10,900

  112,000

  2,290

  2001

  2,620,000

  10,700

  149,000

  2,820

  2002

  2,740,000

  10,400

  127,000

  2,470

  20031

  2,800,000

  9,150

  178,000

  2,600

  1 Provisional and subject to change.

  2 Includes refugees, exceptional leave cases and their dependants, excluding such persons given temporary admission.

  3 Excludes asylum-related cases given indefinite leave to enter; these are included in 'Others given leave to enter'.

  Note:

  Data rounded to three significant places, as such they may not sum to the totals shown.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the requirements upon retailers are for the intermediate handling and disposal of category 1 and category 3 animal by-products. [177398]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We would not expect retailers to produce category 1 animal by-products such are specified risk material. Full requirements for handling and disposal of all animal by-products are set out in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002.
  1097W
  The Regulation also sets out the standards that intermediate plants and processing or disposal operations must comply with and applies controls to the transport of animal by-products. These are listed in Annex III of the Regulation.

  Among the requirements for a category 3 intermediate plant, it must have its own entrance, exit, should be capable of being washed and disinfected, and should have its own dedicated staff. It also lists the hygiene considerations to prevent cross-contamination with food intended for human consumption.

  A guidance note on the requirements has been provided to the food industry which is available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/by-prods/Former Foodstuffs/guidance_dispffs.pdf.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) in what circumstances shooting carried out under licence or other authority is a permitted means of killing badgers; [158500]

  (2) pursuant to the Answer of 28 January 2004, Official Report, column 381W, on badgers, what methods other than shooting are available for the culling of badgers. [159154]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Where killing is carried out under a licence issued by Defra, the techniqueemployed will depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case, but will normally involve cage trapping and humane dispatch by shooting.

  All wild animals are protected by Section 11(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 against the use of self locking snares, bows, crossbows, or any explosive other than ammunition for a firearm for the purpose of killing or taking.

  Schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 details a list of species, including badgers, which are protected from further methods of killing or taking. Prohibited methods are detailed in Section 11(2) of the 1981 Act, and are any trap, net or snare, electrical devices, poisons, stupefying bait, automatic or semiautomatic weapon, any illuminating or sighting device for night shooting, any dazzling device, any gas or smoke, decoys, sound recording or, in immediate pursuit, mechanically propelled vehicles.

  It is an offence if any person uses a prohibited method against a Schedule 6 species without obtaining a licence from Defra. On conviction the maximum summary fine and sentence is a £5,000 fine and/or six-month custodial sentence.

  Section 2(1) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 makes it an offence to use in the course of killing or taking a badger any badger tongs or any firearms other than a smooth-bore weapon of nom less than 20 bore or a rifle using ammunition having a muzzle energy of not less than 160 foot-pounds and a bullet weighing not less than 38 grains, or cruelly ill-treat any badger.
  1098W
  The latter would make it an offence to mis-use a permitted or authorised method of killing or taking a badger, in a way which would be cruel to the badger concerned.

  It is also an offence, except as permitted by the 1992 Act, to dig for a badger.

  Further details of the provisions of the Protection of badgers act can be found in my previous response to the hon. Member's earlier question answered on 20 January 2004, Official Report, column 1187W.

  On conviction, a person guilty of committing an offence under the 1992 Act is liable to a maximum summary fine of £5,000 fine and/or a six-month custodial sentence.

  Cement and Lime Kilns
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) start and (b) end dates are for the consultation by the Environment Agency on proposals to revise the Substitute Fuels Protocol for use on cement and lime kilns. [178291]

  Alun Michael
  The Environment Agency's consultation on proposals to revise the Substitute Fuels Protocol started on 26 March 2004 and closes on 18 June 2004.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those who have been sent the document in relation to the consultation to revise the Substitute Fuels Protocol for use on cement and lime kilns. [178292]

  Alun Michael
  The Environment Agency has made its consultation document on proposals to revise the Substitute Fuels Protocol available publicly on its website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/consultations/current_consultations. In addition copies have been sent to the following organisations and individuals.

  Government Departments/Organisations

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

  Department of Health

  Department of Trade and Industry

  English Nature

  Environment and Heritage Service—Northern Ireland

  Food Standards Agency

  Health Protection Agency

  National Assembly for Wales

  National Public Health Service, Wales

  Rural Payments Agency

  Scottish Environmental Protection Agency

  Local Government Organisations

  Flintshire County Council

  High Peak Borough Council

  High Peak District Council

  Kennet District Council

  Langar cum Barnstone Parish Council

  Medway District Council

  Medway County Council

  1099W

  North Lincolnshire Council

  North Wiltshire District Council

  Ribble Valley Borough Council

  Rugby Borough Council

  Sedgefield District Council

  South Cams District Council

  South Kesteven District Council

  Staffs Moorlands District Council

  Staffordshire County Council

  Tonbridge and Mailing Borough Council

  Vale of Glamorgan Council

  West Wiltshire District Council

  Other Organisations

  BIFFA Waste Services Ltd.

  Business Council for Sustainable Development UK

  British Cement Association

  British Lime Association

  Castle Cement—Ribblesdale

  Cembureau

  Cleanaway Ltd.

  Chemical Recovery Association

  Countryside Commission

  Council Protection Rural England—Northern Lincolnshire

  Environmental Services Association

  The Environmental Forum

  Flintshire Green Party and Phoenix Coalition

  Flintshire Local Health Board

  Friends of the Earth

  Friends of the Earth Cymru

  Greenetwork

  Green Audit

  High Peak and Dales Primary Care Trust

  Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Primary Care Trust

  Kent Local Health Protection Unit

  Lafarge—Cauldron Cement Works

  Lafarge—Holborough Cement Works

  LCC Energy

  Melton, Rutland and Harborough Primary Care Trust

  North Derbyshire Health Authority

  North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee

  Northumbrian Water Ltd.

  Oil Recycling Association

  Onyx (UK) Ltd.

  Peak District National Park Authority

  PDM Group

  Rugby in Plume

  Rugby Primary Care Trust

  Sapphire Energy Recovery

  Shanks Group plc

  Shropshire & Staffs Health Protection Team

  Solvent Resource Management Ltd.

  SITA

  Together Creating Communities/Trefnu Cymunedol Cymru

  The United Kingdom Renderers Association

  United Utilities

  Vale Local Health Board

  Women's Environmental Network

  Wyvern Waste Services

  1100W
  Individuals

  Rt Hon M. Ancram QC

  Norman Baker, MP

  J. Behrenroth

  Mr. G. Brewer

  Chris Davies—MEP

  Mr. D. Darlington

  Mr. S. Eades

  Mrs. Lynda England

  Cllr R. Hampson

  Edward Hatala

  Dr. Vyvyan Howard

  Cllr Jones

  Mr. D. Levy

  Dr. D. H. Lohman

  Mr. A. Mack

  Dr. A. Murrison MP

  Mrs. L. Pallikaropoulos

  Mr. J. Smith MP

  Dr. Andrew Tubb

  Mr. & Mrs. D. M. Waller

  Dr. G. W. Waterhouse

  Cllr G. Williams

  Cllr A. Woolley

  British Waterways Board
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the British Waterways Board acquired a shareholding in Easynet plc; for what reasons; and what the size of the shareholding is. [178870]

  Alun Michael
  Prior to 2000, British Waterways and GEC, each invested £147,000 into a joint venture (Fibreway), which laid fibre optic cables under many of British Waterways' towpaths and sold capacity to telecoms operators. In May 2000, GEC decided to concentrate its future activity on telecoms business, under the Marconi name and wanted to invest £200–300 million in expanding Fibreway. Fibreway was therefore restructured, and British Waterways received an annual payment and a 10 per cent. equity share in the new Fibreway business ipsaris.

  In June 2001 ipsaris effectively split its business into two components. The mast site business was transferred to Ultramast and the fibre optic business was listed by way of a reverse takeover of Easynet. Marconi sold 92 per cent. of its share in ipsaris to Easynet in return for 77.5 million shares in the enlarged group. The deal meant that British Waterways received a 2.6 per cent. share of Easynet and a stake in the Ultramast business.

  The fibre optic business has continued successfully as part of the Easynet portfolio and British Waterways Board now owns approximately 2 million shares in the business (1.8 per cent.). This is valued at around £2.1 million today, compared with the initial outlay of £147,500. Easynet also continues to pay an annual sum to British Waterways for the use of the wayleave.

  EU Emissions Trading Scheme
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why she has set stricter carbon dioxide reduction targets for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme than other member states. [178488]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK has not set stricter carbon reduction targets for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme than other member states. Most of the plans submitted to the Commission from other member states require greater emissions cuts from their industries than in the UK.

  The UK is a leader in tackling climate change and has already reduced emissions of greenhouse gases to below its target under the Kyoto Protocol. However, many other member states have some way to meet their Kyoto obligations. The UK is pressing the Commission to ensure that a robust analysis of plans is carried out, and that member states are encouraged to use the EU Emissions Trading Scheme to help them meet their Kyoto targets.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what statistically valid and peer-reviewed studies her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the safety of feeding Chardon LL fodder maize to ruminants. [178119]

  Mr. Morley
  No studies on the safety of feeding Chardon LL, a variety of maize containing the GM event known as T25, to ruminants have been commissioned by Defra, nor has the Department evaluated any such studies. T25 maize was assessed and approved for use as any other maize by member states under Part C of directive 90/220 in 1998. Both the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding stuffs were satisfied, on the basis of the data submitted, that the T25 maize grain and its products pose no more risk as animal feed than non-GM maize varieties.

  I understand that Buyer CropScience commissioned a study which examined the effect of feeding Chardon LL forage maize to dairy cattle and that the results are being considered for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be passed to ACRE and ACAF in due course.

  Orchards
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the rotational period is of(a) traditional English apple orchards and (b) modern commercial apple orchards. [177783]

  Alun Michael
  A grower's decision on when to replace an orchard will depend on many factors. Traditional orchards are typically aged 30 years or more but most commercial orchards are replaced after about 15 years as their productivity declines.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the(a) apple growing and (b) cider industry under the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. [177788]
  1102W
  Alun Michael
  Many of the apples supplied to the cider industry are delivered under contract from orchards which have been planted for the purpose. We understand that a number of existing contracts are due to expire in the next two or three years and are unlikely to be renewed. Some top fruit growers who do not expect to have a market for their produce may choose to grub up their orchards to qualify for the new Single Payment, rather than retain them to the end of their productive life. This is a commercial decision for the growers concerned.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish her Department's annual report on progress made in implementing the programme set out in the White Paper on managing radioactive waste safely. [178724]

  Mr. Morley
  A copy of the 2003 Managing Radioactive Waste Safety progress report to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is available under the Environment heading of the Committee's website (www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environment food and rural_affairs.cfm). Additionally, CoRWM is required to submit quarterly reports of its work under Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme to its sponsoring Ministers. The first report for November 2003 to February 2004 is available on CoRWM's website (www.corwm.org.uk). The second report for March 2004 to May 2004 should be available shortly.

  River Stour
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she plans to take to maintain the quality of water in the River Stour as the population of Ashford grows; and if she will make a statement. [177996]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are funding a series of studies intended to facilitate the sustainable development of Ashford, to meet a stated target of providing 31,000 new homes in the town by 2031.

  The Integrated Water Management Study, which is being led by the Environment Agency, is looking into issues related to the water environment in this context. The first phase of the study identified a number of water-related constraints to growth, and potential strategies to overcome them will be identified in the final phase of the study. The final report will be available by the end of 2005.

  The Agency's longer-term strategy for protecting the Great Stour will be guided by the results of the Integrated Water Management Study. Such a strategy may require, for example, more advanced wastewater treatment, new treatment and disposal locations.

  Soil Action Plan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on support available to help the introduction of the recently announced Soil Action Plan for England. [178201]
  1103W
  Alun Michael
  Within Defra the Soil Action Plan currently has the dedicated support of a team of six staff (up from three a year ago and expected to expand a little further), and a research budget of £1.4 million, plus a further £9.7 million which it is estimated is spent on soil related research. The action plan is also supported by other colleagues in the department, and by a coalition of partners across and beyond Government, among whom English Heritage, English Nature and the Environment Agency have taken responsibility for leading particular workstreams.

  Warm Front Scheme
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to expand the Warm Front grant scheme; and if she will make a statement; [178671]

  (2) what plans she has to provide resources for a wider range of energy efficiency measures under the Warm Front scheme; and if she will make a statement; [178672]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the progress made by the Warm Front scheme towards meeting the targets set out in the Government's Fuel Poverty Strategy. [178673]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: We intend to publish a Fuel Poverty Implementation Plan later this summer which will include details about the future development of the Warm Front scheme and consider different options for improving its targeting and measures offered. This will also set out the action and resources needed to achieve our fuel poverty targets.

  The PSA target of assisting 600,000 households between 2001–04 has been met, with over 660,000 households assisted in that period. In total, Warm Front delivered measures to over 800,000 households since the start of the scheme in June 2000 and March 2004.

  Whaling
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Icelandic Government regarding its recent decision to re-start the hunting of minke whales. [177963]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK strongly supports the International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling and deeply regrets the decision of Iceland to continue 'scientific' whaling this year. Following last years UK-led demarche of 23 countries criticising Iceland's return to whaling, I will be contacting the Icelandic Government again urging them to reconsider their unnecessary and unjustified decision.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information the UK will submit to the International Whaling Commission meeting in Sorrento in connection with(a) the Southern Ocean Sanctuary review and (b) the Conservation Committee. [178677]
  1104W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The head of the UK's delegation to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committee has been actively involved in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary review process, and will submit scientific evidence to support the continuation of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary at the IWC meeting in Sorrento.

  The UK was instrumental in establishing the Conservation Committee at last years IWC meeting in Berlin and we are keen to see it succeed. At this stage an agenda has yet to be agreed, but the UK will play an active part in the Committee and will provide information as and when required.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Belfast Inner-city Ring Road
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for the inner-city ring road in Belfast. [162699]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Roads Service has written to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Circuit of Ireland Rally
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Government intends to provide financial assistance for the Circuit of Ireland Rally. [178537]

  Angela Smith
  It is too soon to say if funding will be made available for the 2005 Circuit of Ireland Rally. Neither the Northern Ireland Events Company (NIEC) nor the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) have received an application for the 2005 Rally but should such applications be made these would be considered in the normal way. In 2003 the total amount provided from the NIEC and NITB was £76,500 and in 2004 the NIEC provided £38,250.

  Columba Initiative
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) annual and (b) other reports have been published in respect of the Columba initiative. [176889]

  Angela Smith
  The Columba initiative registered as a company limited by guarantee in April 2002. We expect its first Annual Report (including accounts) to be published imminently. This report will cover the period up to 2003. The Annual Report and Accounts will be placed in the Library once we have received them.

  Cultural Venues
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money in capital terms has been allocated for cultural venues(a) in Belfast and (b) outside Belfast in each of the last five years. [178549]
  1105W
  Angela Smith
  Capital grants to cultural venues (defined as arts venues, registered museums and public libraries) were as follows in each of the last five years:

  £

  Financial year

  Belfast

  Outside Belfast

  1999–2000

  404,500

  1,460,597

  2000–01

  200,100

  2,262,766

  2001–02

  573,100

  1,329,340

  2002–03

  1,854,000

  2,905,889

  2003–04

  470,002

  3,478,720

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been allocated for cultural venues in Belfast in the current financial year, broken down by venue. [178551]

  Angela Smith
  A total of £14,003,400 has been allocated for cultural venues (defined as arts venues, registered museums and public libraries) in Belfast in the current financial year, broken down as follows:

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  Venue

  Allocation (£)

  Belfast Exposed Photography

  30,000

  Crescent Arts Centre

  120,000

  Culturlann McAdam O Fiaich

  140,000

  Fendersky Gallery

  5,000

  Golden Thread Gallery

  15,000

  Grand Opera House

  458,400

  Lyric Players' Theatre

  535,000

  Old Museum Arts Centre

  205,000

  Ormeau Baths Gallery

  250,000

  Total

  1,758,400

  National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland

  Venue

  Allocation (£)

  Ulster Museum

  6,153,500

  Total

  6,153,000

  £6,092,000 has been allocated to the Belfast Education and Library Board for the public library service. It is not possible to give a breakdown of this allocation by venue.

  Demilitarisation
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the demilitarisation measures that have been taken in the past year. [178683]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Cloghoge Tower, South Armagh (R14)—demolished

  Tievecrum Tower, South Armagh (R23)—demolished
  Ebrington Army Base, Londonderry—closed
  Clooney Army Base, Londonderry—closed

  Troops withdrawn from PSNI Stations—Aughnacloy, County Armagh, Belleek and Belcoo, County Fermanagh

  Emergency Planning
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on emergency planning arrangements in the event of an attack linked to international terrorism. [179117]
  1106W
  Mr. Pearson
  The Government are committed to the fight against terrorism, whatever its origin. Since the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001, the Government and their partners have been completely overhauling arrangements to protect the UK, working both to help prevent terrorist attacks wherever possible, and to minimise the impact of an attack. Northern Ireland is fully involved in that programme where appropriate.

  HMS Caroline
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the costs involved in retaining HMS Caroline in Belfast as a visitor attraction at the Museum of Sky and Sea. [178698]

  Angela Smith
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans (Mr. Caplin), confirmed in a written answer to the hon. Lady on 15 June 2004,Official Report, column 810W, that the Ministry of Defence has no plans at this time to decommission HMS Caroline. This being the case, there has been no consideration given to including the ship within any plans for a Museum of Sea and Sky and no assessment has been made of costs which may be involved.

  Ice Hockey
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding has been allocated to promote the development of ice hockey in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [178527]

  Angela Smith
  The amount awarded by the Sports Council for Northern Ireland to promote the development of ice hockey in each of the past five years is as follows.

  £

  1999–2000

  10

  2000–01

  3,000

  2001–02

  3,000

  2002–03

  1,150

  2003–04

  10

  1 No applications were received in 1999–2000 and 2003–04.

  In addition the Northern Ireland Events Company (NIEC) provided £7,000 towards the hosting the final of the Super league Challenge Cup in 2001.

  Irish Republican Army
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been(a) arrested and (b) charged for being members of the IRA since the signing of the Belfast Agreement; and if he will make a statement. [159641]

  Mr. Pearson
  The police do not record information on arrests centrally and to provide this information would incur a disproportionate cost. During the period 11 April 1998 to 29 February 2004 12 persons were charged with membership of the IRA.

  Lyric Theatre
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the estimated cost of the redevelopment of the Lyric Theatre in Belfast will be met from Government funding. [178701]

  Angela Smith
  No decision has yet been taken on whether the Government will provide financial assistance for the redevelopment of the Lyric Theatre. This will depend on the strength of the business case and the availability of funding to meet the capital costs. My Department is currently working with the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and The Lyric Theatre to develop a robust and up-to-date business case for support from public sector funds.

  Motorsports
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what resources are made available from(a) the Safety at Sports Grounds Fund and (b) other public funding sources for organisers to carry out essential safety improvements and maintenance for each motorcycle racing event in Northern Ireland. [178555]

  Angela Smith
  No funding from the Sports Council Safe Sports Grounds fund has been made available for organisers to carry out essential safety improvements and maintenance for each motorcycle racing event in Northern Ireland. Approximately £175,000 has previously been provided by my Department via the Sports Council for Northern Ireland for essential safety work at motorcycle road racing circuits. Moreover, organisers may be able to avail of public funding for essential safety improvements and maintenance for motorcycle racing events from monies provided by the Sports Council to the 2 & 4 Wheel Motor Sport Steering Group Ltd., the umbrella group of motor sports governing bodies and which also represents organisers of motorcycle racing events in Northern Ireland.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals his Department has for taking forward the development of a motorsports facility for Northern Ireland which meets international standards. [178699]

  Angela Smith
  My Department currently has no proposals for taking forward the development of a motorsports facility for Northern Ireland which meets international standards. However, as part of their strategic plan, the governing bodies of motorsport in Northern Ireland, as represented by the two and four Wheel Motorsport Steering Group Ltd., have initiated an 'Expressions of Interest' exercise in relation to the development of such a facility. The outcome of this exercise is expected to be announced by the two and four Wheel Motorsport Steering Group Ltd. on the week commencing 21 June.

  Patrick Kelly
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers are involved in the investigation of the murder of Mr. Patrick Kelly, at Trillick, Co. Tyrone, on 10 August 1974. [178385]
  1108W
  Mr. Pearson
  The deployment of resources is a matter for the Chief Constable. Police have confirmed that the investigation into the murder of Mr. Kelly requires substantial resourcing. The actual number of officers deployed at any given time varies according to the most efficient use of resources within the Crime Operations Department.

  Personal Injury Claims
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much(a) local authorities and (b) Government Departments and agencies paid in claims for personal injury or liability, as a proportion of their total budgets, in each of the last five years. [168199]

  Mr. Pearson
  Claims paid for personal injury in respect of employers liability and public liability, by the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration an the Northern Ireland Office, including agencies, has been less than 1 per cent. of total budgets in each of the last five years.

  Information relating to personal injury claims paid by district councils is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Salmon
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the stocking plan is for salmon in the rivers(a) Bush, (b) Bann and (c) Lagan for the current year; and what the plans were in each of the last five years. [178619]

  Angela Smith
  Salmon fry hatched at Bushmills Salmon Station early in 2004 have already been stocked into suitable habitat in the River Bush catchment. Summerling parr will be stocked into under recruited nursery habitat in the autumn. Fry stocking has been a part of both the Department's scientific research programme and angling development programme on the River Bush in each of the last five years. It has been increased in recent years to bolster declining natural egg deposition.

  Tributaries of the Lower River Bann including the Clady and the Agivey are routinely stocked with indigenous juvenile salmon by local angling clubs. This has occurred in each of the last 5 years.

  Salmon fry hatched at Bushmills Salmon Station have been stocked into suitable habitat on the River Lagan in 2004. The reintroduction of salmon to the River Lagan commenced in 1991 with a programme of fry stocking and this has continued annually since then.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards the re-establishment of the Lough Erne salmon run; and what plans are in place to deal with the physical barrier of the Ballyshannon generator in order that the Lough Erne salmon run can be re-established. [178620]

  Angela Smith
  A cross-border scientific programme was set up in 1995 to address the problem of low salmon runs in the Erne catchment. The programme elucidated some of the reasons behind the absence of a wild breeding salmon population and began a restoration programme that saw increasing numbers of salmon
  1109W
  ascending the River Erne from 1998. A number of conclusions and recommendations were reported in 2001 and an action plan was developed.

  While many aspects of the action plan have been implemented, discussions continue with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland on the outstanding recommendations.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated count was for the salmon run in the rivers(a) Bush, (b) Bann and (c) Lagan in each of the last five years. [178623]

  Angela Smith
  Total counts are available for the River Bush. A counter on the Lower River Bann at Portna provides an indicative count only of adult fish ascending the river, as salmon enter tributaries downstream. The number of salmon ascending the River Lagan is estimated using a trapping/electronic counting facility, and more recently video, deployed at Stranmillis weir.

  Counts for each of the last five years are as follows:

  Bush1

  Bann (Portna)

  Lagan

  2003

  723

  23,012

  100

  2002

  835

  4,502

  500

  2001

  913

  4,572

  450

  2000

  950

  4,407

  800

  1999

  977

  2,371

  50

  1 Wild fish (excludes adults released as smolts from the hatchery).

  2 Count incomplete due to technical problems with electronic counter.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his assessment is of the existing threats to salmon runs in the rivers(a) Bush, (b) Bann and (c) Lagan; and what steps are being taken by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to counter these threats. [178624]

  Angela Smith
  Policy on salmon and inland fisheries is the responsibility of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Accordingly, the hon. Member's question has been referred to my Department for answer.

  The existing threats to salmon stocks on each of the Rivers Bush, Bann and Lagan are similar, at least at the macro scale.

  Research at Bushmills salmon station has demonstrated a significant decline in marine survival in recent years whereby a substantially lower percentage of emigrating smolts are returning as adults to home waters. International research into the causes of this worrying phenomenon is being commissioned and will look at factors such as climatic change, predation and pressure on prey species. The Department has been successful in buying-out over 87 per cent. of coastal nets that exploited fish returning to the Bush and Bann rivers and has approved a range of byelaws t made by the Fisheries Conservancy Board that seek to further control both commercial and angling exploitation.

  Water quality and habitat degradation are the main causes of poor freshwater production of smolts. Secondary concerns include periodic obstructions to passage and predation by cormorants and seals.
  1110W
  A research project on the River Bush sponsored by Departments has recently reported on factors affecting water quality and flows that impact on aquatic ecology.

  It is planned to take the recommendations forward by way of a catchment management action plan. Proposals aimed at restoring productive freshwater habitat for salmon in the river have been prepared as part of this process.

  Ulster Canal
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with regard to the establishment of the Ulster Canal. [178621]

  Angela Smith
  The updated Economic Appraisal on reopening the Ulster Canal in its entirety is currently with both Governments for consideration. As re-opening is not viable in purely monetary terms, it will be difficult to secure Government funding for this significant capital project. I welcome the supporting efforts of organisations such as the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland whose application for INTERREG III(A) funding to re-open a south-western section of the Ulster Canal is proceeding through the assessment system.

HEALTH

  Food Research
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government spent on research and development relating to food, with particular reference to(a) agriculture, (b) fishing, (c) processing, (d) nutrition, (e) safety and (f) economic and social studies, in each of the most recent 10 years for which figures are available, broken down by (i) Government departments, (ii) research councils, (iii) higher education, (iv) business enterprises and (v) private non-profit organisations. [179026]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  The figures available for Food Standards Agency expenditure on research and development related to food safety and nutrition in the four financial years since it came into being are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Food safety

  Nutrition

  2000–01

  15.7

  6.3

  2001–02

  15.4

  3.8

  2002–03

  15.2

  3.9

  2003–041

  15.7

  4.8

  Note:

  1 Figures for 2003–04 are provisional

  Acupuncture
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether general practitioners who are members of the British Medical Acupuncture Society will be subject to dual registration when the new statutory regulator is in place; whether medical acupuncturists
  1111W
  will be recognised in the education and training requirements of the new acupuncture regulator; and if he will make a statement. [178454]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On 2 March, the Department published proposals for the statutory regulation of herbal medicine and acupuncture practitioners. The consultation period closed on 7 June. We are aware of the interests of medical acupuncturists and will consider their representations very carefully.

  Alzheimer's
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffer from Alzheimer's in(a) the North West, (b) Lancashire and (c) Chorley; and what help and support is given to Alzheimer's (i) patients and (ii) carers in (A) Lancashire Teaching Hospital and (B) Chorley South Ribble Primary Care Trust. [177152]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the numbers of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease on a regional basis is not held centrally.

  Dementia services across Lancashire Teaching Hospitals national health service trust is provided by the Lancashire Care Trust, which provides the following services:
  consultant psychiatrist led outpatient clinics, with a memory assessment service, including the prescribing and monitoring of anti dementia drug therapy;
  nine in patient assessment beds on Hazelwood Ward, Chorley and South Ribble hospital;
  day hospital service at the Chorley and South Ribble hospital, where there are 25 places available for two days per week, including memory support;
  28 continuing care beds at Meadowbank Nursing Home;
  psychology services; and
  community mental health teams which are staffed by five community psychiatric nurses and four support workers. These include dementia services within their workload.

  Within the Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust (PCT), the following help and support is available:
  10 intermediate care rehabilitation beds at Charnley Fold, Bamber Bridge for people with dementia, provided jointly by Chorley and South Ribble PCT, Preston PCT and Lancashire county council social services. This service opened in April 2004. Following completion of refurbishment this service will move to Broadfield, Leyland.
  Chorley and South Ribble PCT funds a service by Crossroads, which was introduced in 2003 and based in the Beechurst Unit at Chorley district hospital, for people with early onset dementia and their carers.

  Anti-depressant Drugs
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescription items of(a) individual benzodiazepine drugs and (b) individual antidepressants were dispensed in the community in England in 2003. [170679]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the numbers of prescription items of benzodiazepines and anti-depressants that were dispensed in the community in England in 2003 has been placed in the Library.

  Clinical Trials
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to increase the participation of surgeons in clinical trials. [176866]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) has reviewed the conduct of trials of surgical interventions and has published guidance to surgeons and triallists on the subject. The guidance can be found on the MRC website at www.mrc.ac.uk/pdf-health_tech_assess.pdf

  In order to encourage more surgeons to enter research training, the MRC runs a joint fellowship scheme with the royal colleges of surgeons of England and Edinburgh and of obstetrics and gynaecology. Details are at www.mrc.ac.uk/doc-crtf2notes.doc

  Depression (Under-18s)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the causes of depression in those aged under 18. [178940]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: There is wide ranging research being undertaken on depression among the under 18 age group, including research on the causes of depression. Examples of this work include the study by Professor Jean Golding at Bristol University on conduct disorder and depression in early adolescence and the work of Professor Ian Goodyear, Lifespan Health National Health Service Trust, with his longitudinal family study in childhood depression and his investigation into the aetiology and outcome of a first major depression in childhood and adolescence.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what audit and performance evaluation of first wave foundation trusts is and their impact on local health services, including neighbouring trusts, will be conducted before(a) foundation status is reaffirmed and (b) the rolling out of further foundation trusts. [179116]

  Mr. Hutton
  An independent review of national health service foundation trusts (NHSFTs) is to be undertaken by the Healthcare Commission. The terms of reference for the review are currently being developed.

  We expect to make an announcement about the timing of the review and its terms of reference and about the timing of the next wave of NHSFT authorisations, wave 2, shortly.

  Genito-urinary Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting times were in genito-urinary medicine clinics for patients referred by general practitioners in the latest period for which figures are available. [179155]

  Mr. Hutton
  In England, at the end of March 2004, the average estimated provider based waiting time following a general practitioner referral for a first outpatient appointment in specialty genito-urinary medicine is 2.02 weeks.

  Hospital Capacity
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the capacity of(a) the Worcestershire Royal Hospital and (b) the Alexandra Hospital, Redditch to respond to an increase in demand for in-patient treatment. [178439]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This is a matter for the local health community. West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority reports that capacity at both hospitals is regularly reviewed.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the guide to good services commissioned by the National Instithte for Mental Health in England to address the mental health needs of people with learning disabilities. [178958]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: The National Institute for Mental Health in England and the "Valuing People" support team expect to jointly publish their report, "Green Light: How Good Are Your Mental Health Services for People with Learning Disabilities?", before the end of June.

  Mental Health
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether examples of good practice in the provision of clothing to long-stay patients in mental health inpatient units collected from NHS trusts have been placed on the National Institute of Mental Health for England's website; [179007]

  (2) how many and what examples of good practice in the provision of clothing to long-stay patients in mental health in-patient units have been collected from NHS trusts by the National Institute of Mental Health for England to date. [179013]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Institute for Mental Health in England does not, at present, have any examples of good practice in the provision of clothing to long-stay psychiatric in-patient units on its web site.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the level of support available from local authorities to people with mental health problems since the Social Exclusion Unit's inquiry into mental health issues. [179012]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has not made a systematic assessment of the level of support available from local authorities to people with mental health problems since the social exclusion unit's mental health project.

  Primary care trust chief executives and local authority directors of social services, in conjunction with other local authority departments, have lead responsibility for drawing up a local action plan to implement the measures in the report.

  The Department has made available to local councils with social services responsibilities £22 million in ring-fenced mental health supported capital expenditure to support the capital costs associated with implementing the social exclusion unit's mental health project.

  Modernisation Board Annual Report
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of producing the Modernisation Board annual report for 2004; how many copies have been printed; and how copies are being made available to NHS(a) employees and (b) patients. [178237]

  Mr. Hutton
  The estimated cost of writing, editing, design and publishing the NHS Modernisation Board annual report was £43,000. 6,000 copies of the report have been printed. 3,500 copies will be distributed within the NHS through the strategic health authorities and individual NHS trusts for staff and 2,500 copies have been made available for patients groups and individual patients. Staff and the general public can also download the full report through the Department's website.

  Official Meetings (Mayor of London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what dates(a) he and (b) his predecessors have held official meetings with the Mayor of London since July 2000; and what the subject of each meeting was; [171436]

  (2) if he will list the official meetings he and his predecessor the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) have had with the Mayor of London since July 2000 to discuss health matters in London, and the dates and subject of each meeting. [172207]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [pursuant to her reply, 13 May 2004, Official Report, c. 591–92W]: I regret that my previous response was incorrect. The answer should have been that my right hon. Friend the member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr. Hutton) met the Mayor of London on 20 September 2001 to discuss the issue of promoting the health of Londoners. [172207]

  Private Healthcare (NHS Patients)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on buying private healthcare for NHS patients in(a) 1997 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available; and what proportion of the total NHS budget this expenditure represented. [177915]

  Mr. Hutton
  We do not have central figures for the amount spent on buying private healthcare for national health service patients in 1997. In the year 2002–03 the total cost of acute services subcontracted to or directly commissioned by primary care trusts and NHS trusts from non-NHS providers was approximately £110.58 million. The latest figures for total expenditure on acute services in the secondary care environment (hospital and community health service figures (HCHS) was £17.2 billion in 2001–02. Therefore, expenditure on acute healthcare from non-NHS providers represents less than 1 per cent. of total HCHS expenditure. It is not possible to extrapolate the precise amount of money spent in the private sector for 2002£03 from the overall cost of the NHS buying services from non-NHS providers including voluntary and charitable organisations and the independent sector.

  Residential Care Homes (London)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds are available in residential care homes in the Greater London area. [177830]

  Dr. Ladyman
  At 31 March 2001 there were 47,400 care home places in Greater London. This comprises of 18,100 nursing care places and 29,300 residential care places.

  Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission but comparable details are not available.

  Rubber Ferrules
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 24 May 2004,Official Report, column 1391W on rubber ferrules, who his Department's supplier of rubber ferrules is; and in what country this company is based. [176657]

  Diagnoses of selected sexually transmitted infections1 by strategic health authority—1997 to 2002

  Strategic health authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  5,046

  5,241

  5,624

  6,409

  6,906

  7,093

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  3,148

  3,365

  3,892

  4,048

  4,342

  4,494

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  5,982

  4,889

  6,026

  6,942

  9,146

  10,250

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  5,749

  5,988

  6,980

  7,406

  7,832

  8,843

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  1,931

  1,988

  2,303

  2,327

  2,316

  2,766

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  3,077

  3,343

  3,410

  3,815

  4,029

  4,166

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  3,731

  3,908

  4,549

  4,894

  5,216

  6,021

  Dorset and Somerset

  2,465

  2,623

  2,894

  3,310

  3,439

  3,723

  Essex

  2,776

  2,935

  3,389

  3,450

  4,059

  4,391

  Greater Manchester

  7,197

  7,926

  9,413

  10,572

  11,755

  11,922

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  3,686

  3,922

  4,870

  5,258

  4,977

  5,289

  Kent and Medway

  2,665

  2,916

  2,905

  2,941

  2,914

  3,417

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  3,624

  3,731

  3,687

  5,221

  4,980

  4,941

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  4,568

  4,859

  5,312

  5,770

  6,067

  6,573

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern

  2,955

  2,953

  2,449

  2,457

  3,494

  4,773

  North Central London

  6,430

  7,198

  7,144

  8,249

  10,025

  9,981

  North East London

  6,006

  6,309

  6,956

  8,007

  9,274

  10,737

  North West London

  9,229

  9,304

  9,951

  12,779

  13,326

  12,632

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  4,040

  3,888

  4,463

  4,588

  4,378

  4,822

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  2,812

  2,940

  3,351

  3,613

  3,906

  4,068

  South East London

  7,739

  8,733

  9,722

  9,254

  9,863

  10,907

  South West London

  3,824

  4,003

  4,800

  6,041

  6,385

  7,853

  South West Peninsula

  2,862

  3,176

  3,338

  3,626

  3,796

  4,202

  South Yorkshire

  5,018

  4,965

  5,254

  5,562

  5,898

  6,480

  Surrey and Sussex

  5,198

  5,521

  5,656

  6,860

  7,055

  8,559

  Thames Valley

  4,720

  5,478

  5,455

  6,427

  6,698

  6,826

  Trent

  7,260

  7,117

  7,090

  7,482

  8,132

  8,863

  West Yorkshire

  5,393

  6,151

  6,435

  6,823

  7,629

  9,087

  1 Primary and secondary syphilis, uncomplicated gonorrhoea, uncomplicated Chlamydial infection, Anogenital herpes (first attack), Anogenital warts (first attack).

  Source:

  KC60 dataset.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients were admitted to hospital within nine months of referral for admission in the last year for which figures are available. [176856]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are collected on the number of patients who are admitted to hospital from being placed on the inpatient waiting list. For the most recent financial year for 2002–03, 90 per cent. of all admissions with a valid waiting time were admitted within nine months1. During 2002–03 the maximum inpatient
  1116W
  Mr. Hutton
  There are two suppliers of ferrules on the current national health service Purchasing and Supply Agency's national walking aid agreement. They are Sunrise Medical, based in Wollaston, West Midlands; and Stepsafe Ltd, based in Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambridge.

  Sexual Health
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sexually transmitted diseases were diagnosed in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) disease and (b) strategic health authority; and if he will make a statement. [169937]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 3 December 2003,Official Report, columns 80–82W, which provides the data requested broken down by disease.

  The number of sexually transmitted infections diagnosed by strategic health authority between 1997 and 2002 is shown in the table.

  waiting time was 15 months. The current maximum inpatient waiting time in 2004–05 is nine months, reducing to six montls by the end of 2005.

  1 Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Note:

  Time waited statistics from Hospital Episode Statistics are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and time waited for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment on a specific date and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the time waited as the difference between admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning System
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  The Government is continuing to take forward a major programme of reform to the planning system to support its drive to create sustainable communities, promote sustainable development and achieve a better balance of housing supply and demand. Our goal is positive planning to achieve these objectives. Our programme was launched in the planning Green Paper of December 2001 and the Government's policy statement on planning reform of July 2002 "Sustainable Communities—Delivering through Planning".

  The Barker and Egan reports have endorsed the Government's vision for a reformed planning system and the work we are doing to achieve this. We will be setting out how we intend to take forward the agenda of those two reports later in the summer.

  Local planning authority performance:

  We are making good progress towards the planning reform targets we have set. In particular, we have seen in the last six months the best improvement in a decade in the time which local authorities take to deal with planning applications. Since we published the planning Green Paper in December 2001, the proportions of local authorities achieving the targets for handling major commercial and residential applications has increased from 24 per cent. in January to March 2002 to 41 per cent. in January to March 2004. Handling performance on minor commercial and residential planning applications, as well as on other (mainly householder) applications have each doubled over this period. Furthermore, we have achieved our public service agreement target to halve the time it takes the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to deal with called in cases and recovered appeals from close of inquiry to decision—in the quarter January—March 2004, 80 per cent. of the cases were dealt with in 16 weeks compared with 32 weeks.

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act

  The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act received Royal Assent on 13 May. The Act puts in place a new statutory framework for regional planning and a reformed, more flexible local planning system which puts community involvement at the heart of the process.

  The Act sets a statutory objective for plans—to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. It makes a number of reforms to development control to speed and improve the quality of decision making. Local development orders can be used to permit development that is acceptable at local level. There are new requirements for design and access statements to improve the design quality of new development; new processes for handling major
  42WS
  infrastructure projects more effectively; requirements for statutory consultees to respond within a certain period; a shorter period of three years as the default for implementation of planning permission and consent; and simplified planning zones.

  We have removed crown immunity from planning controls and we will be consulting on the secondary legislation required to make the new arrangements work and we have made a number of reforms to the compulsory purchase order system.

  To support the Act we will be introducing new regulations and guidance in the summer and later in the year. This will include guidance on the new processes for regional and local planning and sustainability appraisal.

  We are working with our newly formed Ministerial stakeholder advisory group and others to take forward reforms to the planning obligations systems. I am announcing separately today our timetable for taking forward the reforms.

  Compulsory purchase reforms

  We are pushing ahead with proposals for reform of the compulsory purchase system. Besides the reforms in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, we have uprated the thresholds setting the levels of home loss compensation payable to owner-occupiers and tenants whose property is compulsorily acquired, and are committed to reviewing these thresholds annually. We are also currently reviewing the results of consultation on proposals to revise and update the Crichel Down rules governing the disposal of surplus land acquired under compulsory purchase powers and expect to issue a circular containing the revised rules in the summer. We have recently started consulting on proposals to revise the compulsory purchase order circular on how acquiring authorities can exercise their powers is in line with the new provisions in the 2004 Act, and on the secondary legislation to implement the compulsory purchase order provisions in the Act. The Law Commission published their final report on compensation in December 2003 and will be publishing their final report on procedures later in 2004.

  Planning policies

  I am today responding to the recommendation of the ODPM Select Committee about our programme of revising planning policy guidance. We will be focusing our efforts on the most important planning policies.

  Resourcing and supporting local planning authorities

  Our reform agenda covers more than legislation and policy change, however. We are making substantial additional resources available to local planning authorities to enable them to respond to the changes and to drive performance improvement. We have paid out the second tranche of the £350 million planning delivery grant which rewards performance by local planning authorities; £130 million was allocated for 2004–05 against criteria covering both plan making and development control.

  We have set performance standards for authorities with poor records of handling planning applications, of which there are 81 in 2004–05. We have introduced two new best value indicators that will allow comparison of the quality of planning services, replacing two existing indicators. The comprehensive performance assessment of district authorities is assessing strategies for balanced

  43WS
  housing markets and public space. The assessments of unitary and county authorities are being brought up to date. Both sets of assessments provide a context in which to address performance improvement.

  We are providing practical help and advice to support improvement. We have announced that the planning advisory service, to be hosted by the Improvement Development Agency, will be open for business in the autumn. We are continuing to develop the planning portal and other e-planning initiatives. We are providing financial assistance to planning aid.

  Changing the culture of planning

  We are engaged in a programme for changing the culture of planning. We have put sustainable development at the heart of planning through the statutory objective in the Act and in PPS1. PPS1 emphasises that planning is a positive, proactive process. It sets out principles for community involvement in planning.

  As part of the skills agenda set out by the Egan report, we recently launched a new bursaries scheme to fund 144 awards for students who wish to undertake RTPI accredited one year post graduate planning courses and we will be working with stakeholders over the coming months on communicating the importance of planning, including new guides to the planning system for the general public and for business.

  We set out a road map at the end of 2001 for a reformed planning system. We have come a long way since then, as this statement shows. The Government remains committed to an efficient, effective transparent and accountable system which delivers sustainable development. We will continue to drive forward the reforms and culture change to make this happen.

  Planning Obligations
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  In the light of the report of the Barker review of housing supply,Delivering stability: Securing our future housing needs, published on 17 March, the Government has reviewed its plans for taking forward the reform of planning obligations foreshadowed in the consultation paper, Contributing to Sustainable Communities; a new approach to planning obligations, published in November 2003.

  The Government proposed in its November 2003 consultation paper a number of measures aimed at improving the current negotiating arrangements under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (amended by the 1991 Act), and a new optional planning charge. Sections 46 and 47 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provide powers to make regulations to implement changes to the planning obligations system.

  Separately, the Barker report recommended that the Government should introduce a planning-gain supplement (PGS) tied to the granting of planning permission so that part of landowner development gains could contribute to wider benefits for the community. It also recommended that, if the Government were minded to do this, planning obligations should be
  "scaled back to cover direct impacts and mitigation along with affordable and social housing requirements".
  44WS
  The Government agreed that it was in principle acceptable to fund social housing and other measures out of the uplift in land values associated with the development process and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Budget report of 17 March 2004 that he would consider proposals for a national PGS and make a decision by the end of 2005.

  Against this background the Government now proposes to take matters forward as follows.

  The Government will press ahead with identifying and implementing changes to the current arrangements for negotiated agreements. It will do this by revising the current circular 1/97 on planning obligations and publishing good practice guidance for local authorities and developers. The aim is to issue a draft revised circular for consultation in autumn 2004 with a view to putting the new arrangements in place early in 2005.

  The Government will continue to work up proposals in parallel for an optional planning charge, on a timetable consistent with that for decisions on the PGS. During this process, the Government will also encourage a number of local authorities to pilot options for charging by local authorities.

  In developing all these proposals we will work closely with our stakeholders, including my advisory group on planning obligations the membership of which is drawn from the major planning, housing, developer, voluntary sector and local authority interests.

  Planning Policy Statements
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  In its report on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Annual Report 2003 the ODPM Select Committee gave consideration to the programme for replacing planning policy guidance notes, which set out national policies on issues such as planning for housing, transport etc., by more succinct planning policy statements. The Committee recommended (para 25):"The failure to deliver on commitments to reform the planning system by issuing revised guidance notes, has led to uncertainty and delays in planning decisions because of impending revisions to policies. We recommend that the Department redoubles its effort to complete the revision of national planning policy, and supporting good practice advice, where necessary, by July 2005. The ODPM would do well formally to withdraw its stated intention to revise the less controversial PPG notes."

  An interim response was included in the Government response to the Select Committee's report (Command 6141) published in February 2004. This listed the consultations on reviews of PPGs that were already in hand or planned but indicated that a further announcement would be made on other PPGs. A complete list of planning policy guidance notes is tabled below.

  The ODPM is concerned to complete the early updating and revision of policy in those PPGs where this is required for good policy reasons. It is equally concerned that the process of policy review should not cause undue disruption to the programme for local authorities to put in place the first round of new local development documents following commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, which received Royal Assent on 13 May 2004.
  45WS
  The ODPM will therefore treat as a priority the review of the following PPGs: PPG1 (General Policies and Principles), PPG3 (Housing), PPG4 (Economic Development), PPG6 (Town Centres), PPG7 (Countryside), PPG9(Nature Conservation/ Biodiversity), PPG10 (Planning and Waste Management), PPG11 (Regional Planning), PPG12 (Development Plans), PPG 22 (Renewable Energy), PPG 23 (Planning and Pollution) and PPG25 (Development and Flood Risk) Consultation has already taken place or is currently underway on several of these documents. The revision, or replacement as PPSs, of these PPGs will be completed by early 2005. Any further revisions to PPG3 (Housing) to take account of the recommendations of the Barker review of housing supply will be completed later in 2005.

  The review and replacement of other planning policy guidance notes will only take place as and when necessary in the light of their policy and strategic significance. In the meantime the current PPG will remain in place.

  PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTES

  1

  General Policy and Principles

  2

  Green Belts

  3

  Housing

  4

  Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms

  5

  Simplified Planning Zones

  6

  Town Centres and Retail Development

  7

  The Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development

  8

  Telecommunications

  9

  Nature Conservation/Biodiversity

  10

  Planning and Waste Management

  11

  Regional Planning

  12

  Development Plans

  13

  Transport

  14

  Development on Unstable Land

  15

  Planning and the Historic Environment

  16

  Archaeology and Planning

  17

  Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

  18

  Enforcing Planning Control

  19

  Outdoor Advertisement Control

  20

  Coastal Planning

  21

  Tourism

  22

  Renewable Energy

  23

  Planning and Pollution

  24

  Planning and Noise

  25

  Planning and Flood Risk

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act received Royal Assent on 13 May. The Government intends to bring the provisions of the Act into force over the coming months through a series of commencement orders. It is the convention that no part of an Act should be brought into effect earlier than two months after Royal Assent other than in exceptional circumstances.

  The Act contains a number of powers enabling the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation such as regulations or orders. The first commencement order will bring the enabling powers to make subordinate legislation into effect, and it is intended that this order will be made in the second half of July. Subordinate legislation will then be made. Our general approach is to bring substantive provisions of the Act relating to
  46WS
  England into force by further commencement orders, which will take effect at the same time as the relevant regulations or orders.

  The following table sets out an indicative timetable for these commencement orders:

  Provisions

  Commencement Date

  Regional Planning (Part 1)

  September 2004 (together with associated regulations and PPS 11)

  Local Planning (Part 2)

  September 2004 (together with associated regulations and PPS 12)

  Development Plan and Sustainable Development (Part 3)

  September 2004

  Development Control (Part 4)

  A number of these provisions are dependent on new regulations or changes to the General Development Procedure Order. Where that is the case and the draft regulations or GDPO changes have already been subject to consultation, provisions are expected to be brought into effect in September 2004. Where the regulations or GDPO changes have not yet been subject to consultation, that will take place in the autumn and the provisions are expected to come into effect in early 2005. Regulations on planning obligations will not be made until early 2006.

  Slip Rule

  September 2004

  Crown Immunity (Part 7, Chapter 1)

  End 2005

  Compulsory Purchase (Part 8)

  End October 2004

  The National Assembly for Wales is responsible for the commencement order for part 6 of the Act.

  Scottish Ministers are responsible for the commencement order for chapter 2 of part 7.

  The provisions in part 9 (Miscellaneous) and the schedules will be brought into effect on the same date as the substantive provisions to which they relate.

  English Indices of Deprivation 2004
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  Today I am publishing revised tables for the Indices of Deprivation 2004. The index is based on a total of 37 indicators and the tables published on 28 April contained errors.

  IMD 2004 is a major improvement on previous deprivation indices, introducing two new domains—crime and living environment—and a very significant new small area geography—super output areas. It makes available a much better evidence base to improve policy making and delivery at all levels. But these improvements make it a much more complex index to produce. Despite a long and very detailed period of consultation, and extensive pre-publication checks, there have been some teething troubles. I very much regret that these errors have occurred.

  The errors occurred in creating the two new domains in the index—living environment and crime. In the former, one set of data was input in the wrong rank order. In the latter, there was a technical error in the way

  47WS
  in which the data were smoothed to deal with inaccuracies introduced by small numbers of particular crimes.

  These errors have now been corrected, and very extensive checks have been made both by the contractors, and at the request of Ministers by independent experts, to ensure as far as possible there are no further such errors in the index. I have placed revised tables in the Library.

  The revised tables show changes in the rankings both of individual local authorities, and of the new small super output areas. The most significant of these is that Ashfield has moved out of the list of authorities which are in the top 50 on at least one of the district level measures in the index, while Hammersmith and Fulham rejoins that list.

  The new tables are also being placed being on the Department's website.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Energy plc (State Aids)
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  The Government were expecting to receive a decision from the European Commission in summer 2004 on the Government's proposed restructuring aid to British Energy plc. Receipt of a positive decision is a condition of the proposed restructuring of the company.

  Due to the need to complete final assessments in relation to the financing of the company post-restructuring, it will now not be possible for the Government to present all the necessary information to the commission in time to enable the commission to take a decision before its summer break. Consequently, I now expect the commission to take a decision in autumn 2004.

  British Energy continues to make progress on its restructuring, which remains subject to a number of significant uncertainties and important conditions. As I have said previously, the Government's contingency plans to fund the administration of the company should any of the restructuring conditions not be met or the restructuring fail for any other reason will, therefore, remain in place.

  Estate Agents
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe)
  I aimed to publish the Government's response to the Office of Fair Trading report on the estate agency market in England and Wales by 18 June, but we have received a number of recent representations on the report that we are still considering. I expect the response to be published shortly.

  Chemical Weapons Act
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)
  I am pleased to announce that in accordance with the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, I have today laid a report before the House on its operation during 2003.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  New Deal
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I have today published a paper "Building on New Deal: Local solutions meeting individual needs" winch provides details of our strategy for building on the success of our employment programmes. A copy has been placed in the Library and copies are available for hon. Members from the Vote Office. This follows the publication of our preliminary paper on the 19 May.

  The UK employment rate is now the highest in the G7, and the unemployment rate the lowest. Employment has risen in every region of the UK, and risen more in areas that previously had the lowest employment rates. The number of unemployed people has fallen by over 600,000 on both measures since 1997 to its lowest level for over a quarter of a century.

  This success reflects a comprehensive economic strategy that the Government has put into place since 1997. At the heart of this success has been our welfare to work policies such as the new deal programmes, which have helped well over a million people to find work.

  We have achieved significant falls in unemployment and rises in the employment levels of lone parents and older workers. But we are determined to do even more for those who face the most difficult barriers to work. We will build upon the success of the new deal, strengthening its ability to help people who face particular difficulties in moving into employment. This requires a personalised approach where personal advisers and local managers are given sufficient flexibility to deliver solutions appropriate for individuals and local labour markets. This strategy builds on existing policies to secure social justice for those who too often have been left behind, and to enable them to realise their full potential, to the economic and social benefit of the whole community and to achieve the goal of full employment in every region and nation of the UK.

  We will be working with the devolved administrations, our private and voluntary sector partners and other organisations to successfully deliver this new approach and help even more people to move from benefit dependency into work.

DEFENCE

  Iraq: UK Forces in Multinational Division (South-East)
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  As part of the routine management of UK forces in the Multinational Division (South-East) (MND(SE)) in Iraq, we intend to conduct a further roulement over the coming months. The lead UK formation, currently 1 Mechanised Brigade, will be provided by 4 Armoured
  49WS
  Brigade from October 2004. In addition to 4 Armoured Brigade's Headquarters and Signals squadron, we plan to replace the major units currently in Iraq as follows:

  Unit deploying

  Unit currently in theatre

  4 Armoured Brigade Headquarters and Signal Squadron

  1 Mechanised Brigade Headquarters and Signal Squadron

  1st the Queen's Dragoon Guards

  The Household Cavalry Regiment

  The Royal Dragoon Guards

  The Queens Royal Lancers

  4th Regiment the Royal Artillery

  1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery

  1st Battalion the Scots Guards

  1st Battalion the Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment

  1st Battalion the Welsh Guards

  1st Battalion the Royal Welch Fusiliers

  1st Battalion the Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  1st Battalion the Cheshire Regiment

  21 Engineer Regiment

  22 Engineer Regiment

  This process of roulement is currently planned to take place over the period from mid-October to mid-November. We expect that 4 Armoured Brigade Headquarters will assume authority in early November. We expect that the number of armed forces personnel in theatre will remain broadly stable as a result of these changes.

  In my statement on 27 May 2004, Official Report, column 1725, I announced that we were reducing the notice to move of 40 Commando the Royal Marines, in case it proved necessary to deploy it to help continue the work currently carried out by the two surge battalions, the 1st Battalion the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers. These battalions have carried out much impressive work, particularly in developing Iraqi security forces. However, the General Officer Commanding has concluded that there will be a continuing requirement for some surge capability in MND(SE), both to provide support to Iraqi security forces in the early stages of the transitional period, and to provide capacity for some other tasks, including the protection of essential infrastructure over the summer period.

  As I announced in that statement, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders will complete their six-month tour in July. Three companies of the Royal Highland Fusiliers were originally deployed for a three-month tour to mid-July (the other company forms the Falkland Island Roulement Infantry Company). We have concluded that we should not extend their tour in Iraq any further. On the advice of the General Officer Commanding, therefore, I have decided that 40 Commando should deploy to replace the Royal Highland Fusiliers. Because all four companies of 40 Commando will deploy to Iraq there will be a net increase of approximately 270 personnel in theatre, which will bring the total to around 9,200. We envisage that deployment will begin on 21 June in order to complete the handover in mid-July.

  As part of the roulement from 1 Mechanised Brigade to 4 Armoured Brigade, and in line with our policy of employing the reserves as an integral component of the armed forces, we shall shortly begin mobilising a further
  50WS
  tranche of approximately 750 reservists to support operations in Iraq, with a view to deployment from mid-October onwards. This is a smaller deployment than previously required for Op TELIC. We currently have some 1,400 Army reservists carrying out a range of activities including medical support, force protection duties and providing individual reinforcements to units. We anticipate that most of these tasks will continue but the reduction in the number of individual reinforcements required and the replacement of the Reserve Field Hospital with one staffed by Regular soldiers will reduce the total Reserve requirement. These changes mean that the number of Army reservists in theatre will drop to about 1,050 at the start of the roulement (about 13 percent of the land component) and then further reduce to about 750 over the following months.

  We aim to issue the call-out notices in two tranches on 23 July and 27 August and begin deployment in mid-October. Reservist personnel will receive at least 21 days' notice. Mobilisation will be followed by a period of individual, pre-deployment and collective training, integration into receiving units, and then a short period of pre-deployment leave. The majority of those called-out can expect a deployed tour of six months and a total period of mobilisation, including post-tour leave, of about nine months, though for a few it may be longer.

  Between now and 23 July we aim to identify for selection as accurately as possible those reservists who are believed to be fit and available for deployment. As is customary, to ensure that we successfully mobilise the required number, we will need to issue a greater number of call-out notices than the actual requirement.

  I would emphasise that these are routine adjustments to UK forces in MND(SE). We continue to consider, with our partners in the multinational force, the levels and dispositions of forces required in Iraq in the months ahead, to support the sovereign Interim Government of Iraq through the process leading to the election of a transitional assembly and Government early in 2005. If we judge that further changes to the UK military contribution in Iraq would be appropriate to support this process, we will of course inform the House at the earliest opportunity. At present, however, no such decision has been made.

  Northern Ireland
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  As part of our normal process of keeping force levels under review, the General Officer Commandry Northern Ireland, in consultation with the Chief Constable of the PSNI, has concluded that two of his units (not routinely based in Northern Ireland) can be removed from his command as they are not required for routine support to the police in Northern Ireland. Accordingly, two battalions which have been rear-based outside Northern Ireland since December 2003 and February 2004, will transfer to the command of CinC LAND on 16 July 2004.

  This is a prudent measure based on the GOC's and Chief Constable's assessment of the current security situation and the success of the PSNI in dealing with the threat from terrorism with reduced military support. It does not affect the Army's ability to support the PSNI in countering the threat from terrorism and preventing

  51WS
  potential public disorder. We will continue to keep force levels in Northern Ireland under regular review to best deliver the support required by the PSNI.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Medical Expert Witnesses
  The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge)
  I am making this statement with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman).

  Widespread concern has been expressed about the quality and validity of evidence given by medical expert witnesses following the recent appeals against convictions of mothers alleged to have been responsible for killing their children.

  Medical evidence from expert witnesses plays an important part in court proceedings. Proceedings in the criminal and family courts are different from one another and do not follow the same processes. Requirements differ between them in relation to standards of proof, rules of evidence and admissibility of material. In criminal procedures, the competency of witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution can be challenged. The prosecution has to establish facts beyond reasonable doubt. In civil proceedings, evidence is assessed against a threshold of proof that is based on the balance of probabilities, though there too the input of expert witnesses may be tested by the parties to a case and by the court, before judicial determinations are made.

  The concerns surrounding the reliability of expert witnesses are both complex and substantial and are worsening the already acute problem which the family courts are experiencing in finding experts of high standing to give medical evidence in proceedings, particularly where child abuse is suspected. Nonetheless, these issues of concern go beyond child protection or children's cases and involve the scientific basis for medical evidence given both in criminal and civil courts, and extend to other areas, such as forensic pathology.

  We have already taken a number of steps. I have, as indicated in my statement of 23 February 2004, issued guidance to local authorities in Local Authority Circular I (2004)5, asking that they review the cases of children who are the subject of current care proceedings or where local authorities are exercising responsibility for children who are currently the subject of care and related orders. The results of an initial survey have today been placed in the Library. The survey was carried out by the Association of Directors of Social Services, and asked questions relating to the first stage review we asked local authorities to undertake. This first stage review covered all of the cases of children who are the subject of current care proceedings. This stage did not cover children who were already the subject of a care or related order. These cases will be reviewed as a second stage review and a more comprehensive picture will be obtained once this second stage has been completed.

  Of the 150 local authorities with social services responsibilities, 130 have responded to the survey. The 130 local authorities reported that the number of cases
  52WS
  in which disputed expert medical evidence features, or is anticipated to feature, is relatively small, arising in only 47 out of the 5,175 cases. There were a total of nine cases where the impact of this evidence on the live proceedings is already known. In one of these cases there has been a change in the local authority's care plan. In a further 38 cases, the proceedings are not yet sufficiently advanced for it yet to be clear whether the disputed medical evidence will result in a change to the care plan. The further survey of the second stage review, which is now being commissioned will ascertain the extent to which the review of existing orders, perhaps 30,000 in number, has led to changes in current care plans. The results of this second survey will also be placed in the Library.

  Nonetheless, the results of this initial survey should not give rise to complacency that the interests of children and their families are being optimally served. We are, therefore, also announcing today a programme of work to determine how best to ensure the availability and quality of medical expert resources to the family courts. Sir Liam Donaldson, the Government's Chief Medical Officer (CMO), will lead this work and plans to involve a wide range of interests, including judicial, I legal, clinical specialities, scientific, statistical and consumer interests, as well as health regulatory bodies. The CMO will determine how this work will be taken forward.

  I also wish to take this opportunity to highlight the publication, on 14 May 2004, of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the family cases of Re LB and Re LU. This important judgment sets out clearly the ways in which the judgment in the case of Angela Cannings impacts on the family jurisdiction. I will be writing to local authorities, in order to draw their attention to this new judgment and to the action taken by the GMC in relation to Dr Colin Paterson's past performance as an expert medical witness in certain family cases.

TREASURY

  Financial Services
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  In July 2002, Ron Sandler published his report into the medium and long-term savings industry in the UK. He found that the savings market was daunting for the consumer, that the industry's products were complex and opaque and that there were weak competitive pressures on providers of financial products. He identified a number of formidable challenges for the Government, the regulator and for the industry. He recommended the introduction of a suite of simple regulated products—with capped charges, investment risk controls and no exit penalties—to build on the existing stakeholder pension and CAT-mark regime and to entrench competition in the market, stripping out substantial elements of cost.

  I can today announce some important steps forward which will offer a robust basis for the future of the savings industry—one in which effective competitive forces can be made to work for the benefit of consumers, the wider economy and, ultimately, the industry itself.

  First, in response to Ron Sandler's recommendations, the FSA has successfully market-tested a new basic advice regime for stakeholder products. This would

  53WS
  reduce the time taken for a typical pension sale from several hours to approximately 30–40 minutes. In the future, employees would be able to buy a pension or other stakeholder product in their lunch hour.

  The FSA has today launched its consultation on the details of the new basic advice regime. The regime reflects the simpler, risk-controlled nature of stakeholder products while maintaining consumer protection.

  Secondly, I can today announce that the charges on the new stakeholder regime will be excellent value for consumers, while allowing lower-income consumers greater access to financial products.

  The Government have always maintained that the price cap for stakeholder products should reflect the economics of the stakeholder market.

  Therefore, in 2003, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions commissioned research by Deloitte on the market impact of a range of price caps to inform the Government's decision on the price cap. This research is being published today. We have also consulted widely with consumer groups and industry.

  For the deposit account product, the Government have decided that the interest rate earned should be no lower than 1 per cent. below the Bank of England base rate. This product will replace the cash ISA for which the price cap was set at 2 per cent. below the base rate and therefore represents even better value for money for consumers.

  For the medium-term product, the Government have decided to set the cap at an annual management charge of 1.5 per cent. for the first 10 years that the product is held and 1.0 per cent. thereafter. This will provide excellent value for money for consumers while giving providers satisfactory returns and the scope for price competition under the cap.

  In the pension market, the stakeholder pension has already had a huge impact. Nearly 2 million stakeholder pensions have been sold and charges have been driven down right across the industry. When the price cap was set in 2000 it allowed for advice to be charged for separately. However, the market has not evolved as expected, with very few firms separately charging for advice. The result has been that the industry has been reluctant to sell their products to lower-income consumers. We have listened to representations from consumer groups and from the industry. The Government have therefore decided to raise the cap on the annual management charge for the stakeholder pension product to 1.5 per cent. for the first 10 years that the product is held and 1.0 per cent thereafter, matching the cap set for the new medium-term product and encouraging long-term saving. This will allow the cost of basic advice to be incorporated under the cap, whilst maintaining excellent value for customers.

  The Government would expect there to be significant price competition under these caps and in particular prices to be lower than 1 per cent. for substantial numbers of stakeholder products sold, for example, without advice or to group schemes. We intend to review the new caps in three years to assess their impact on competition in the market.
  54WS
  We realise that, for less efficient providers these charge caps represent a challenge. But it is only right that firms are challenged so that our objectives of good deals for consumers and increasing efficiency are met. But for those firms that can exploit innovative and efficient ways of distributing stakeholder products, these charge caps represent an excellent opportunity for profitable growth and so I hope that they will be welcomed by the financial services industry.

  The Treasury consultation document is available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  European Community Association Agreements Applications
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  On 30 March, I asked Ken Sutton, Senior Director (Asylum) in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), to investigate allegations about how applications under the European Communities Association Agreements (ECAA) from citizens of Romania and Bulgaria to come to the United Kingdom to establish businesses or set up in self-employment had been dealt with. The central allegation was of a massive, well-organised scam in relation to these applications and that whilst this had been drawn to the attention of the Home Office nothing had been done to address the problem.

  These were serious allegations and to get to the facts quickly in order to set matters right, I asked Mr. Sutton to investigate them. I am grateful to him for the thoroughness of his work. Mr. Sutton makes 15 recommendations all of which I accept and which I am today publishing with his report in full.

  The ECAAs, which were signed from 1994 onwards, give rights of establishment in EU member states to those from accession countries seeking to set up in business or self-employment. Such people are to be treated no less favourably than nationals of the host state. The thinking behind the agreements is that, in advance of accession, citizens of countries joining the European Union should have some of the advantages of membership. People who establish themselves here in business or in self-employment bring real benefits to our economy and to their own countries as they prepare for membership of the EU.

  Responsibility for granting entry into the UK under the scheme came to be shared between staff in the IND—first in Croydon and later in Sheffield—and staff in posts overseas. The issue at the centre of these allegations is that IND staff granted applications under the ECAA on the basis of pro forma business plans and forged documentation and ignored repeated attempts by entry clearance staff in post in Bucharest and Sofia to challenge this practice. It was also alleged that the underlying reason for this practice was to reduce the number of asylum applications in the UK.

  Mr. Sutton confirms that there is clear evidence that the ECAA category has been exploited and that applications were granted to some individuals who were unlikely to have been able to demonstrate that they could sustain themselves in business. However, because of the staged nature of the process, final, indefinite leave

  55WS
  to remain in the UK had only been granted to around 150 applicants in the last two years by the time of the suspension of the scheme in March. Others who came to the UK in this way have not yet reached that status and the actions that Mr. Sutton recommends and that I have instructed the IND to put in place, mean that only those who meet the full requirements of the scheme will be allowed to stay permanently in this country. He also suggests that the real purpose of those coming to the UK in this way was likely to be simply to seek employment rather than to exploit the welfare state for provision of benefits to which they were not entitled.

  In turning to how this situation has arisen, Mr. Sutton's report concludes that the central allegation that the Home Office was made aware of a scam and took no steps to address it is wrong. But it does paint a picture of an insufficiently robust approach to the way in which this scheme functioned operationally and a failure of related management systems. The report finds that there was a sharp difference of view between, on the one hand, staff responsible for policy and casework on ECAA applications in IND who thought there was little room in law for manoeuvre in refusing applications and, on the other, staff in Bucharest and Sofia responsible for considering entry clearance applications in such cases, who favoured a much tougher approach. Mr. Sutton concludes that neither approach was entirely right but that a more robust approach could and should be adopted.

  The reason for this problem stems back to 1996, when the practice followed in dealing with applications made at ports of entry under the ECAAs was challenged in the courts. In the judgments of the European Court of Justice which followed in September 2001 the Court emphasised that Member States were prohibited from discriminating against these nationals setting up in business or self-employment. Staff in the IND took from this, from the terms of the agreements themselves, and from the fact that there are few restrictions on British citizens establishing business or setting up as self-employed people, that there were only limited grounds for refusing applicants under the ECAA especially in low skilled routes. The view in the IND was so entrenched that the warnings from entry clearance staff and the increase in numbers in the scheme did not lead to a reconsideration of the correct interpretation of our obligations under the ECAA. As a result, no analysis of alternative approaches was considered by senior managers or put to Ministers including when my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) requested advice following receipt of a letter last year from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). The fact that an aspect of the Government's approach to ECAA cases had previously been challenged on applicants' behalf in the European Court of Justice highlights the difficulties of striking the right balance in this area.

  On the other hand, entry clearance staff in Bucharest and Sofia, faced with a significant increase in the number of applications and the growth of advisers whose services included the provision of standard format business plans, favoured a different approach under which most cases would have been refused. This difference of view was the subject of exchanges between staff in the posts and the Home Office over a period, but
  56WS
  the Home Office view prevailed because this was believed to be a necessary consequence of the terms of the agreements and the relevant ECJ judgments.

  While the requirements for a successful application are not high, particularly in a low-skilled trade, legal advice that Mr. Sutton has taken in the course of his investigation would support a more challenging approach to decision making in these cases than the Home Office has taken in the past. Under this approach, factors such as those identified by the posts as grounds for refusal could be taken into account in deciding, in the round, whether the application is credible, although none of these factors on its own would support a legally sustainable refusal without looking at the overall strength of the application.

  Mr. Sutton has recommended that in future decisions on applications for entry clearance in this category should be taken at the post by entry clearance officers and that new guidance should be drawn up reflecting the legal advice he has taken. I have accepted these recommendations, and a team comprising Home Office, UK visas and FCO staff will shortly visit Bucharest and Sofia to establish the new approach. Once this guidance is in place, I intend, with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, to restore the service to those seeking entry clearance under the ECAAs at the posts at Bucharest and Sofia. Genuine applicants under the agreements who establish themselves here in business or as self-employed people will continue to be welcome this country, and will not be discouraged.

  In addition, I have reinforced with managers my existing directive that all significant legal judgments should be drawn to my attention with a view to considering both their implications and the potential for further challenge.

  Allegations were also made about the use of fraudulent documents in applications. Mr. Sutton's investigation has found that the IND did take an appropriately serious view of cases where there were grounds for suspecting that passports or other travel documents were forged. The report also finds that confirmation of the fact that some bank statements were forged emerged only following the posting of an immigration liaison officer to Bucharest in December last year and that action was taken on this between then and the allegations made in March. This is important given the charge that IND staff were agreeing applications that they knew to be supported by forged documentation. However, there are still grounds for concern in relation to employment records that were not adequately dealt with because they were not believed to be sufficient grounds for refusal of an application. He therefore recommends that the new guidance should make it clear that the authenticity of all supporting documents is relevant to the decision in the round on the credibility of the application.

  I have already indicated that only 150 applicants were able to proceed to indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a result of the scheme. However, the number of individuals gaining initial entry into the UK using this route or switching into it from other categories was substantial. Mr. Sutton identifies a total of ECAA applications from Romanian and Bulgarian citizens over the relevant period as being just under 7,400 in 2002–03 and nearly 16,600 in 2003–04. Twenty five per

  57WS
  cent. of applications to switch into the category from people already in the UK were from Romanian and Bulgarian nationals. I have already announced a series of measures to tighten the arrangements for those coming to work in the UK that the recommendations in this report will strengthen still further.

  Many of these will be applications that would have been granted in any case, but it is likely that some involved people who intended to work without necessarily setting up in business or being self-employed. Mr. Sutton's report also indicates that it is likely that most of those successful under the scheme worked and in consequence did not come to make demands on the benefits system. None the less, we will now ensure that other than those few who have been granted ILR, all of those already in the UK under the ECAA for a limited period are fully tested before they are given indefinite leave to remain or are permitted further extensions short of that. We shall therefore strengthen our approach to decisions not only at entry clearance stage, but also at later stages, and will be looking to test rigorously whether businesses on which earlier successful applications were based have in fact been established and are viable. I have therefore also accepted Mr. Sutton's recommendation that the relevant immigration rules should be rewritten, and in particular that where the applicant is already in this country and is seeking to switch into the ECAA category, the test should be significantly tightened. The approach should mirror the case of ECAA applicants who arrive at ports without entry clearance. The IND should only grant such applications if the applicant "clearly and manifestly" meets the relevant test for the ECAA category. This should be seen as a significant test and one that the majority of applicants might fail. This will include the allocation of enforcement staff to carry out checks on those already in the system and, if appropriate, to remove them from the UK.

  The rewritten immigration rules will also include clearer requirements ensuring that applicants have sufficient funds to be able to support themselves financially while in the UK without having to resort to another job or seeking state benefits.

  However, whilst operational practice in relation to these applications was clearly inadequate, the report finds that action was taken to respond to the exploitation of the ECAA route in Romania and Bulgaria in particular in relation to links to organised crime. Mr. Sutton's report finds that, over two years ago, intelligence-led operations and, in particular under Reflex Romania, were mounted against organised immigration crime which had an impact on investigating organised exploitation of the ECAA category. Under this programme resources have been provided to develop a central intelligence unit in Romania with seconded staff as well as specialist training and equipment. Overall—covering immigration crime as a whole—this unit has already disrupted 40 operations and arrested nearly 100 people since it started about 18 months ago.

  These operations continue, and have already led to arrests. Since details cannot be published, Mr. Sutton has recommended that Opposition spokesmen be offered a confidential briefing on the operations that I
  58WS
  have now made available. He has also recommended that we should build on the equivalent programme in Bulgaria on which work began three months ago.

  Mr. Sutton has also reported on the posting last year of an immigration liaison officer (ILO) to Bucharest whose work has been instrumental in crystallising understanding of the recent problems, and who has gone on to prompt action against those representatives whose activities have stepped beyond legitimate help for applicants. I welcome this positive development. This was followed up by visits from senior officials in March this year.

  I also touched on these operations in my own speech to the House on 30 March when I referred to the visit by officials earlier that month. This visit was for discussions with the Romanians on combating illegal immigration, including the Reflex work. Abuse of the ECAA route came up at briefing meetings that my senior official had with embassy staff. The report I received from him on 4 March on his visit referred to concerns that the ECAA scheme was vulnerable to abuse, that a solicitor had been arrested on suspicion of facilitation in connection with this, and that he was following this up. In the course of his inquiry, Mr. Sutton has now found that in fact James Cameron had a more detailed informal conversation, not with my senior official, but with other members of his team, which was not reported to me at the time or to my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State.

  Mr. Sutton also examined the allegation that the IND approach was motivated by a desire to reduce the numbers of those claiming asylum from the two countries in order to meet the Prime Minister's target to halve the number of asylum applications. He concludes that the Home Office approach was motivated by a genuinely held view that the law required cases to be decided in a particular way, and not, as has been alleged, by the drive to reduce the level of asylum applications. In reality the number of asylum applications from citizens of all East European countries fell during the relevant period which was as a result of our introduction of non-suspensive appeals in clearly unfounded cases. The decrease in applications continued following the introduction of non-suspensive appeals in November 2002 and March 2003. This is consistent with the findings of the recent review of asylum statistics by the National Audit Office [HC 625 Session 2003–04] which concluded that
  "there is no clear statistical evidence that the reduction in the number of asylum applications has had any significant impact on other forms of migration".
  The supporting analysis for the NAO report, undertaken by a team from University College, London concluded that:
  "There is little likelihood of a link between the increase in entrants under the ECAA Arrangements and the fall in the number of asylum applicants over the period".

  To sum up, Mr. Sutton's report describes a significant, and until now unresolved, failure in handling ECAA applications over the last two years. As a result, around 150 applicants under the ECAA scheme—some of whom may not have been successful under the process I am putting in place—have been granted indefinite leave to remain. But it does not find that allegations about wholesale exploitation of a process by organised criminals were ignored—on the

  59WS
  contrary arrests had already taken place when the allegations were made—nor that applications were simply waved through in order to meet an asylum target. This has not led to the wholesale undermining of our balanced immigration and asylum policy. Those who came here to work have done so and contributed to our economy.

  Nonetheless this report exposes failings that I am determined—with senior management—to set right. Over the last two years, my right hon. Friend the member for Stretford and Urmston oversaw a major programme of change including establishing a programme board structure and the restructuring of management systems and management information. Closer links have been established between operations and policy and with UK visas and posts abroad. UK visas are now, for example, represented at senior level on the Joint Programme Board of officials which oversees the Home Office/Department of Constitutional Affairs Immigration and Asylum Delivery Plan. These changes have already shown results in relation to asylum. Building on that success and the more recent establishment of task-forces on students, marriage, migration for work (including under the ECAAs) and the Commonwealth working holidaymaker scheme
  60WS
  which brings together policy, operational and intelligence personnel, IND now has a stronger capacity to identify significant trends in applications, spot emerging problems and mobilise policy and operational resources to address them, as should have happened in this case and which is a prerequisite to ensure that Ministers and senior managers are abreast of all important developments.

  In addition, the IND has developed its internal arrangements for management of intelligence. A new tactical and tasking coordination group has recently been established and the national intelligence model has been adopted. The group is responsible for considering risks, deciding priorities and resourcing issues, arising from an assessment of areas of immigration control that might be open to abuse. There is also a new form of reporting to Ministers that covers risks and counter measures including operations. These mechanisms mean that in future, the organisation will be more effective in spotting trends and tackling problems.

  Mr. Sutton's report makes a number of other recommendations, all of which I have accepted. Ministers and senior management alike are determined to ensure that real improvements are made as a result of the report we are publishing today.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

NHS Dental Services
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether National Health Service primary care trusts are obliged to make National Health Service dental treatment available to all patients resident in their catchment areas; and what obligations they have to provide such treatment to non-resident patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, currently, primary care trusts are required to make arrangements for the provision of dental services only where a general dental practitioner on their list has agreed to provide dental treatment and appliances to a patient. The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 gives primary care trusts the new duty to provide or secure the provision of primary dental services in their area, to the extent that they consider necessary to meet reasonable requirements. That brings dentistry into line with NHS medical services. We will be implementing this new provision, which goes wider than residence of an area, alongside a new contract, which we are currently discussing with the dental profession.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. From what he said, there seems no longer to be an obligation on the National Health Service to provide national health dentistry. The term with which he replied—"in so far as they see it appropriate", or something of that type—was very qualified. What can he assure me will happen, because dentists have still not seen the proposed new contract to be introduced next April? What does he propose will happen and how much better access does he think that patients will have to NHS dentistry?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I can tell the noble Baroness that we would not have proposed and passed the legislation if it was not going to lead to an improvement in the provision of NHS dental services. The new provisions will enable PCTs to commission dental services appropriate for their area, whereas at present they are reliant on the number of dentists that happen to be in the area to provide particular services. So that will be a strengthening of the position. As the noble Baroness knows, we have been consulting the dental profession on framework proposals for the new contract. The profession has expressed a number of concerns, although I believe that it likes the general
860
direction of travel. We are considering its comments, and my honourable friend Rosie Winterton will make an announcement shortly.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I hear that there is a shortage of dentists. Is the Minister aware that the shortage of suitably qualified academic dentists means that it is difficult to increase the number of dentists coming forward? What proposals do the Government have to respond to that situation?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government were faced with the closure of two dental schools under the previous administration.
Noble Lords: Oh.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I understand that Members on the Benches opposite have a kind of collective amnesia about some of these things and do not like to be reminded of them, but I feel that I have a public duty to remind them from time to time.
As I was saying before I started to enjoy myself, the Government have increased the output of existing dental schools during their time in office. They recognise that there are issues about academic provision, as there are in medical schools, and they are doing their best to strengthen those arrangements.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, what is now the average waiting time for a child to have extractions under general anaesthetic? Has that time been lengthened because anaesthetists must now have paediatric training?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Baroness because I do not have those details at my fingertips.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the continuing uncertainty about the dental contract is causing a great deal of disquiet in the profession? When will the Government provide details of the new base contract and make clear to dentists the patients for whom they will be expected to be responsible?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I sometimes feel that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. We have gone through a process of consultation with the dental profession. It has expressed concern about some aspects of the framework proposals. We are considering its concerns, which is the right and proper thing to do. The Government will respond to the dental profession and the public as quickly as possible when we have considered those concerns.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I hear what the Minister has to say on that subject, but we are only nine months away from when dentists are expected to implement that contract under PCTs. The Government still do not appear to have made available details of not only remuneration but other aspects of the contract, yet dentists are expected to invest in their practices to

861
conform to the new contract and arrangements. Is there not a case to be made for postponing the coming into effect of those arrangements?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I take cognisance of the noble Lord's remarks, but we are working with primary care trusts to prepare them to take on their new dental responsibilities. They will be able to build on their recent experience of implementing the new contract for GPs so successfully. PCTs and dentists are already coming to us because they want to try out the new arrangements now, but we must first conclude the discussions with the British Dental Association, which wanted indefinitely to postpone this set of changes, to which we do not agree. In December, 20 practices wanted to proceed. There are now more than 400.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the BDA that there are 30,000 registered dentists, which represents 11,000 high street practices? When the new proposals are introduced next April, at least 4,000—possibly as many as 5,000—extra dentists will be required. In view of his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, what can be done to provide extra dentists? Where will he find them?
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: Australia.
Lord Warner: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I am sure, I am always pleased to have suggestions for recruiting Australian dentists.
We are considering a range of measures to expand the dental workforce. We have expanded the number of places for dental therapists and about 650 are now registered. They make a contribution. I remind noble Lords that, on international comparisons, the number of dentists in this country is pretty well in line with those in western Europe and the USA.

Civil Service Draft Bill
11.7 a.m.
Lord Sheldon Lord Sheldon asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to publish a draft Bill on the Civil Service.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government are committed to publishing a draft Civil Service Bill for consultation in this parliamentary Session.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I welcome the reply from my noble friend, but it is three years since the Government were firmly committed to a Bill. So there has been some obvious reluctance. Will the Bill remove the situation where some special advisers are more powerful than many members of the Cabinet? Will there be specific
862
legislation on the role of special advisers—not just Orders in Council, which Parliament can only accept or reject? Parliament must be able to consider and decide on what those powers should be. Does my noble friend accept that the Civil Service should not be the property of the Government; it should be the property of Parliament on behalf of the people of this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that we all readily agree with the last point. Returning to my noble friend's initial questions, the answer to his first question is that, as I understand it, there is no intention at present to limit the number of special advisers with executive powers. It is the case that there is only one in the Government's employ; that will remain the case. As for the general issue of special advisers, we have had some useful discussion and debate in your Lordships' House recently—indeed, very recently. We are intent on consulting on that through the draft Bill which, as I said, we will introduce during the current parliamentary Session.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both his noble friend and the Question that he asked deserved a great deal more than the rather cursory reply that was all that the Minister could manage in the first instance? The noble Lord has today confirmed the impression that the Government do not regard this subject as urgent or important, but as something that can be easily brushed off. If the noble Lord does feel like that, I hope that he will soon correct his view.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not something that we take lightly. We take this matter very seriously, and we have had some useful and valuable discussions in your Lordships' House about the Civil Service Bill in draft form. Questions have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord McNally, who asked an interesting question the other day about the Phillis review. We dealt with many of these issues. We do not take the matter lightly, and it is not something that we dismiss.
I remind the noble Lord that his party was in government for 18 years, and it chose to take absolutely no action on this issue at all. We are committed to consultation and, as I have made plain, we intend to bring forward a draft Bill for consultation in the current parliamentary Session.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for the Minister having regularly to come here and play the dead bat on these questions. Does he agree that the real problem is where it has always been, in No. 10 Downing Street, with a Prime Minister who has consistently resisted permanent secretary advice to bring in a Civil Service Act? Will he send the message back to the Prime Minister that any hope of restoring

863
trust in himself and his administration relies on him carrying through the purge of spin in his Government that was recommended by Phillis? That will take place only if civil servants are given the protection that only a Civil Service Act can provide.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said in your Lordships' House today, and I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said a couple of days ago when we were debating the Phillis review. I rather thought that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, thought that the Phillis review was valuable. He congratulated the Government on our work in that regard. I made it plain then, as I have done on previous occasions, that we are committed to implementing the Phillis review, and we have made some steady progress in that direction.
As to the Prime Minister's view, it is clearly not for me to tell the Prime Minister what to do; that would be quite wrong. The Prime Minister made an important speech earlier this year on the Civil Service, and I thought that the speech was admirable for its radicalism and its commitment to the Civil Service. It made plain this Government's commitment to the values of the Civil Service and the important, impartial way in which the Civil Service operates. All Members of your Lordships' House have signed up to that, and it is something to be cherished and valued in public life in this country.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this Government have politicised the Civil Service by the introduction of huge numbers of special advisers and by the positions that they have been given, in charge of civil servants in some cases? That is what is causing a lot of the trouble. In order to try to reassure my noble friend Lord Peyton, and others who are concerned about the Government dragging their feet over this, will the Minister tell us not only when we will have a draft Bill—in this Session, he says—but when we will have a real Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are committed to a draft Bill. I will not be making an announcement as to when we will have a "real" Bill in your Lordships' House. That would be quite wrong, as it would be prejudging what might be in the Queen's Speech. Our Government have clarified the position of special advisers. The noble Lord admitted to having been one himself. I am not sure whether in those days it would have been made clear what the roles and responsibilities of special advisers were. It was not until this Government came into office that model contracts and a code of conduct were issued, so that there were greater lines of demarcation and clarity about the role of special advisers in government.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in the passage of my Bill through this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, made the important suggestion, which seemed to find some favour, that there should be a Joint Select Committee of both Houses, which might consider both the Government's draft Bill and the Bill passed by this House as well as the Bill introduced in the other place by Tony Wright's committee. Can serious consideration be given to that notion, so that the matter can be properly considered with all these issues properly debated and scrutinised?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord invites me simply to confirm what I have said before. We will give consideration to that valuable suggestion. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for repeating it today, because it gives me the opportunity to repeat our commitment to giving that consideration.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, has the noble Lord not actually, while appearing to shuffle forward, taken a step backwards today? In his original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, did he say that the Government have decided not to include in the proposed legislation any measures to limit either the number or the scope of the powers of special advisers to whom executive powers are given?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that I was fairly clear in saying that we were obviously going to consult through the draft Bill on the position of special advisers. I also made it plain that we had no intention to limit the number of special advisers with executive powers. I have made that position plain before.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, on that last point, the greatest possible assurance would be given to civil servants about the Government's commitment to the values of the Civil Service if the Government were to withdraw the power of special advisers to exercise executive or directorial powers over career civil servants. The Minister appeared to suggest that as there was only one of them, that was only a little baby, and we did not need to worry about it, but it is the principle that is involved. I do not know how much use is made of that power by the one individual concerned. I sincerely ask him—will he look at this in earnest? As a sign of good intent, to remove that power would be one of the best things that the Government could do.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously I hear what the noble Lord says. His advice and guidance on these matters is greatly respected by your Lordships' House and has been greatly respected by this Government and previous governments. Clearly, the role of special advisers is taken seriously, and we will consult on it through the draft legislation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sorry, we need to move on.

Tobacco Growing: EU Subsidies
11.17 a.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Given their intention to take steps to reduce smoking in the United Kingdom, why they continue to support European Union subsidies towards the growing of tobacco.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the tobacco regime was in place when the UK joined the European Community in 1973. UK governments have never supported the regime and have constantly pressed for its discontinuation. We are now in a situation where agreement was reached at the Agriculture Council in April this year to end direct support for tobacco from 2010.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, why is it that this year our taxpayers must pay £88 million towards subsidising the growing of tobacco in the European Union? Is this not a typical example of applying a policy for the whole of Europe that could and should affect only part of it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I largely agree with the noble Lord. We disapproved of this when we joined the European Union, but it was part of the common agricultural policy at that point. Successive governments have tried to change it, and we have now succeeded under this Government, although not as quickly as we would have liked. The agreement reached in April in principle decouples payment to tobacco growers, but the compromise is that the tobacco producers can recouple 60 per cent of it until 2010. From 2010, there will be no incentive to grow tobacco in Europe.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would be far more sensible to give these people generous settlements and so get rid of this inefficient, unnecessary and unwanted tobacco growing?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in line with the radical changes in the rest of the common agricultural policy, the agreement is to decouple and to move to a single farm payment. After 2010, the ex-tobacco growers will receive 50 per cent of what was previously the tobacco subsidy in terms of a single farm payment unrelated to a particular crop and therefore not an incentive to grow tobacco. That is the way in which we have dealt with it for other crops under the CAP, more or less. A single farm payment that allows farmers right across Europe to decide what to grow, rather than tying it to a particular crop, will also from 2010 apply to tobacco.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether this tobacco is consumed? If my figures are correct, only about 2 per cent of the world production of tobacco comes from the EC.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the percentage is slightly higher than that. Total tobacco production is getting on for 6 per cent of world production. Of course, that means a vast amount of tobacco that is consumed in this country and the rest of Europe is not grown in Europe under this subsidy regime.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, first, can the Minister tell us the total figure for tobacco subsidies? Secondly, why is there the delay between 2004 to 2010? That seems to be a huge period of time. Will the subsidies be tapered—reduced—over that time?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I was explaining, the subsidies will be decoupled but then recoupled up to 60 per cent. So, in that sense, it will be reduced up to that period. From 2010, there will be no relationship between any subsidy going to tobacco growers and the growing of tobacco.
As regards the total spend, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness because I do not have my glasses on—this is in 10 point type. The sum is about 600 million or 700 million euros, but I shall confirm the exact figure subsequently.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, is it still the case, as it was a few years ago, that a good deal of the subsidised tobacco grown in Europe has no known demand anywhere in the world?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that is largely true and another absurdity of this situation. It is quite apart from the absurdity of us continuing to subsidise a crop that causes severe health damage across Europe. The fact that much of that tobacco is not particularly popular even among smokers in Europe or elsewhere is another dimension to something that we are now, at last, bringing to an end.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, is it not bonkers to give a subsidy to grow tobacco, then to tax people for smoking it and tell them that they will die if they do?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. As the noble Lord said, it is "bonkers". It has been bonkers for the past 30 years. At last, we have come to an agreement which, eventually, in six years' time, will end that particular madness.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, does the existence of a European constitution enable the date of 2010 to be brought forward?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, theoretically probably, but it has very little to do with the constitution. This is a longstanding and rather grinding process of decisions under the common agricultural policy.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, are the Government proposing the same reduction in subsidy for sugar beet? It always seems to me to be unnecessary to subsidise it in this country when it can be produced much more cheaply elsewhere in the world. It also causes health problems.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the sugar regime was not covered by the reforms, but there will be a proposal from the Commission on the reform of the sugar industry shortly. Clearly, there are a wide range of difficulties arising from the sugar industry. It is not subsidised directly, but there is a European price for sugar in order to benefit the sugar beet industry, which is substantially higher than the world price. In that sense, as consumers, we are supporting the sugar beet industry of Europe. If we are moving to a liberalised agricultural system, that, too, should be radically reformed.

Universities: Accreditation
11.24 a.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a former vice-chancellor of London University and as a current governor of the Richmond American University in London, both of which institutions have had nasty brushes with the bodies named in my Question.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the legal status of the bodies known as the American University in London and the American University of London; and what action is being taken with respect to their activities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, those institutions are not universities that are recognised by the UK authorities and do not have Privy Council approval to use university title in a business name. Furthermore, neither of those institutions is accredited in the United States.
Our department has contacted both Islington and Kensington and Chelsea trading standards officers. Trading standards are still investigating options for enforcement under the Education Reform Act 1988, the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1988, the Companies Act 1985 and the Business Names Act 1985.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I note that it is the Department for Education and Skills that has taken responsibility for responding to my Question, and I am grateful to the Minister. But given that two other departments of state have a valid concern in this 10-year saga, does the Minister accept that no small part of my frustration is the
868
feeling that it has become something of a pass-the-parcel game between the Home Office, the DTI and the Department for Education and Skills? Does the Minister also accept that as well as providing a handy route for dodgy entry visas, the selling of dodgy degree diplomas tarnishes the reputation of higher education in this country?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in preparing for this Question, I ensured that we consulted our colleagues in the Home Office and the DTI. I do not believe that it is a case of passing the parcel. It is incredibly difficult to deal with these issues. I understand the noble Lord's frustration, but, as he knows well, the Acts to which I referred are those under which we are able to undertake any prosecutions or to work with colleagues in trading standards. That is very difficult when there are companies that have addresses in, say, the West Indies, as occurred in one case, or which operate solely on the Internet where there are real issues about operating on an international basis.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, the Minister said that these are incredibly difficult issues to deal with. That probably suggests that we need a better way of dealing with them. Does she not agree that the careful supervision of the right to use the title "university" in this country is an important safeguard to our students? It is an important asset to British universities that are seeking to attract students from the marketplaces of the world. As higher education increasingly becomes a tradable service, that is an important issue.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords. I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, more. Again, I was careful to check the exact figures. We have education exports worth about £10·2 billion to the UK economy, of which higher education exports contributes just over £4 billion. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, may know, we are consulting on the new criteria for degree-awarding powers and university title. Consultation is out at the moment: it finishes on 25 June. We will publish new criteria for degree-awarding powers and university title later.
The DfES plans to set up a register of learning providers in the United Kingdom, which will include public and private-funded providers. That will confirm that the organisations exist and are providing learning.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I declare an interest as pro-chancellor of the University of London. Can the Minister confirm the recent reports that the Immigration Service has been detecting people who have arrived in this country to study at institutions that latterly have been discovered not to exist? Do the Government maintain a list of existing organisations and institutions to which foreign student entry is appropriate? Do they make that list available to the Immigration Service?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I, too, read the press reports. This morning my officials have been trying to determine what more can be ascertained. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is due to make an announcement very, very shortly—if I can say that—about a register of learning providers. Indeed, that will be an important way in which people can understand what is registered and what is not.
One of the issues is that negligible numbers of students complain about the two institutions that the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, has rightly indicated would never be on a register of such a kind. They do not offer anything that we would recognise. In itself, that creates some difficulties if the understanding is that there are no complaints against them.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the advisory committee of the Association of Independent Higher Education Providers. Having done so, can I ask my noble friend whether she holds any views on the desirability of entry visas being designated for a specific educational establishment when they are granted overseas? Would it not help enormously in the effort to crack down on bogus students if, when entry visas were issued for the pursuit of higher education, they were designated for a specific purpose and for that purpose to be executed at a specific college?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have views on everything. However, I would be moving completely outside my area of knowledge if I were to respond directly to that question. I think that I must consult with colleagues in the Home Office because I am not qualified to give a specific answer.
Referring back to the original Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, one of the issues about these particular institutions is that they do not have a physical presence. There are no buildings. In one case there is an accommodation address, and an Internet site for the other. So this is not about students arriving here to study in those institutions because they physically do not exist.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that it would be useful to list the bona fide institutions so that overseas students applying to study in Britain could have at least some assurance that the institution to which they are applying is not bogus?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope that the imminent announcement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will go a long way to achieving that. It will ensure that people are aware of which institutions are recognised. Moreover, we already provide information about recognised degrees and institutions in the UK on our website.

Business of the House: Standing Order 47
11.30 a.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to he taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Age-Related Payments Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages on Thursday 1 July.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions Bill
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 3,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 4 to 11,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 12 to 80,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 81 to 96,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 97 to 103,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 104 to 152,
Schedule 6,
Clause 153,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 154 to 191,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 192 to 197,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 198 to 226,
Schedule 10,
Clauses 227 to 283,
Schedule 11,
Clauses 284 to 310,
Schedules 12 and 13.—(Baroness Andrews.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children Bill [H.L.]
11.32 a.m.
Report received.
Schedule 1 [Children's Commissioner]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 32, line 32, at end insert "; or
(c) significantly failed in the discharge of any of his functions"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin our deliberations on Report with a word of gratitude to the Minister. Since our debates in Committee she has been most diligent in following up the many points raised during those proceedings and has written fully to me and to other noble Lords about them. For my part, I can say that her letters have been extremely helpful and informative. I thank her and her officials for the trouble they have taken.
In moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to raise an issue that was not debated to any great extent, if at all, in Committee; that is, the accountability of the Children's Commissioner. We all hope and trust that whoever is appointed to this important post will fulfil his or her remit both capably and to general approval. No doubt, Parliament will stand in judgment on the quality of his or her performance.
What if things do not go quite so smoothly? Where are the legal mechanisms to enable the commissioner to be held properly accountable for his work? No doubt, the Minister will tell me that the commissioner will be accountable to the Secretary of State and, through him, ultimately to Parliament. I expect that that is the case in the strict legal sense, but to whom will the commissioner be accountable in the sense of being performance assessed? Who will tell him when he has fallen down on the job and that, if it happens again, his appointment will be terminated? In the final analysis, someone should be able to sack the commissioner if he fails in a significant way to perform to everyone's expectations.
Schedule 1 addresses the point in part by stating that the Secretary of State may remove the commissioner from office if he has,
"become unfit or unable properly to discharge his functions, or … behaved in a way that is not compatible with his continuing in office".
Neither of those sets of circumstances covers the situation I have in mind. It would be possible for the commissioner to be perfectly fit, both physically and mentally, and quite capable of discharging his functions yet, by common consent, to be seen to have failed in the performance of his duties. I firmly believe that, in those circumstances, the commissioner's job should be on the line.
In practice, if the commissioner is criticised sufficiently strongly and often by Parliament, his position may become untenable, but that is a situation which envisages him leaving office of his own accord. Accountability, if it is to bite, should be such as to prevent an appointee to any post being able to perform the job half-heartedly and at the same time to get away with it.
From a personal point of view, I would like to see Parliament, and not the Secretary of State, having the power to dismiss the commissioner, but my amendment is designed simply as a probe to find out from the Minister what kind of accountability the commissioner will be subject to and how in practice he will be held responsible for any failings. I beg to move.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
872
Like him, I wish to put a probing question on this subject. There must be some way of measuring the achievements of all senior officials. Most of the chief executives of our non-departmental public bodies have targets and are accountable to their committees for achieving them. If they are not met, then obviously action has to be taken. However, I have never been clear about how either the Welsh or the Scottish Children's Commissioners are held to account. Although I am sure that my Welsh colleagues will pick me up on this, I think that being accountable to the Welsh Assembly is rather like being accountable to God—you are accountable to your conscience.
We need to see much clearer accountability for a post that is so important to the lives of our children. Someone outside this House recently said to me, "If we had a bad commissioner, the only way you could get rid of them would be if they abused a child or fiddled the books". I want to be sure that if the commissioner is not giving the best service, he can be held to account. However, that does not mean that the commissioner should not criticise the system, be challenging and difficult, and make our lives utterly miserable in the interests of children. Anyone who fails to do those things might be someone we want to hold to account. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I have much sympathy with the sentiments expressed by both speakers, in particular the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that she wants the commissioner to be difficult and challenging. We all want that.
I shall be interested to hear how the Minister proposes that an ineffective commissioner could be removed, but I have a problem with the amendment in its use of the word "any". I have informed the noble Earl, Lord Howe, of my reservations about the use of that word. We could have a commissioner who was extremely effective in the vast majority of his or her core functions, but had significantly failed in one of them. I would not want us to get rid of a commissioner on that basis.
I understand that this is by way of a probing amendment and I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness that there will be a mechanism for ensuring that if a commissioner is not effective, we can soon rectify the situation and appoint one who is.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall try to work between the two largely consistent viewpoints that have been expressed, albeit with certain nuances. First, however, I thank the noble Earl for his opening comments. I certainly tried to respond in the most appropriate way to as many of the points raised in Committee as possible.
I remind noble Lords that the commissioner will be a non-departmental public body. Within that we have a clear line of accountability to the Secretary of State that would include personal performance reviews. That is an important safeguard. We have looked at the models provided by the different commissioners and I

873
think that ours will follow closest that of the Welsh Children's Commissioner in terms of how we have structured the role.
I think that the amendment itself is unnecessary because Schedule 1 provides that the commissioner can be removed if he has,
"become unfit or unable to discharge his functions, … or behaved in a way that is not compatible with his continuing in office".
Within that we encompass the circumstances which I believe are behind the noble Earl's questions and concerns.
I am also very mindful that your Lordships are keen to ensure that the commissioner is independent from government and that he cannot be removed because a value judgment is made that he or she is a "nuisance" or incompatible with the direction in which the Government of the day are going. That is very important because a part of the commissioner's independence will be his or her ability to be challenging and difficult if necessary. We hope that it will not be necessary while we are in government but, nevertheless, I accept that we need to get that right.
We feel that we have covered the issue within the schedule. It makes it clear that there will be the kind of performance review that will encompass what the noble Earl is searching for. As well as that being clear and well structured within the framework, it is also clear that the commissioner will be able to operate in an independent way; he will have the ability to challenge and he will be able to respond to the wishes of children.
Ultimately, if I could find a mechanism to allow it, I would like the performance assessed by children, because they are the reason for the commissioner. I hope that we will see children responding to the way in which the commissioner takes forward their desires and wishes in the best possible way. I hope that the noble Earl is reassured that what he is searching for is encompassed within the right and appropriate structures of the commission and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their contributions to the debate and to the Minister for her reply. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for whose general support I am grateful, was worried about the phrase "any of his functions" in the amendment. I make no apology for using that phrase instead of "all of his functions" or "the majority of his functions" because I genuinely believe that a failure to perform even one of his functions should cast a question mark over the continued employment of the commissioner, providing the failure is serious enough. Each and every function is surely important in its own right, as well as collectively with the other functions.
Having said that, we come back to the wording of the schedule. The Minister interprets the wording "unfit or unable" as encompassing a failure to meet performance targets. I am reassured by that but I am
874
still a little doubtful. It is not a matter upon which I propose to dwell. If the Minister can give me further clarification between now and the next stage of the Bill I would be grateful. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 33, line 30, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—
"(1) The Secretary of State may make payments to the Children's Commissioner to enable him to fulfil his functions as set out in this Part of such amounts and at such times as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) The Secretary of State may make additional payments to the Children's Commissioner of such amounts, at such times and on such conditions (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at present, paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 allows the Secretary of State to impose whatever conditions he or she believes appropriate on any payments made to the Children's Commissioner. In Committee, many noble Lords expressed their unhappiness over this wording. The amendment seeks to make a distinction between the core funding required to enable the Children's Commissioner to fulfil his or her functions and any additional funding. That, at least, is the intent of the amendment.
For the Secretary of State to be able to impose conditions on the use of the core funding of the commissioner would plainly conflict with his or her independence. It would effectively enable Ministers to dictate what activities the office could or could not undertake. On the other hand, it seems perfectly reasonable that Ministers should be able to grant additional funds earmarked for particular purposes in agreement with the commissioner. The amendment seeks to allow for that.
I hope that the Minister will give me some further comfort, at least, in the light of our debates in Committee. I beg to move.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have great sympathy for the aim of the amendment, but I wonder whether it goes far enough. In Committee I mentioned to the Minister that the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report Commission for Equality and Human Rights: Structure, Functions and Power drew attention to eight principles that we considered any commission should follow. One of those principles was,
"statutory guarantees of independence from both the executive and parliament"—
which has been, to some extent, traversed just now. The second principle was that the system of funding should be independent of direct ministerial control. Paragraph 130 stated:
"The commission should be funded by moneys voted by the House of Commons directly, not through the voted expenditure of a ministerial department".

875
It continued:
"The adequate funding of the commission, having regard to the need for efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the use of its resources, will of course be essential to guarantee its independence. It will require more funding than the combined budgets of the existing commissioners".
But that was in relation to a different commission and so it is irrelevant.
The Minister was very generous and helpful in her immediate response to these points without, of course, committing anyone to anything. I wonder whether, whatever the Government's view of the amendment, that principle could be reflected in some way, either administratively or legislatively, during the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, a number of noble Lords had no fewer than three meetings with young people yesterday, and their overriding concern in relation to the commissioner was that he or she should be as independent as possible, and be seen to be; otherwise they feared that he or she would not have the credibility needed with young people. Financial independence is vitally important.
The Minister will recall that during the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Lester and I tabled an amendment which was even stronger than the one in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which I support. My support is pragmatic in the hope—I hope it is not a vain hope—that the Minister will feel able to go at least this far.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, having listened to what has been said, I feel that we could go a little further. Independence is absolutely crucial to the success of the role that we are all backing so strongly. On any view, the core funding and how it is spent must be seen to be in the control of the commissioner.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to look once again at this important issue. Let me reassure noble Lords by repeating a little of what I said in Committee.
The wording in the schedule mirrors paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 to the Care Standards Act, which of course provides for the funding of the Welsh commissioner by the National Assembly. After the Committee stage, I looked very carefully at the wording and came back to the principle that it is the wording used when setting up a non-departmental public body. The words are in no way to be seen as conditions by which to direct or control the commissioner.
I understand the concerns that have been raised and absolutely accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said about young people wanting the commissioner to be independent. It is important that they should feel that the commissioner is for them and feel confident in their relationship with him or her. After all, he or she will need to extract from young people their views, thoughts and ideas and it will be critical that he or she is someone they can talk to and someone they feel is for them.
876
I looked at where the wording had been used before, for example, with the Adult Learning Inspectorate, the Learning and Skills Council and so on. I looked in particular at the Welsh commissioner, which is a good example; the post is not an NDPB and it might be argued that the position is even more difficult.
This is a formula that works well in terms of the way in which we traditionally support people, institutions and our non-departmental public bodies. It serves us well because it bridges the gap between accountability for public money, which is important, and interference in the way in which those moneys are used.
I am quite confident about this, having explored it at length. I was much taken with what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said about the Select Committee. I do not have a formal response because the issues that it raised, which are critical, are cross-governmental as well. As the Government consider the suggestions, cross-governmental changes may take place, but I do not know—that goes way beyond my ability.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that is a very helpful reply. The all-party JCHR said that this should be a step change from the way in which the existing agencies have been funded where there is a particular need for independence. Therefore, if Parliament gives the Vote—we have given some examples—that might be a way forward. If that suggestion could be considered not only in the context of the Bill but more generally—I do not know whether it would be dealt with by legislation or administration—that would be very helpful.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very mindful of what the Select Committee has said. There are issues which the Government need to explore across government. As the noble Lord would expect, I cannot respond to those.
I have looked at where else the wording is used and am mindful of noble Lords' desire, for very good reasons, to see the commissioner as an independent office and officeholder which would use the money appropriately. At the same time, the job of government is to make sure that public money is spent properly, so that link needs to be made.
I am very comfortable with the position as it stands. It is hard to take it further in terms of the Select Committee's recommendations, because cross-governmental changes might affect the way in which the commissioner operated. But that is for the future and, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, there might be administrative changes.
I am mindful of the Select Committee's findings. We are all considering many of the issues that have emerged from its report and others—I refer to the House of Lords Select Committee in particular and the Joint Committee. For the moment, we have something that serves government well. I feel confident, not only as far as this Government are concerned but any government, that the commissioner would be able to exercise the proper control over finances within the role of public accountability that it is right and proper for government to exercise.

877
I am very happy, as always, to continue the dialogue on the Select Committee, because it is ongoing. However, I wish to reassure noble Lords that the current wording is right and fine, and that it addresses the needs about which noble Lords are concerned. But we need to continue to look to the future and to what the Select Committee says.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I was going to ask a question—
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but I wanted to remind the House that this is Report stage, and we have some quite strict rules about who can intervene after the Minister has spoken.
Earl Howe: My Lords, once again this has been a very useful exchange. I am grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords for their interventions.
The Minister essentially said that there is a weight of precedent here and an established formula which has served us well up to now, and I take that point. I am certainly not questioning the principle of accountability for public money. Ultimately, I suppose, much will depend on how transparent these arrangements are. If it becomes known, for example, that the commissioner's financial independence is being fettered unreasonably by government, that would clearly damage both the Government and, perhaps more importantly, the standing of the commissioner.
I take comfort from what the Minister has said. I hope that the thought that I have voiced will be of some comfort to the House, if other noble Lords agree. I think it is time to move on, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 34, line 10, at end insert—
"Protection from defamation actions
9A For the purposes of the law of defamation—

(a) any statement made by the Children's Commissioner in a report published under this Part has absolute privilege; and

(b) any other statement made by the Children's Commissioner or a member of his staff for the purposes of this Part has qualified privilege."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments responds to concerns that the Children's Commissioner should have clear powers to carry out his function. Amendments Nos. 6 and 13 clarify what the commissioner can do under his Clause 2 function of promoting awareness of the views and interests of children and how he may do it; and to reinforce his powers to discharge that function. Amendment No. 3 clarifies the commissioner's protection against action under defamation laws.
I will start by talking to the amendments relating to the commissioner's Clause 2 function. Amendment No. 6 establishes in the Bill the commissioner's ability
878
to produce ad hoc reports. Amendment No. 13 gives the commissioner access to children in order to consult them on their views and interests, and enables the commissioner to require other bodies to provide information.
We have deliberately left many things implicit in the Bill. We believe that if the commissioner is to be truly independent, the Bill should not say exactly what he should do. However, to use a phrase I will be uttering many times today, I have listened. In Committee, several noble Lords expressed concern about what exactly the commissioner would be able to do in pursuance of his duty to promote awareness of the views and interests of children. I have written to some of those who raised this question and copied those letters to all noble Lords who participated in the debate. I hope that they have shed some light on how we view the commissioner's role under the clause.
In the light of that debate, I have come to the view that there are merits in putting on the face of the Bill some more details about the powers. We must do this without using those details to constrain the commissioner and take away his independence. I hope and believe that the amendments strike the right balance.
It has always been our intention that the commissioner should be able to produce ad hoc reports on any issue relevant to the interests of children. Even without Amendment No. 16, there would have been nothing to stop the commissioner doing so. But I have had regard to comments made on a similar amendment in Committee and I accept the value of putting something on the face of the Bill. The amendment makes it clear that this is something that the commissioner may do. We are not saying that the commissioner should do it, merely that he can.
We are not specifying how the commissioner should publish reports. He will want to think about versions targeted at different age groups or in different languages. That is for the commissioner to decide, depending on the issue concerned. Nor are we suggesting how many reports the commissioner ought to produce. It is entirely up to the commissioner—Ministers have no powers to interfere. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a helpful amendment and clarification.
Amendment No. 13 is slightly different. The Bill already makes it clear that the commissioner must consult children in order to ascertain their views and interests. The amendment seeks first to ensure that the commissioner is not obstructed when seeking to do so. It gives him the power to enter any premises, other than a private dwelling, to consult children living or cared for there.
The amendment also authorises the commissioner to exclude others from the room when he wants to speak to a child or children in private. When meeting children, the commissioner will want to judge whether it is appropriate to insist on meeting them without any other person being present, and that will doubtless vary from case to case. This at least permits the commissioner to insist on seeing children or young people without, for example, a member of staff present. That may be appropriate if it is felt that the member of staff could inhibit the children's comments.
I hope that the commissioner will rarely use these powers; I expect that when he or she contacts a school, youth club or playgroup with a view to meeting children there, those in charge will do all they can to facilitate the visit. If it is not convenient for a particular school, there should be scope and flexibility on both sides. The commissioner is not coming to inspect but to seek children's views.
There are some children—those in custody and in residential schools year-round—who may be accessible only in the establishment where they live. If the commissioner wishes to ascertain their views on issues specific to them or on broader issues, he needs to see them in that establishment. I hope and believe that those running the establishments will be accommodating but feel that it is useful for the commissioner to have a statutory power to call on. That is why I am proposing the power in the first part of Amendment No. 13. The amendment mentions "reasonable time" because we expect the commissioner to arrange his visits in advance. His is not an inspection role with unannounced calls or checks. The commissioner will be there to talk and listen to children.
Noon
The last part of Amendment No. 13 is another provision to which we hope the commissioner would need to refer only on rare occasions. It puts a duty on the bodies exercising statutory functions to comply with reasonable requests for information. We have in mind circumstances where public bodies have information that the commissioner may need to seek in order to promote his duties. As part of this he might, for example, wish to get access to statistics already collected and held by local authorities. We would expect them to be helpful and to provide information. We do not mean the commissioner to be seeking confidential information about individual children. But if calls, letters and e-mails from children suggest that a specific issue is a problem for them, it would doubtless help the commissioner to be able to get facts that clarify the position and the extent of the problem.
The issue of reasonableness is key. It is not for the commissioner to place a burden on bodies by asking them to collect data or information that they do not otherwise want or need. To make this clear the amendment stipulates,
"information in that person's possession".
As with the power to get access to children, I hope that the commissioner will rarely need to use it. I expect public bodies to have children's interests at heart. But it is helpful to have this spelt out on the face of the Bill.
The last of the government amendments, Amendment No. 3, covers an issue raised in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I am grateful to them. In Committee, I promised to give the issue of privilege further consideration before Report. I have done so and now accept that the commissioner should be given absolute privilege under the law of defamation for his reports. This amendment would give the commissioner privilege for all reports,
880
inquiries, annual reports and ad hoc reports. We expect the commissioner to use this privilege responsibly but if he is to be a fearless champion for children, he should not have to work under the threat of legal action.
This privilege has been extended to the other UK commissioners and it is appropriate that the children's commissioner should enjoy the same protection. The absolute privilege applies to reports only. Under this amendment, all other statements have qualified privilege. The commissioner and his staff would have a defence as long as they had not acted maliciously in making a comment. This amendment, and the others in this group, will help the commissioner to be more effective. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the Minister has had to say with regard to Amendment No. 3. We had a long debate in Committee about it and she said that she would take it away and think about it. I take the point she made about the absolute privilege referring to reports only. I think that that is wise.
I shall touch on the other two issues very quickly. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness that the Government have clarified on the face of the Bill that the commissioner does have access. The one matter that the children's groups that I have talked to were particularly anxious about was that facility and that it would be in private on occasions where it was relevant. I do not think it is the fact that children fear members of staff, particularly those who look after children in care, but I think that it is essential that that privacy is there. It may never be used but it is hugely important. I am very grateful to the Minister.
I am pleased to see that the Government have not limited the number of reports and that that is left to the commissioner. Therefore, from these Benches we thank the Minister for having listened and are pleased to support the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I have no intention of sparing the Minister's blushes. I very sincerely thank her for listening. She has been a model of how Ministers should listen to Members of this House who have concerns about legislation. She has spent an enormous amount of time and has been incredibly patient. It is clear to us that she has fought very hard within government for the ability to come back to this House on Report with some of the amendments she has tabled today. We are most grateful to her. She is fulfilling her function admirably—that does not mean to say that I shall not have arguments with her later in the day. I thank her very much for these amendments.
I mentioned a little earlier that we had meetings with young people yesterday and I have a question about Amendment No. 13 that came from them. It is in relation to the privacy issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has just raised. They asked whether the normal rules about a responsible adult being present when a child is being interviewed would apply. The Minister has just emphasised that it would be with the child's consent but she also said that other people could be dismissed from the room if the Children's

881
Commissioner felt that it was necessary. Can she confirm from the Dispatch Box that that would also be with the child's consent? They were most concerned about that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I do not want to add to the Minister's blushes by expressing my great pleasure about these amendments. However, I have one important query about Amendment No. 3 that I have raised in advance with the Minister. I am unhappy about giving absolute privilege rather than qualified privilege to reports by the Children's Commissioner. That privilege cloaks not only Section 3 reports to Parliament but also any Section 4 report. I had not realised that one found that in the devolved equivalents but that is not necessarily an ideal reason for doing it now, if that happens to be wrong.
I shall summarise my concern in non-legalistic terms. Under the law of defamation, it is very rare to give absolute privilege to any public officer or person outside Parliament. It sometimes happens, but it is very rare. Absolute privilege means that the commissioner, hypothetically, could vilify the reputation of any individual maliciously—that is to say in bad faith—or recklessly—without any honest belief in the truth of what was being published.
Without being pompous about it, that raises serious issues under the European Convention on Human Rights because the right to honour, the right to reputation, is guaranteed by Article 8 of the convention and must be balanced against free speech and public interest considerations and there must be an effective remedy. Immunities of this absolute kind are vulnerable to legal challenge. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has not considered this because the amendment is only now before the House.
Leaving aside the fact that this has been done before in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I am not aware that it has been done before for, for example, the Equal Opportunities Commission's commissioners or the Commission for Racial Equality's commissioners who publish serious reports finding people guilty of unlawful discrimination. I am not aware that this is in any way normal for other commissioners. It may be that, in an excess of zeal, this has been put in in relation to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I do not know whether that was considered by lawyers in terms of human rights obligations. But unless there is some extremely good reason, based on more than the fact that it has been done in those parts of the UK, I am very troubled by this amendment. Therefore, if the Minister is not able to give a full reply today, I should be grateful if this matter could be further considered during the passage of the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before I raise a few points, I wish to thank the Minister for keeping me posted on the voluminous correspondence, which I have read with great care. I am very appreciative because Back Benchers do not have a clue about what is going on and I am very interested in this affair. I am most grateful. It is very rare that one has that privilege.
882
I am thankful to see creeping onto the face of the Bill measures that should be there and should have been in previous legislation. I have two points to make. The first is on absolute privilege, which is rare. The point that has been made about it is valid. In my past I did quite a few of these defamation cases. Absolute privilege is confined in effect to the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament, to judicial judgments and so forth. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester—we do not always agree, but I do agree with him 100 per cent on this—that this matter requires looking at.
The second matter concerns Amendment No. 13, which to my mind is extremely well drafted. I know that it has been criticised somewhat but I shall not waste time by dealing with the argument—that is a matter for the Minister. It brings into relief the very issue which arose on my noble friend's amendment on funding. It brings into relief the fact that the initiative in practical terms comes from the Children's Commissioner, who is the hub of this machine, not the Secretary of State, who has the authorising and funding power. I apologise for rising to speak at the wrong time, but I have been listening to all that has been said.
It suddenly struck me that paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 did not give effect to the essence of the problem, which was reflected in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Howe. I do not commend the drafting; I speak only about the principle. My noble friend's amendment puts the whole procedure in the right place so that the Children's Commissioner says to the Secretary of State, "I need some money for this and that", and then the Secretary of State—the word is "may", but in effect it is "shall"—funds it. I am sorry to go back to this, but it is only one practical example of the matter. Will the noble Baroness take that on board and seek advice?
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I support these amendments very warmly as they go far to create the kind of independent commissioner who will be recognised as among the best by the international community.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not able to be present during the Committee stage although I have read Hansard for that stage. What strikes me throughout the whole of the debate about the Children's Commissioner is a concern on the one hand that the commissioner does not have sufficient powers, is not sufficiently independent and is not free to use whatever budget he determines is right, but on the other hand that we should move towards a situation where the commissioner is given somewhat unusual powers. I do not want to speak against either of the amendments that we are discussing, but the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made extremely strong points about absolute privilege. I read that with some surprise. We need to recognise the significance of that amendment.
In respect of Amendment No. 13, we also need to recognise that although the Minister has indicated that these powers will be used rarely—it is my hope that

883
they would be used rarely—they will be in statute and they will be used at the discretion of the commissioner. I hope that the commissioner will be wise enough to use those powers in a way that does not prejudice the duties that Parliament has placed upon other organisations which also have responsibilities for children.
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome extended by noble Lords. I have already blushed twice but perhaps I shall carry on blushing—perhaps it will be that kind of day. I am very grateful for the comments that have been made. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was cut off praising me earlier, but I am happy to receive that praise now. I am also grateful to those who write the relevant letters and circulate them. In a sense my job is the easy one of signing the letters. However, I believe that this is a good way to operate and I am glad that noble Lords have found it useful.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we are considering protocols in this regard. When the commissioner talks to children they need to be able to understand that. I refer also to issues of consent and issues connected with parents. We shall expect the commissioner to consider protocols and how to ensure that the measure works properly not only in regard to the commissioner but also his staff. Our intention is to enable the commissioner to exclude anyone who is inappropriate. I am happy to keep the noble Baroness informed as matters develop. We expect that matter to be developed fully.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who yesterday raised with me the question of absolute privilege. I believe that he had three points of concern in relation to the Human Rights Act. Therefore, I checked that the matter we are discussing applied to other commissioners. I do not have the relevant detail as I have not had time to gather it since yesterday, but I understand that this is a matter that applies in other circumstances. We want to continue to discuss the matter with the noble Lord—we shall consider anything that emerges on this from the Human Rights Committee—as we believe that we are following custom and practice and acting in accordance with the practice for other commissioners, which is what noble Lords wanted.
However, I listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Laming, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Lester, about the potential implications of the measure. I shall continue to discuss the measure, keep noble Lords informed and return to the matter if that is necessary.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, O that people could go to Secretaries of State and say that they need money for this or that. I believe that junior Ministers might like to do that on occasion.
As we discuss later amendments concerning the way in which we have altered the powers of the commissioner, I shall be able to say a little more about dialogue in terms of budgeting. A balance has to be struck between the commissioner being able to use the relevant money in a way that he or she considers
884
appropriate—we have recognised new powers in that regard—and the ability of the Secretary of State to work with the commissioner on projects that might be more expensive. The comparison is often made between a child protection inquiry, the cost of which might be about £80,000 to £100,000, and an inquiry of the depth and nature of the Victoria Climbié inquiry as conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, which cost some £3·8 million. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that dialogue is important. It is very important that the commissioner talks to the Secretary of State when he seeks to undertake inquiries that are perhaps way beyond the norm. I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, and with the leave of the House, I should like to make a comment. I have not followed the Bill and perhaps should not intervene, but in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said about privilege and the commissioner—I think that he mentioned that he was not sure what was happening in that regard in the other parts of the United Kingdom—it is important to realise that, should there be a Scottish commissioner on any subject, and he or she be given privilege, the Members of the Scots Parliament do not have privilege themselves. That would be a very strange situation, I should have thought. I merely contribute that for the noble Baroness's consideration in case it is relevant.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my understanding is that the Scottish commissioner does have privilege, as I said earlier.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [General function of Commissioner]:
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 4, I have to inform the House that if it were to be agreed I would not be able to call Amendments Nos. 6 to 13, under the pre-emption rules.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (1) to (8) and insert—
(1) The Children's Commissioner has, subject to the following provisions of this Part, the function of promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children in England.
(2) The Children's Commissioner may in particular under this section—

(a) encourage persons exercising functions or engaged in activities affecting children to take account of their rights, views and interests;

(b) advise the Secretary of State on the rights, views and interests of children;

(c) review and report on the effectiveness of—

(i) advice and advocacy services;

(ii) complaints procedures; and

(iii) inspection and whistle-blowing arrangements;

so far as relating to children;

(d) review and report on any other matter relating to the rights, views and interests of children.

(3) The Children's Commissioner must take reasonable steps to involve children in the discharge of his function under this section, and in particular to—

(a) ensure that children are made aware of his function and how they may communicate with him;

(b) consult children, and organisations working with children, on the matters he proposes to review and report on under subsection (2)(c) or (d);

(c) ensure that the content of any material issued by the Commissioner or his staff, whether printed or in electronic or other form, which is intended to be used by children, takes account, so far as practicable, of the means of communication, level of understanding and usual language of the intended recipients.

(4) The Children's Commissioner must for the purposes of subsection (3) have particular regard to groups of children who do not have other adequate means by which they can make their views known.
(5) The Children's Commissioner or a person authorised by him may for the purposes of his function under this section at any reasonable time—

(a) enter any premises, other than a private dwelling, for the purposes of interviewing any child accommodated or cared for there; and

(b) if the child consents, interview the child in private.

(6) Any person exercising functions under any enactment must supply the Children's Commissioner with such information in that person's possession relating to those functions as the Children's Commissioner may reasonably request for the purposes of his function under this section (provided that the information is information which that person may, apart from this subsection, lawfully disclose to him).
(7) The Children's Commissioner may provide assistance to a child to bring legal proceedings where the child is unable to bring legal proceedings; and it appears to the Commissioner reasonable to do so and there is no other person or body likely to provide such assistance or take such action (or both).
(8) In considering for the purpose of his function under this section what constitutes the rights and interests of children (generally or so far as relating to a particular matter) the Children's Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(9) In subsection (8) the reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is to the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1989, subject to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom for the time being in force.
(10) For the purposes of this section "children" includes—

(a) young people in custody under the age of 22;

(b) those young people for whom a local authority has duties under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 (c. 35); and

(c) young people with learning disabilities under the age of 21.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is supported by an enormous number of groups related to children, including Barnardo's, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Children's Society, the NSPCC, Save the Children, UNICEF and the Disability Rights Commission. The commission wrote to us saying:
"Without the powers in Amendment No. 4, we consider that the UK will be failing in its obligation under the UN Convention to effectively implement the Convention rights and letting down disabled children".
The amendment substantially strengthens Clause 2, to create a strong and independent general function based on human rights for the new Children's Commissioner, bringing his or her powers into line with those of the commissioners in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is quite a long amendment, so I shall try to explain its provisions as briefly as I can. In preparing them, we have listened to children. When we met a group of children yesterday, their overriding concern was that we had a really independent and strong commissioner. They said that children would not trust him or her otherwise.
The first part of the amendment provides a strong and independent general function. Clause 2(1) requires the Children's Commissioner to promote,
"awareness of the views and interests of children in the United Kingdom".
Although that is a necessary part of his role, we do not regard it as complete. The commissioners in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are required by law to promote and protect the rights and interests of children and young people. That is a much broader function and encompasses the full range of human rights of children, including their right to have their views heard and respected. In Committee, the Government conceded that the commissioner must—rather than may—have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That was very welcome. However, that duty does not imply a duty to safeguard and promote the human rights of children.
Clause 2(3) inappropriately ties the commissioner to current government outcome goals for children. Ministers have suggested that those outcome goals originated from children, but that is disingenuous, as it does not accurately reflect the process of consultation. Previous versions of the Government's outcome goals were included in the draft national children's strategy in November 2001, and then in Every Child Matters, the Green Paper of September 2003. Although thousands of children responded to those draft goals, it is incorrect to describe them as originating with children. Although the outcome goals are very worthy, they are not comprehensive or based on the internationally accepted standards of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We therefore feel that we need to go further.
The second part of the amendment relates to the relationship between the new England commissioner and the other parts of the UK. Clause 2 gives the commissioner the function of,
"promoting awareness of the views and interests of children in the United Kingdom".
Clause 5, which allows the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner to carry out an inquiry, and the proposed new clause tabled by the Government after Clause 3, entitled, "Inquiries initiated by Commissioner", enable the commissioner to carry out inquiries not only in England, but in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There was much criticism in Committee of the extension of the commissioner's powers outside England. Children themselves have told us that it is confusing.
The children's organisations co-ordinating the campaign for a commissioner, and the three existing commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern

887
Ireland, all feel strongly that the Bill should establish a commissioner for children in England. They feel that the legislation establishing a commissioner in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be extended as necessary to ensure that they can exercise their powers of investigating, reviewing and reporting to cover all matters—devolved or reserved—in their countries. The idea of the Secretary of State in England directing the commissioner to go into one of the other countries to carry out a formal investigation is extraordinary, given the existence of the other commissioners. It undermines their credibility, particularly in Scotland at a time when its new commissioner is finding her feet.
The Bill could be used to extend the powers of the commissioner in Wales and Northern Ireland as necessary. Authoritative legal opinion—of which Ministers are aware—emphasises that nothing in the devolution settlements prevents the commissioners and independent non-decision-making bodies investigating, reviewing and reporting on non-devolved matters. The debate is not about devolution of governmental functions at all, but about independent children's commissioners being able to exercise their functions in each country, in relation to all matters that affect children's rights and interests. Proposed new subsection (2)(c) extends the list of services and procedures that safeguard children on which the commissioner is required to review and report. That again brings the Bill into line with the legislation on the other UK commissioners. We agree that the commissioner will have a vital role in making complaints procedures child-friendly. However, other services and procedures, such as advice and advocacy services and inspection and whistleblowing arrangements, are equally important in protecting children. We therefore believe that they should be incorporated into the commissioner's general function. The provision to,
"review and report on the effectiveness of",
is a stronger requirement than the original,
"consider or research the operation of".
It formalises the process of assessment, and ensures that the question is, "How effective will this service or procedure be in safeguarding children?".
Proposed new subsection (3)(c) requires the commissioner to ensure that materials intended to be used by children, in written, electronic or other form, take into account the child's,
"means of communication, level of understanding and usual language".
A similar duty exists for the other UK commissioners. The duty to take into account the usual language of children is an innovative aspect of the legislation relating to the operation of the offices, consistently reminding the commissioner that her or his primary constituents are children, not adults. The amendment particularly draws attention to the needs of disabled children and younger children for whom written communication is inappropriate because they have not yet learnt to use it. It is not enough for Ministers to state that they are sure that England's commissioner will produce child-friendly materials. If the idea is perceived as it should be—as a real requirement—it
888
should be in the legislation, as with the other UK commissioners. The children whom we met yesterday emphasised the importance of that.
On the right of entry to premises and to interview children, proposed new subsection (5) incorporates the Government's amendment that allows the commissioner the power of entry. Your Lordships have already welcomed that. On the obligation to provide the commissioner with information, proposed new subsection (6) incorporates the government amendment that requires,
"Any person exercising functions under any enactment,"
to provide the commissioner with information relating to his functions that he has reasonably requested. That amendment was very welcome, and is a necessary additional power for the commissioner.
On the power to assist children to bring legal proceedings in exceptional circumstances, proposed new subsection (7) enables the commissioner to assist,
"a child to bring legal proceedings where the child is unable … to do so and there is no other person or body likely to provide such assistance".
The commissioner in Northern Ireland has such power. The Law Society supported that part of our amendment. It is concerned about children and young people,
"who do not have effective access to legal remedies, because they do not have locus to bring legal proceedings and have to rely on others who then fail to take action on their behalf.
The Law Society has in mind particularly,
"children who are the subject of care orders who may need assistance in the meeting of special educational needs but are unable to bring a case before the Special Education Needs Tribunal on their own behalf. Local authority social workers may be reluctant to exercise the authority's parental responsibility and pursue such cases against the education arm of the same local authority. Children in care with special education needs should not be left without independent and robust scrutiny of the education provided to them and effective means of ensuring they get the help to which they are entitled. The power would be a last resort for them".
On the definition of children, proposed new subsection (10) brings within the scope of the commissioner's function three categories of very vulnerable people over the age of 18; namely, young people leaving care, young people in custody up to the age of 22—the age at which young offenders transfer to adult prisons, which is why we chose it—and children with learning disabilities up to the age of 21. There are special concerns over ensuring respect for the rights of those groups of young people.
The provisions in the amendment provide a much stronger, more independent commissioner of the sort that this House gives all-party support and has enormous public support in the country, among children and among all of those professional groups who work with them. I beg to move.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I associated myself with the amendment principally because I felt that concerns on these Benches needed to be reflected. I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said. I should also declare an interest as president of UNICEF.

889
This matter started out as a radical, ambitious and brave Green Paper that promised an independent champion for children. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, in their present form the Bill's proposals are somewhat timorous. It has improved and is improving almost by the hour, but it has yet to return to the brave vision expressed in the Green Paper. That is why I still wish to nag away a little.
At the weekend I had the privilege of listening to a lecture by the ex-President of the United States, Mr Clinton, about the ability of governments to engage or disengage from the opportunities presented to them. He was talking about the International Criminal Court and the mistake that he believed the United States was making and had made by failing to fully engage. That concept lies at the heart of my concerns. Future governments may choose to take a generous view of the legislation on offer, encourage the Children's Commissioner to do his job and all of us could be happy. But I cannot be entirely comfortable, because I accept that even in my lifetime we may not remain in government. I am concerned that a government led by Mr Kilroy-Silk, for example, might not interpret this Bill in the way that this House would wish.
That should also be a concern of the Government and of the Minister. Will she end up with the type of commissioner that she honestly wants and which the Bill deserves? That is questionable. Having said that, I warmly congratulate the Minister on being a model of information, co-operation, discussion and reasonableness and for that reason I shall not vote against the Government on the amendment—I will instead sit and twiddle my thumbs.
However, one matter has irritated me and I wish to get it off my chest. I do not like the fact that the Government have continued to hide behind the notion that the Bill is solely "what children want". As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, that is—putting it mildly—disingenuous, a half-truth but also a half-untruth. Much of the best work that confronts us in today's amendments has been brought forward by organisations who work for and on behalf of children. These people have injected real wisdom into the process—the type of wisdom that we could not expect or ask children to offer. That component forms the basis of this amendment and that is why I will listen keenly to the Minister's answer, because I want what she wants but I am not sure that the Bill in its present form can entirely provide it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I support the amendment. One of the most significant interventions during our first day in Committee was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, who said—I paraphrase him—that, following the Minister's welcome concession to give the commissioner a duty to have regard to the UN convention, there is now no case at all for failing to redefine his functions in terms of children's rights. That is what the amendment seeks. I support it not only because it is the right approach
890
but partly because I confess to having, like the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, a lingering suspicion about the whole basis of the clause as drafted in the Bill.
If we are to base the commissioner's functions on a set of views expressed by children—views that translate into outcomes that children have identified as important to them—we need to be much clearer than we are at the moment about how the process of opinion gathering was conducted. Exactly who were the children who were consulted? How many of them were there and precisely what questions were they asked? If one reads Every Child Matters and its successor document, Next Steps, there is no substantive information on those important questions. We understand that the research was conducted by the Children and Young People's Unit. It is true that various aspects of that research are in the public domain, but, as far as I know, the research as a whole has not been published. Am I alone in thinking that there is something wrong with that? We have been presented with legislation and we do not know in detail the data that underpin it. We can make no judgment about how robust they are. If we believe in evidence-based policy, that has to be a concern.
Perhaps more importantly, I question whether there is a need to define the commissioner's objectives in the terms of Clause 2(3) of the Bill. It is not that anything is objectionable about the sub-paragraph. The various aspects of children's well-being are sound as far as they go. But do we not already have an international treaty and a convention that sets out all those matters which children everywhere have a right to expect and receive? The convention was the product of years of deliberation and sets out the universal needs of children, not just the desires of the moment that might emerge from some consultation. Children's rights, as set out in the convention, are a much better basis on which to define the role of the commissioner.
The new duty for the commissioner to "have regard" to the UN convention has tilted the emphasis of the clause in a new direction and that is why it needs wholesale reformulation.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, following the noble Earl's comments I, too, support him, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in having anxieties about the idea that the consultation represents any scientific analysis of what children think or want. I shall raise that issue in my Amendment No. 7, which I have de-grouped.
For the moment, noble Lords will be aware that there is a report on the consultation meetings that were held and another on the analysis of responses to the written questions that were sent. Both the written questions and the consultation related to fairly limited aspects of specific issues and certainly could not be regarded as scientific research into the wishes of children in this country—particularly because the age groups consulted were under 16, between 16 and 18 and over 18.
It does not take a mathematical genius to work out that two-thirds of the nation's children are under 13 and that half are under 10. There were some younger

891
children in the consultation, but, I suspect, both from the answers and the notes and language used, that there were few. We have to be careful that the Bill will not become a teenagers' Bill, rather than a children's Bill.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, my name is down in support of the amendment. I have been enormously impressed by the educative process through which we have all been, like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Wider children's organisations have all supported the amendment, which does exactly what it should—stating all the areas that we consider to be important and that are based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which are now part of the Bill anyway.
Interestingly, all of us have become increasingly worried by Clause 2(3) and the rather artificial group of aspects of children's well-being which it sets down. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I tried to look into the process by which those categories were ascertained, which was pretty illuminating.
I add my name to the list of many Members of this House who have congratulated the Minister. She has not only listened, but also achieved a tremendous amount already. She now has an opportunity to replace what seems to so many of us to be a growing problem with something that would be self-explanatory and would take into account all those important issues such as the different ages, disabilities and needs of children. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would perhaps like to see more on the involvement of parents and carers to be included in the Bill. I support the amendment and I hope that it will be accepted by the Government.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I intervene briefly to support the amendment. It brings into true perspective the issue of funding which we have been discussing and the fundamental principle behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Howe.
Only proposed new subsection (7) of the amendment worries me, which would provide for the Children's Commissioner to fund litigation where legal aid has been refused because there was no reasonable prospect of success. I need say no more—I do not want to take up a lot of time—but I would like the Government or the noble Lords who have proposed the amendment to give further thought to the different ways in which those funding obstacles are overcome outside the Bill. Should they really lie to be overridden by a Children's Commissioner? I do not know, but it seems a little odd.
The amendment would do away with subsections (1) to (8) of Clause 2. Amendment No. 19 was drafted to implement the Bill as it was originally drafted; namely, to give the enforcement procedure statutory force. I have looked at the matter carefully this morning and spoken with my noble friend Lord Northesk. We both agree that Amendment No. 2 could be implemented in exactly the same way as Clause 2. Although I support the amendment because it improves and adds to the Bill in a way which is more appropriate, that is a
892
quantitative assessment. My main concern relates not to whether the amendment is passed or the Bill stands as it is; it relates to the enforcement procedure.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, one of the great victories of my noble friend Lady Walmsley and others was in persuading the Government to replace "may" with "must" in Clause 2(7) in respect of the commissioner having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in interpreting "the interests of children" in Clause 2(3). That is a significant step, because although the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been reflected in other statutes—for example, in the parts of the Children Act 1989 which relate to courts—it has never been incorporated into domestic law in the same way as the European Convention on Human Rights has been. The effect of the amendment to Clause 2, in the light of representations from all sides of the House, is that the Children's Commissioner is now under a duty, not just a discretion, to act in ways that have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 4 of the convention states:
"States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention".
The UN committee on the rights of the child made certain recommendations as we know.
I am puzzled simply because I have not done the necessary comparison. When I look at Amendment No. 4, I cannot tell which parts are necessary to secure the effective implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am sure that the Government will know the answer because in drafting the Bill they had to have it in mind.
It is an important question because, if I am right, Clause 2(7) will represent a step-change in the role of the commissioner. He will have to be rights-based—not exclusively, which would be a mistake, but in the way that so many noble Lords have mentioned. Therefore, I am asking myself how much of the amendment is to deal with a mismatch in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and what is in the Bill or other legislation.
That is a most unfair question to ask the Minister and although she has blushed, she has not turned ashen at the mention of it. The House will be helped by an informed answer because at present we are shooting in the dark. The amendment is a good attempt to spell out in greater detail the rights-based part of the commissioner's functions, but I would be helped if I could compare its contents with what the Government consider to be the effect of Clause 2(7) and generally.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the general thrust of the amendment because I want children in England to have protection that is every bit as good as that now available to children in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that the commissioner "must" have regard to what is in the UN convention. That is an important point.

893
Children in England appear to suffer from serious problems which may be greater than those in the other devolved jurisdictions. At Second Reading, I mentioned the vast increase in sexually transmitted diseases, to which no one has referred a great deal during the Bill. They can lead to, for instance, sterility and gynaecological problems in later life.
There is also the whole concatenation of problems that arise as after-effects of children being in care, reflected notably in the prison system. In addition, there is the fact that many childcare workers are unqualified, poorly trained or underpaid. As my noble friend Lord Listowel said, there is an acute shortage of foster parents, not to mention the problems that arise from bullying and child abuse that affect children in England.
I accept that there is an overlap to some degree between this amendment, some of the Government's amendments and some of the language already used in Clause 2, but we do need a great strengthening of the protection for children in England.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I have been greatly helped by those noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment and helped by the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, introduced it. However, I have some concerns about it, which relate to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.
I, too, thought that the Green Paper, Every Child Matters, was a bold and imaginative document. One of its greatest strengths was the way in which it sought to address the needs of all children in our society. In particular, it encouraged us to think that children in our society have a great variety of needs and that we need a commissioner who is distinctive and different from every other kind of post in our society that also has duties in respect of children. The unique position of the commissioner was to be that of a champion for all children, to put it in simple terms. Later we shall consider amendments relating to play, recreation, training and opportunities for sport. Those are matters that affect all children. The commissioner should be someone who can reflect those wide interests.
I agree that there must be concerns about any consultation process with 11 million children, since we shall not get a comprehensive or scientific view of such a large number of children. In our society we have a whole range of bodies with duties and responsibilities for the proper development of children. We also have a whole range of voluntary organisations that do excellent work in pursuing interests of particular groups of children. Together they enrich the well being not only of children but of our society.
If we are not careful, we shall drag the commissioner into two functions that are, I believe, incompatible with the post. First, the commissioner may become too embroiled in individual cases and, secondly, he may become a monitor of how other organisations carry out their functions. If we do that, we shall weaken the distinctive functions of a children's commissioner, which are unique and should be seen to be unique. We should be very careful about going down that track.
894
I happen, yet again, to agree with the main thrust of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the significance of moving from "may" to "must". Not being a lawyer, I always hesitate to comment on such a change, but it seems of itself a huge change with huge implications. That matter should be given very careful consideration.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Lord have some sympathy with the point that I was trying to make briefly about subsection (7) of the amendment, and the commissioner having the obligation or the facility to provide legal assistance to children? What does he think about that?
Lord Laming: My Lords, for what it is worth, I have marked reservations about that proposal, because in passing it we would be creating a portmanteau post in which the commissioner would be seen as the answer to all things. That really rather worries me, because if we are not careful the commissioner may become the answer to no things.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I rise simply to point out that the change in the remit of the commissioner from the United Kingdom to England alone has considerable implication for Wales. I am sure that what I am about to say is true, to a greater or lesser extent, of Northern Ireland and Scotland.
That change will mean that the UK commissioner will no longer have oversight of what happens to children who are not currently covered by the Welsh commissioner, who has a specific remit to deal with the devolved areas of government and is not able to deal properly with non-devolved issues. It is understood that the Welsh commissioner has the right to refer such cases as may involve the non-devolved areas to the Assembly. We also understand that there is an informal mechanism whereby he can talk to Secretaries of State or their officials.
One might regard the UK commissioner's existence as yet another way in which the Welsh commissioner could approach a problem arising in non-devolved issues. He could refer it to the UK commissioner and probably enlist his assistance. So the amendment would change the situation quite considerably. It may be welcome in England that the remit has been changed—it may be welcome in Wales, as I suspect it will be, and in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, all I am concerned about is to point out to the Government, if they need it pointed out to them, that the amendment has serious implications for the other parts of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I should have apologised to the House before that I was not present for Committee stage. I was out of the country, otherwise I would have taken part, but I have kept myself abreast of the matters that we are discussing.
I shall speak briefly on the proposals, which are extraordinarily seductive. The introduction given by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, helped to take me through it, but I still have considerable concerns. It

895
covers so many different areas within the one clause and, like the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I found it difficult to work out what it was trying to change. I shall give a few examples of the concerns that I have about the amendment—although I should love to see a combination of the amendment and the clause.
Like my noble friend Lord Laming, and as I said in my introductory speech at Second Reading, I am enormously concerned that we are changing the commissioner into a huge service deliverer or a monitor of service delivery. We have a huge number of organisations that are already doing that extraordinarily well. With regard to the inspection of whistleblowing arrangements, for example, I realise what a task it would be to monitor the entire inspection arrangements of children's services, because I was in my time responsible for that as a board member of the National Commission for Social Care.
We have been talking about accountability and targets. I hope that those would be based in the strategic area, as is the case in subsection (3) of the Bill, rather than becoming far more defined in terms of the proposed new arrangements in subsection (2)(c) of the amendment.
1 p.m.
I, too, am very concerned about whether the commissioner will be able to pay for individual children to take cases to court. In my role in CAFCASS, I have recently spent much of my time listening to children in court cases, and I think that that could be absolutely overwhelming in terms of the amount of work involved.
Finally, I think that we are disingenuous in talking about the way in which we consult children. Having spent most of my life in organisations that do so, I recognise that huge difficulties are involved. We should not pretend, as we have often done in respect of different racial groups, that they are all the same. Children of different age groups are all different. They have different problems, and consulting them is an extraordinarily difficult task. If two groups of children are consulted at any one time about an issue, as many views will be expressed as is the case when adults are consulted.
The trick, as it were, is to be able to listen to children in groups and to obtain a sense of what they want. When I have talked to children, the sense that I have picked up is that, rightly, they want an independent commissioner, but they mean several different things by that. In Every Child Matters, the Government tried to get that sense of what children might want. I hope that we do far more of that because, as I said, it is not an easy task. Therefore, I have difficulty in supporting amendments that I would dearly wish to be able to support because I think that the task is huge and the changes are difficult to distil.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I appreciate that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe,
896
said, I am being given further opportunities or, on the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam said, that I am being nagged.
As noble Lords have indicated, much in this amendment is common to the text that is already in Clause 2. I believe that in many respects we have similar intentions. But there are some differences, and noble Lords have invited me to comment on them and to identify areas where the Government feel unable to accept the amendment. In that context, I continue to listen carefully, and I hope that, in going through some of the issues briefly, I shall be able to point to where we stand on that.
The first issue, raised in subsection (1), is the role of the commissioner. Whereas Clause 2 sees the commissioner as,
"promoting awareness of the views and interests of children",
and places his work within the outcomes, the amendment would have the commissioner,
"promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children".
That begins to address the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, although, in a way, his comments are directed to the noble Lords who tabled the amendment. In the amendment, they have said that they are not satisfied with what is in Clause 2(7) in relation to the UNCRC. Therefore, whereas I believe that we should be satisfied, in a way that question needs to be addressed to those noble Lords.
When we accepted an amendment relating to this matter in Committee, we believed that it put beyond doubt that the UNCRC formed the framework of the commissioner's work. That is entirely appropriate. The judgments that the commissioner will make about what issues to pursue with the more explicit powers that we have proposed in existing Clause 2 are very important. Therefore, the clear commitment that the UNCRC will form the backdrop, framework, or whatever word noble Lords choose to use, within a substantive piece of legislation for the first time, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, is absolute in my view. It is an important framework.
I should very much regret it if we lost the outcomes. I have listened carefully to noble Lords, but perhaps I would not go along with words such as "disingenuous". I find it difficult to use that word in relation to what we are seeking to do. I should regret it very much if we were not able to view this as a "both/and" rather than an "either/or" issue.
We are trying to say that, within the framework of the UNCRC and our recognition of its importance by the use of word "must", we also wanted to put on to the face of the Bill the outcomes that children talked to us about. Noble Lords have questioned that research. Qualitative research was carried out by the British Market Research Board and the National Children's Bureau. It is called, Aim High, Stay Real. I shall make copies of it available to your Lordships because clearly it is important for noble Lords, and particularly those who tabled the amendment, to be able to study it in order to consider what has been said about the research. I do not think that anyone has

897
referred to it and therefore I am concerned that noble Lords may not have had the chance to consider it in detail.
I submit that those august organisations carried out a good, qualitative piece of research—not only with children but with parents, carers and other organisations. In the course of their work, they identified and supported what we had set out as the direction in which the Government's vision took us. That qualitative research was then backed up by quantitative research using the replies and responses obtained from young people. I recommend that, before they do anything, noble Lords look at this research, and I should be very happy to discuss it with them. It is important that, when organisations of this calibre are involved, we are clear about what we are describing.
Secondly, I never said—and never would say—that one ends with outcomes. We are proud that, for the first time in a piece of legislation, what we learnt in those discussions with organisations, children, parents, carers, adults and everyone else of any age is on the face of a piece of legislation. But that is the beginning; it is not the end. In relation to the commissioner's job, we are saying, "Please go and talk to children. Make the basis of what you do not what we say as a Government—not even, dare I say, what august organisations working with children say—but what children and young people themselves say. That is important". The outcomes will be tested by that work. That is the critical part.
Therefore, I submit to your Lordships that we are bringing about a "both/and" situation and not an "either/or" one, but the amendment would bring about an "either/or" situation. We have tried within the framework of the UNCRC to include the outcomes. We see that as a starting point. Those two things together balance where the commissioner begins his work. I submit to your Lordships that we should not lose the outcomes—the beginning of the process—in the wonderful opportunity that we have of setting out the work of the commissioner. We should certainly not lose it on the basis that we may not be certain that the research was right.
Therefore, the fundamental problem that I have with the amendment is that the outcomes would be lost. I urge noble Lords, before they do anything in relation to this issue, at least to give me the opportunity to talk about the research and to put it before them. We should at least have the opportunity to discuss the balance again and to query that balance. That is critical.
Noble Lords also said that there are other issues within the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, talked about assisting children with legal proceedings. Previously we discussed whether the commission was the appropriate place in which to carry out that role. I argued that we should not attempt to displace the processes that are already in place to help children and young people with legal proceedings.
The question is not whether children and young people should have assistance but whether the commissioner is the right person to provide it. My fear
898
remains that we shall create a job for the commissioner that is not doable. The removal of Clause 2(6) would mean that the commissioner could become drawn into individual casework.
We shall come to government amendments which deal with the possibility of the commissioner carrying out inquiries. In all my discussions with noble Lords outside the Chamber, I have felt a degree of consensus that we do not want the commissioner to end up as a final court of appeal for every single individual issue relating to every single child. I think that there is a degree of consensus that that would not be right, yet that would be the result if the amendment were carried. But I do not believe that that is what your Lordships wish, and I think that it would make the job unworkable. One of the things we have to be mindful of, however much we want to address the question and want the commissioner to be as powerful as possible, is that we must make the job doable and allow the commissioner to succeed.
My noble friend Lord Puttnam has constantly said to me—rightly—and to my right honourable friend Margaret Hodge, "Would you apply for this job? Would you accept this job? Would you be willing to do this?" The trouble is that if we make the job overwhelming, we make it impossible to succeed. We make the commissioner become a disappointment. So, we have to be clear about what we want the commissioner to do. We must be clear to other organisations that they do not give up their own responsibilities by having a commissioner in place. They are responsible, each and every one, for ensuring that their services are right and proper for children. They are responsible for ensuring that advocacy and appeals processes work for children. We are not putting in place someone who will take that away from them; that is not the job. We are putting in place someone who, in talking to children and considering the issues, is very clear that it is unacceptable when services fail children. That is very important.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, spoke of the implications across the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord said, the way things stand at present, to remove this provision means that on non-devolved issues some children would have nowhere to go. I do not believe that that is a consequence that the noble Lord—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that Amendment No. 26 would fill that lacuna?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the amendment would reduce the representation of children outside England on non-devolved issues. My noble friend Lady Andrews will talk about what we are considering in the devolved administrations, which I believe will give noble Lords pleasure. I hope that in so doing, noble Lords will feel that we have listened carefully. Those measures are not yet complete but we are listening. As things stand, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I have to ensure that the House understands precisely the implications of the amendment.

899
Finally, I should like to comment on the extension of the commissioner's remit to include young adults who are in custody, have been in care or who have learning disabilities. I have said that I am considering sympathetically some of the groups mentioned here. A specific amendment will be tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In speaking to that amendment we shall say a lot more about what we plan to do for children of the ages mentioned and for particular groups of more vulnerable children and young people. Without pre-empting that discussion, the reason that the amendment is not tabled today is because we are working on ensuring that it is technically correct. It is quite difficult. As to young adults in custody, we have said that they need to be supported properly by adult services. We have made that distinction and continue to do so.
There are fundamental issues here. I believe that this would be a more bureaucratic role and less flexible. More importantly, it would remove the balance that I was keen to accept and on which I thought within your Lordships' House we had reached broad consensus—recognising as a starting point the outcomes that we had identified from the research we had done and the importance of the UNCRC, and that together that would found the basis upon which the commissioner could work.
For all the reasons outlined, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment and that I can continue discussions and show the research at the next stage.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her full response, and to all other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for pointing out that what we should be doing is producing a commissioner who will act for all children. I hope that when we come to the amendments on equality of opportunity later in our debates they will find favour with the Government. That will ensure that all children's life chances are enhanced by the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Lester asked about the relationship with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I should like to point out that the new version of Clause 2 gives the commissioner the central function of promoting and safeguarding rights which go beyond the welcome requirement to have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which is already contained in the Bill. It gives the commissioner the same basic function as those in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The scope of the convention plainly goes wider than the Government's outcomes, so it is consistent with the Government's concession on the role of the UNCRC that we should pass this amendment. The problem with the outcomes on the face of the Bill is that there would be a tendency for people to limit themselves to those outcomes. We want a "rights based" commissioner, which would go further.
900
I point out to noble Lords that nothing in the amendment requires the commissioner to respond to individual complaints. We all agree, as we have said many times in Committee, that we do not want the commissioner to get bogged down with many individual cases. There is nothing in the amendment which means that he or she would do so. If we are loading a lot of powers on to the new commissioner—
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords. I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The deletion of Clause 2 would remove subsection (6), which stops the commissioner being involved in casework. So, it is not true to say that the commissioner would be prevented from that; quite the opposite.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for mentioning that. However, that is a matter which can be addressed at the next stage. If we are loading powers on to the commissioner, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, mentioned, we are doing no more than we have already done with the commissioners in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The powers of those commissioners have found great favour with the communities in those legislatures and in particular with the children. The word "disappointment" has been mentioned. If we do not have for English children at least as strong a set of powers and as good a set of rights as for children in the other legislatures, we shall create disappointment among them.
The last major Children Act was in 1989, 15 years ago. This could be our last chance for another 15 years to get this right for children. Our vision of a strong, independent, rights-based commissioner is clearly different from that of some parts of this Government. Strong comments have been made in this debate about the amount of consultation with children. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, referred to the many voluntary organisations that speak to children every day of the week and represent their views and feelings. We have been supported in the amendment by all those organisations. It is a most impressive array of organisations representing many millions of children.
Therefore, given the strong feeling—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. Will she deal with the worries that were expressed not only by me and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, about subsection (7)? How will the provision work in practice?
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to bringing legal proceedings in subsection (7) of our amendment. I would draw his attention to the fact that it states that,
"where … it appears to the Commissioner reasonable to do so and there is no other person or body likely to provide such assistance or take such action".
Those words give me confidence that this provision would not take up a major part of the commissioner's time and activity. It would be a last resort, but it is something that particularly the Law Society believes is

901
an essential last resort for children that are not being represented as they need to be in any other way. That is an appropriate function for the Children's Commissioner.
So, in view of the very strong feelings expressed by children and by the many organisations that represent them about the weak powers and functions of the commissioner, even with the Government's welcome amendment, which we have incorporated into our amendment, I feel that I would be letting them down if I did not test the opinion of the House.
1.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Howard of Rising, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Howe, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Attlee, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hylton, L.

Biffen, L.

Jopling, L.

Blatch, B.

Kalms, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Kimball, L.

Bridgeman, V.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Kingsland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Byford, B.

Listowel, E.

Caithness, E.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Luke, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lyell, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Cockfield, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Colwyn, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Crathorne, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dholakia, L.

Newby, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Elton, L.

Northesk, E.

Ezra, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Falkland, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Feldman, L.

Palmer, L.

Ferrers, E.

Patel, L.

Fookes, B.

Peel, E.

Fowler, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Freeman, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Garden, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Geddes, L.

Razzall, L.

Glentoran, L.

Redesdale, L.

Greaves, L.

Renton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Roper, L.[Teller]

Hayhoe, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Higgins, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Sharman, L.

Hogg, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

902

Sharples, B.

Tebbit, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Skelmersdale, L. [Teller]

Tordoff, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Stewartby, L.

Walmsley, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Swinfen, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Taverne, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Joffe, L.

Andrews, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Laming, L

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Berkeley, L.

Levy, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Bhatia, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Billingham, B.

Marsh, L.

Blood, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Borrie, L.

Monson, L.

Brookman, L.

Morgan, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Carter, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Northbourne, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Crawley, B.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller]

Pitkeathley, B.

Desai, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Drayson, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elder, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Robertson of Port Ellen, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Filkin, L.

Sewel, L.

Gale, B.

Sheldon, L.

Gavron, L.

Simon, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Slim, V.

Golding, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Tenby, V.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Tomlinson, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Tomlinson, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Triesman, L.

Harrison, L.

Turnberg, L.

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Henig, B.

Warner, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warnock, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitty, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that Report stage begin again not before 2.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Amendment) Order 2004
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12 May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Amendment) Order 2004 laid before the House on 12 May be approved.
The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 introduced provisions allowing for the taking of samples from persons in police detention after charge, and at other stages in the criminal justice process, for the purpose of testing for the presence of specified class A drugs. Drug testing under these provisions currently applies to persons aged 18 and over and is targeted particularly at those who have been charged with, convicted of, or released from a custodial sentence for a trigger offence as defined in Schedule 6 to the Act.
The current trigger offences are largely acquisitive crime offences under the Theft Act 1968 that have been shown to be closely linked with misuse of the specified class A drugs: heroin, cocaine and crack. Possession and supply offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, if committed in respect of a specified class A drug, are also trigger offences. Heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine are the drugs that cause the most harm, and on which the Government's drugs strategy is focused.
We now seek to put into effect the Government's intention, stated in the criminal justice White Paper Justice for All, to extend the range of trigger offences to include handling stolen goods and "attempted" acquisitive crimes. The draft order will amend Schedule 6 to the Act to add the offence of handling stolen goods under Section 22 of the Theft Act 1968, and to add offences under Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 in respect of handling stolen goods and the existing trigger offences of theft, robbery, burglary and obtaining property by deception.
Making handling stolen goods a trigger offence is a logical addition to the existing acquisitive crime trigger offences. Goods obtained from street crime offences, including mobile phones, and from burglary and other acquisitive crime are often sold to handlers, many of whom themselves commit acquisitive crime to fuel a drugs habit.
It is reasonable to assume that the profiles of offenders charged with attempted crimes and completed crimes are similar. It is logical, therefore, to include the relevant attempted offences as trigger offences to ensure that those who may have a drugs problem are identified and encouraged into treatment in the same way as those charged with the completed offence.
In addition, the draft order adds offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 in relation to begging. The link between begging and specified class A drug misuse is very strong, and we believe that the addition of these offences will be an important measure in combating this criminal and anti-social behaviour. We know that many problematic drug
904
users who beg are not in touch with services and do not receive the help that they need. If those who beg because of their drug misuse are helped to get access to effective treatment, it will help them as well as the communities affected by their anti-social behaviour and those intimidated by begging.
Drug testing on charge is a way of identifying problem drug misusers at an early stage of their contact with the criminal justice system, so that they may be encouraged to address their drug misuse, gain access to treatment or other programmes of help, and be steered away from crime. It is a significant component of the expanding Criminal Justice Interventions Programme, which involves criminal justice and treatment agencies working together to provide a tailored solution for individuals who commit crime to fund their use of class A drugs. Extending the range of trigger offences as proposed in this order will broaden the scope for identifying drug misusers through testing on charge under the programme.
It will also provide an opportunity for persons committing these offences to be picked up at later stages in the criminal justice system where trigger offences are applicable, pending changes relating to sentencing and release on licence being introduced under provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12 May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Goldsmith.)
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his explanation of this order.
In general, we agree with the extension of the trigger offences. Identifying offenders who commit crimes to fund a pernicious drug habit is only to be encouraged so that rehabilitative programmes can be quickly administered and the individuals can be steered away from drugs and crime. Identifying drug abusers is therefore an important task, and broadening the offences which enable police officers to initiate drug testing should help to achieve this.
Although identification is undoubtedly the central issue, unless it is to be followed up immediately by rehabilitation it will be a largely wasted exercise. It would therefore be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could indicate the extent to which the Government expect these new powers to be used and what resources will be available for follow-up rehabilitation.
While the power to require a drugs test may be only a minor inconvenience, rather than a severe punishment or a restriction to one's liberty, we are concerned about a shift that unduly encourages the police to pick people off the street to test them. Trying to crack down on those stealing to fuel a habit by identifying abusers through drug testing is to be encouraged; however, too much power enabling widespread drug testing, some of which will inevitably prove negative, could greatly damage relations between the police and the general public.

905
The Explanatory Notes refer to "supporting research evidence" as a result of which this list of additional offences was constructed. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could give us some details of this research.
Our concerns are perhaps greatest over the last two trigger offences to be included for the purposes of drug testing: begging and persistent begging. As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General pointed out, this comes into effect through amendments to Sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. That legislation, created 180 years ago to deal with the social problems arising after the Napoleonic wars, makes it illegal for people to beg, busk and in some circumstances sleep rough. To put that in the context of this legislation, are the police fully justified in randomly drug testing those who beg, busk and sleep rough? Does that not appear to be a somewhat draconian line to take against a group of particularly vulnerable people?
Persons proceeded against in the magistrates' courts in the case of begging numbered fewer than 2,000 in 2002—one tenth of the number proceeded against for handling offences. The logic for enforcing drug testing after a trigger offence is committed depends on the offence committed being drug-related. Certain offences, such as theft or burglary, attempted or otherwise, clearly have a strong link to drug abuse, and it is sensible that the offenders can accordingly be drug tested. Additionally, these crimes are aggressive and malicious. Begging, by contrast, is rarely aggressive, malicious or even, as the noble and learned Lord put it, acquisitive, although persistent begging may be.
The noble and learned Lord claimed a very strong link between crime and the vagrant population. Hazel Blears, his colleague in the Home Office, claimed on the department's website:
"We know that more than 85 per cent of beggars have a drugs or alcohol addiction and are begging to fund their habits".
If that is the case, I understand the logic behind including begging among the trigger offences. But my concern is that that might represent a shift towards saturation drug testing in high-risk areas.
As a result, the detail concerning begging in this statutory instrument could signify, if the powers are to be used aggressively, a substantial policy shift with considerable implications for civil liberties. Will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General explain whether or not, with regards to begging, he expects the new powers to test for drugs to be used sparingly, and where there is cause for suspicion, or whether they are to be a carte blanche to test all beggars for drugs? I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord's response to the questions, subject to which we support this order.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Attorney-General for his explanation of this order. We do not have any fundamental objection to the statutory instrument, but there are questions that should be put, and there is a need for some clarification.
906
Am I right in saying that the changes will not apply to under-18s? Section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 amended PACE to lower the minimum age for drug testing from 18 to 14. We must be clear exactly who could be affected by the changes. I also have concerns about the inclusion of begging on the list. I can see a good argument for using police arrest as a means of getting people into treatment. Equally, I am sure that crack and heroin-addicted burglars and shoplifters do engage in begging now and then. As far as I can see though, the order would allow the courts to impose a drug abstinence order, with a regime of testing, on people who are homeless and begging and are highly likely to breach the requirement, often ending up in prisons. I have never seen any statistics on the number of abstinence orders given or the number breached. It would be interesting to know whether such figures are available.
The trigger offences have been included on the basis of some strong supporting research evidence. That there is relevance between trigger offences and drugs is not in dispute. The sooner a drug dependency is identified, the quicker it is to address the issue of drug misuse. Here, I sympathise with and strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said. I do question the availability of access to treatment or other programmes of help that can steer individuals away from crime. We also need an assurance that we are capable of not only identifying the causes of crime, but have the capacity to provide help. I have some doubt that our penal institutions have such a capacity.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I start by thanking both noble Lords who have spoken for their expressions of support in principle for the changes that are made in this order. I shall need to come back to the specific question of begging. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, asked to what extent we expect the powers to be used. In the order of 16,000 persons are presently charged with the offences that are proposed to be added to the schedule. That is to say that 16,000 persons over the age of 18 were proceeded against in the magistrates' courts for handling offences in 2001–02. We have no separate data available for attempted offences, and the noble Lord has already given figures in relation to those who were charged with begging offences. That gives some idea of the order.
The noble Lord also asked about resources for rehabilitation. The Government are investing considerable sums of money in drug treatment. The total annual expenditure is now in the region of £500 million. Resources have been provided to ensure that all those who wish to enter treatment have the ability to do so. The Home Office and the Department of Health have been working jointly on estimating the number of drug users requiring drug treatment. This is about finding solutions to the problems that drug-using creates. Therefore, we entirely see the importance of making sure that these are carried through—not just testing, but testing through to assistance, help and to treatment.

907
The noble Lord asked what the evidence there is to demonstrate the link between these offences and drug-using. In relation to handling, over one-third of those arrested for handling stolen goods in one survey programme were shown to have tested positive for heroin and cocaine or crack. Over half of the group who had been arrested and classified as drug-misusing repeat offenders reported that they had been involved in handling offences within the past year. The statistical evidence is strong. There are no separate data in relation to attempting, but as I said, we think that the profile for those who commit completed crimes and those who commit attempted crimes is likely to be similar, and the link for the substantive crimes has already been clearly shown.
So far as begging is concerned, the statistical evidence is strong. A research study found that 86 per cent of beggars were currently using drugs. The study, which covered five major towns and cities, estimated that 75 to 90 per cent of beggars used class A drugs, primarily heroin, and for many of those the routine of begging sufficient cash to fund that habit was a total preoccupation.
These offences are being included because of their close link with the specified class A drug misuse to help combat the anti-social behaviour that is associated with begging offences. I emphasise to both noble Lords that not only is the link between drug abuse and the offences clear, but at the moment these people are not getting the help that they need. Including these offences will assist, by enabling the police routinely to test those who are charged with begging offences and then encourage those who are tested positive into effective treatment or other programmes. If those who beg because of their drug problems are helped in this way, it will help them, it will help communities, and it will help those people who are presently intimidated by begging.
There are other changes, as noble Lords will know, in relation to how we will deal with begging, which will include the ability to impose community penalties in the future. A failure to comply with community penalties could give rise to enforcement procedure; there is nothing new about that. The other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was whether changes would apply to those under 18. The extension in this order will affect young people only when the relevant provisions in the 2003 Act for drug testing those aged 14 and over are brought into effect. They will have to be commenced, and notification will have to be given to the chief officers of police concerned. I was asked for the figures on the number of tests and breaches. I cannot answer that standing at the Dispatch Box today. If figures are available in a form that will help the noble Lord, I will ensure that those are sent to him and I will put a copy in the Library.
I hope that I have dealt with the points that have been raised. On that basis, I invite the House to approve the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Conditional Cautions: Code of Practice) Order 2004
1.48 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this order relates to the code of practice for conditional cautioning, and it will govern the conditional cautioning scheme for which provision is made in Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. I recall debating these provisions with noble Lords present today, and we talked then about the code. Publication of the code is a statutory requirement under Section 25 of the Act, and the scheme cannot be implemented until it has been approved by both Houses.
The scheme allows the prosecutor to give a conditional caution, provided that the offender is an adult, admits the offence during a formal interview, that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, and that the offender understands the effect of the caution and agrees to it.
The scheme is aimed at cases where the public interest would be met more effectively by offenders carrying out specified conditions rather than by being prosecuted. The conditions must either help rehabilitate the offender or ensure that he or she makes reparation for the effects of the offence on the victim or the wider community. Offenders who fail to comply with the conditions may, and usually will, be prosecuted for the original offence. The main considerations in deciding whether a conditional caution is appropriate are the seriousness of the offence, the offender's criminal record and the value of the proposed condition.
In drafting the code, account was taken of the helpful comments made by noble Lords when this part of the Bill was debated, and we are grateful for those comments. After consultation with criminal justice system partners, the Home Secretary published the code in draft on 19 February. During public consultation between then and the end of March, we received 30 responses, in the light of which some minor revisions were made to the draft. The revised draft was agreed by the Home Secretary, the Director of Public Prosecutions and me, and was laid before Parliament on 19 April 2004. It was debated in another place on 18 May.
The code contains advice about the sort of case in which a conditional caution is likely to be appropriate and guidance about the procedures to be followed. The code makes clear that it will be for the prosecutor to decide whether a conditional caution is appropriate, taking into account victims' interests and views, and for the police to administer.
The prosecutor will usually be the Crown Prosecution Service, but the Act allows conditional cautions to be given on the authority of other specified "relevant prosecutors", and the code applies equally to them. The relevant prosecutors listed in Section 27 of the Act are government departments, but there is provision for adding to them by statutory instrument,

909
and consideration will be given to requests by other official prosecutors to be specified for the purpose of using conditional cautions.
Since conditional cautioning will work only if the conditions imposed are carried out, the code prescribes stringent monitoring arrangements. It will be for the offender to prove to the police that the condition has been met. The police will report to the CPS any cases where it has not, including whether the offender claims to have a reasonable excuse. It will then be for the CPS to decide whether a charge should be brought. The expectation is that it usually would.
Conditional cautioning is an important new means of securing the right disposal in a wide variety of cases. That is reflected in the different ways in which it will be brought into effect. If the code is approved today, conditional cautioning will first be used in combination with restorative justice as part of a research project that is due to start next month in parts of London. Then there will be a phased implementation of the scheme in parts of several criminal justice areas starting in the autumn.
The basic conditional cautioning scheme will be used for relatively low-level crime. But in some areas it will involve the use of restorative justice: in others, the drugs intervention programme will be used so that the offender has an incentive to accept treatment. Later, when the first community justice centre begins to operate in Liverpool, it will be able to make use of conditional cautioning.
The code of practice will be supplemented by specific guidance on those aspects as well. The scheme will be evaluated in those areas to see how it works best, to determine best practice and to assess resource and funding requirements. There will then be an opportunity, if it is decided that the scheme should be implemented nationwide, to refine the guidance—if necessary, including the code—before that is done.
I strongly believe that the conditional cautioning scheme will be an important new tool in the criminal justice system, which will help to divert appropriate cases from the court system. It will build on the close working relationship that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are developing through the new approach to charging, which is a result of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It will be a good example of positive and constructive working within the criminal justice system. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committed.]—(Lord Goldsmith.)
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, again, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. On this side of the House we welcome the introduction of the code of practice for conditional cautioning. As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has pointed out, the code plays an important role in detailing the practical workings of the system for conditional cautions. The introduction of conditional cautions in Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was widely welcomed during our
910
debates in Committee on that Act. I shall endeavour not to repeat the questions that I raised on 14 July last year.
The code of practice is pretty thorough in its explanation of the process of issuing and fulfilling conditional cautions, but there are still a few queries that appear to be left hanging unanswered on which some further clarification by the Government could be helpful. Our first concern is about who has the power to give conditional cautions. Noble Lords will see that Section 22(4) of the Criminal Justice Act lists those who are authorised to give a conditional caution. Subsection (4)(c) of that list says:
"a person authorised by a relevant prosecutor for the purposes of this section".
That clearly requires further definition. It is even acknowledged in Section 25.
Section 25 sets out some important provisions that should be included in the code of practice for conditional cautions. Subsection (2)(c) states:
"The code may, in particular, include provision as to— … the persons who may be authorised by a relevant prosecutor for the purposes of section 22".
Paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 of the draft code of practice are helpful for giving further examples of who might be defined as a relevant prosecutor, but virtually nothing is given to enlighten us as to who the persons are that may be authorised by a relevant prosecutor to give a conditional caution. They are mentioned only at the end of paragraph 1.4 where it states:
"The authorised person should be suitably trained".
Have the Government given any thought to giving a tighter definition of individuals who may carry out that key role in the code of practice?
The second concern involves the timeframe in which a caution is to be handed out. Paragraph 2.6 of the code of practice describes what could happen if the CPS decides on a caution being issued with conditions involving the restorative justice process, to which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General referred. It states that,
"the suspect should be bailed under s37(7)(a) [of PACE] for a period that will allow those processes to take place before the resulting conditions are approved by the prosecutor and the offer of a caution made to the offender".
Surely, a time limit should be placed on that period.
As I recall, in Committee, there was general agreement that the conditional caution should be administered as swiftly as possible. While I understand that extra time may have to be taken to decide the most effective restorative conditions, the efficacy of the system could be called into question if there is not some limit to the time in which the prosecutor has to approve of those conditions on the ground, if no other, that undue delay is the enemy of justice.
Our third point concerns the requirements of issuing a conditional caution. Although the list of requirements referred to by the noble and learned Lord in his opening remarks are numbered one to five and there is a simple five-step procedure that an officer must carry out in issuing a conditional caution—the five requirements of Section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act—I do not see

911
either in the Act or the code of practice that it is made explicit that those requirements must be carried out in the order listed.
It would be helpful if that were made explicit in order to avoid the possibility, for example, of someone admitting an offence, signing the document to give his consent to being given the conditional caution and then being told that it will be held on his record and could be disclosed to potential employers. If he had known about that latter point prior to admitting to the offence and agreeing to the conditional caution, he might not have signed the document.
I accept that the ordering of those requirements is indicated by the wording of the Act. It would be hard to carry out the fifth requirement—getting the offender to sign the document—without completing the previous four requirements. Would it not be helpful to make it explicit that requirements 1 to 4 must be fulfilled before requirement 5?
Our final concern involves the monitoring of the offender while he fulfils the conditions of the caution administered. Section 25(2)(h) of the Criminal Justice Act states that the code may in particular give provision to,
"the monitoring of compliance with the conditions attached to such cautions".
In Committee, we expressed a concern about where the burden of responsibility would fall regarding monitoring. We were told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that the supervision and monitoring of the conditional cautions would not be carried out by the probation service but by,
"other agencies including the Crown Prosecution Service".— [Official Report, 14/7/03; col. 660.]
We had hoped that the code of practice would further expand on this. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could bring the House up to date on the relationship between the code and Section 26 of the Act, which is entitled,
"Assistance of National Probation Service".
Paragraphs 10.1 and 10.7 of the code come under the heading "Monitoring and Compliance". That is slightly misleading because only paragraph 10.1 is concerned with monitoring; the remainder concern compliance. The code does not give proper examples of suitable or relevant monitors and who would direct the monitoring beyond the footnote at the bottom of page 9 which states:
"Monitoring may be carried out by an appropriate agency nominated by the authorised person"—
so far so vague, I felt, and continued by stating—
"This might include the use of Community Support Officers or Neighbourhood Wardens, where available, who could check on the completion of a condition which includes public work in the community".
Are these the "other agencies" to which the noble and learned Lord referred? Will it always be the relevant prosecutor who chooses the appropriate monitor, and will a number of agencies be called upon? If so, which agencies do the Government believe to be appropriate for the task of monitoring? These questions are not really covered in the code of practice.
To summarise, we welcome this code of practice but believe that it could have been further improved if it contained provisions, first, to explain who will be authorised by a relevant prosecutor to give conditional cautions; secondly, to give a maximum time limit between the apprehension of an offender and the issuing of a conditional caution; thirdly, to enforce and make explicit the order of the five requirements for issuing a conditional caution; and, finally, to give a fuller overview of what agencies are expected to supervise the monitoring of the conditions set for offenders.
Those issues apart, we support the order.
2 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, Members on these Benches welcome this order on conditional cautioning. It is generally accepted both among practitioners and those who provide voluntary assistance in the criminal justice system that cautioning systems are effective and help many people to stay away from crime. The extension of the cautioning scheme will assist in further building the confidence of the public in the process, provided that it is kept informed about the success of such programmes. Too often, publicity is generated about a few cases of failure rather than the very high success rates that have been achieved.
I welcome the programme on restorative justice because I believe that it is important for victims to become involved. It would be helpful to know how the pilots and other projects involving victims have worked. Ample evidence from abroad suggests that victims who take part in the process show satisfaction following that involvement.
Paragraph 5.2 of the code of practice deals with ways in which reparation may be made under the 2003 Act through work in the community. How do we involve local community groups in identifying reparation projects? The real success of this scheme will depend on the co-operation we receive not only from victims, but also from the community they represent.
Let me explain one other concern I have about the order. Some years ago, when I worked at the Commission for Racial Equality, I undertook a major research project on juvenile cautioning and the police. We looked at all the available evidence from a number of police forces around the country. The striking conclusion we reached, one that was not disputed by the police, was that when all the variables which resulted in the cautioning exercise were taken into account, black youngsters were less likely to be cautioned and more likely to end up in the courts. Cautioning is the gatepost from which either the criminal career begins or the individual is unlikely to offend in the future.
My point in raising this issue, and taking into account the percentage of black people in our penal institutions, is to ensure that there is adequate provision to monitor the conditional cautions administered by the police and the CPS. I am not asking simply for the provisions already set out in the Bill to be followed, rather we should

913
consider whether entry to the cautioning scheme is racially biased. This is important because, despite the code of practice, there is discretion over the way cautions are exercised. That ought not to have an adverse effect on certain sections of our community.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given by both noble Lords. I agree in particular with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the importance of schemes which win the confidence of the community by involving both it and victims, and his point that we need to publicise the success rather than the failure of aspects of the criminal justice system.
I turn to the specific points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, picked up on the question about who has the power to give conditional cautions. We debated this at some length when the Bill was going through the House and so I shall put my response briefly: it is for the prosecutor to decide whether a caution is appropriate and what the caution conditions should be. When one talks about an authorised person delivering the caution, it is not an unimportant act, but it is the act of getting the offender to agree to the conditions and to sign them. It is not a decision about whether it is appropriate because that is a matter for the prosecutor. In those circumstances, it is the Government's view that the description of "authorised person" in the Act is perfectly sufficient. It identifies that such a person may be a constable.
Although I am sure that the noble Lord has read it, I draw attention to paragraph 2.4 of the code which makes it clear that the police have no discretion in respect of conditional cautions as they do in relation to traditional cautions. It is for the prosecutor to decide, and it is only where the prosecutor considers it appropriate to do so, that a conditional caution will be granted.
The noble Lord went on to express the hope that conditional cautions would be dealt with speedily, both in determination of the caution and perhaps also in seeing the caution and its conditions through. Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 deal with the length of time during which the conditions will operate, recognising that normally one would want the conditions to be concluded within a six-month period, because otherwise it may be impossible to prosecute for the original offence.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. It was the first line of paragraph 6.1, stating that the,
"deadline for the completion of the conditions should not be too long",
which excited my interest.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it is right that the deadline should not be too long because the scheme will work best if it is seen to provide a reasonably quick response to offending behaviour. The CPS will endeavour to determine without delay those cases which have to be
914
bailed pending its consideration, but we hope that most cases will not need to be bailed at all. Moreover, the new arrangements now being rolled out nationally, under which prosecutors will be available for face-to-face discussions with the police at the time of the charge—they will be deciding on the charge—will mean that a conditional caution can be the subject of consideration at a very early stage. We shall see how that progresses during the course of the different forms of initial implementation to which I referred earlier.
The noble Lord asked that we should make it clear that the offender should not be expected to sign until he has been told all the things he needs to know in order to consent. That is made absolutely plain on the face of the code, and that is what will happen. In order to give his consent, the offender must be told those things he needs to know for that purpose.
On monitoring and who is to undertake it, subsequent to my remark to which the noble Lord referred when I said that there was a question over whether the probation service would be involved, we included an amendment so that it could be. There was a statutory prohibition, but this House has helped us to get over that problem. However, one of the things we are looking at during the initial implementation of the scheme is the best way to monitor. The probation service will not be involved in most of the schemes I have referred to, except possibly in the restorative justice diversion pilot, but we shall be looking at that as we work through the schemes. At some stage when it is appropriate, I shall ensure that this House is informed of the results of those evaluations, perhaps by way of a short Written Statement. I hope that that will be helpful to the noble Lord.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made an extremely important point about ensuring that in this case, as in all other cases, the operation of criminal justice sanctions are not racially biased. I agree entirely with the noble Lord about the importance of that. He will know that work has been carried out—for example, the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has considered the impact of racial elements in other aspects of the work of the Crown Prosecution Service—and I have no doubt that the Crown Prosecution Service and its inspectorate will keep this issue closely in mind—as, indeed, will I.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Transport Police (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2004
2.10 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20 May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the British Transport Police Authority is to be established on 1 July this year under provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. The authority will oversee and manage the British Transport Police. It will replace the British Transport Police Committee, appointed by the Strategic

915
Rail Authority, which currently oversees the running of the force. The new authority will also take over from the Strategic Rail Authority its responsibilities as "employer" of the British Transport Police.
The Government's guiding principle in setting up the new authority is to mirror for the British Transport Police as fir as possible the way in which local police authorities are organised and governed under the Police Act 1996. The creation of the new authority for the BTP is therefore a vital step in improving the BTP's public status and accountability.
The purpose of the order is to provide for the transfer of staff, pension funds, property, rights and liabilities of the British Transport Police from the Strategic Rail Authority to the new BTP Authority.
The principal effects of the order are firstly to ensure that arrangements are in place for the first meeting of the authority. The chairman is required to convene the meeting and decide where it is to be held. The location of the meeting is to be published and the chairman must notify each member to attend the meeting. At this first meeting the chairman is to appoint a clerk to the authority and determine the procedures to be applied to the meeting.
The order enables a level of continuity to be maintained during the transition stage by allowing for the budget, objectives and policing plan already set by the BTP Committee for 2004–05, together with the strategic plan for 2003–06, to be treated as having been set by the new authority. It does not, however, shackle the authority which, if necessary, can make adjustments during the course of the year.
The order also provides for the formal legal transfer of all BTP officers and civilian support staff from the Strategic Rail Authority to the new authority. Similarly it provides for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities relating to the BTP which are currently the legal responsibility of the SRA.
We do not foresee any difficulties for the SRA and the authority in agreeing the detail of these transfers, but the order puts in place a mechanism for resolving any dispute that may arise. This mechanism enables the authority and the SRA to appoint a person to determine the dispute, and if they cannot agree on who to appoint then they can ask the Secretary of State to appoint an appropriate person.
Next, the order provides for the authority to assume immediately the SRA's powers, duties and obligations in respect of pension provision for police officers and support staff. It ensures that the Secretary of State retains his current powers of consent in relation to the arrangements for support staff pensions once those staff move from the BR section to the new BTP Authority section of the railways pension scheme. The order also introduces into the scheme documentation, for the first time, a requirement for the prior consent of the Secretary of State in relation to future benefit changes for police officer pensions.
The British Transport Police is funded by the rail industry through a series of contracts known as police services agreements. The order therefore makes provision for these existing agreements to continue to have effect.
The order also ensures that existing agreements between the SRA and the BTP relating to rates of pay, hours of duty and conditions of service will continue to apply to transferred staff. Special police constables are not employees of the force and so the order also makes provision for the conditions under which special police constables will serve in the BTP. It makes transitional arrangements in relation to the British Transport Police Federation, the BTP union.
Finally, the order makes consequential amendments to primary legislation so that references relating to the SRA or the British Transport Police Committee are, where appropriate, updated to reflect the transfer of the BTP to the new authority and are consistent with the terms of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.
The order is very much a technical legal instrument, essential for providing the authority with the staff and other assets it needs in order to function properly. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20 May be approved [20th report from the Joint Committed.]—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this important order. I have no problem with what the order does, but I am rather alarmed at the cost of the new police authority. According to the Explanatory Notes, the first year costs will be £863,000, made up of the start-costs of £563,000 and an additional annual cost of £300,000. This will be expenditure on an organisation of which the British public will be blissfully unaware; if it was not there, they would never notice the difference.
If the extra costs in the first year are £863,000, what will the annual costs of the new police authority be? It is no use saying that it will be only a small proportion of the £162 million cost of the British Transport Police budget or that the cost is not borne by the taxpayer. The railway industry pays for the British Transport Police, but that industry is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. Money expended on the police authority will not be available for policing or providing public rail services.
My concern is centred not only on the British Transport Police Authority but on the high levels of expenditure generally on organisations with no obvious direct benefit to the public.
On a brighter note, your Lordships increased the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police during the passage of the Terrorism Act. Can the Minister give any examples of the benefit of extending the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police?
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we welcome the order but have some questions. If the Minister is not able to

917
answer them today, I should be grateful if he would communicate in writing later so that we might be advised of them.
I differ from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in that I believe the public would notice a difference if the British Transport Police disappeared. One has to note that it was only about six weeks ago in Madrid that a most terrible disaster occurred.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, but I was referring to the authority and not to the police force. The police force is absolutely essential; it is the authority that I am worried about.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I want that to be quite clear because I believe that, particularly in London, the British Transport Police are carrying out a vital role in combating terrorism.
I should like the Minister to address the question of funding. Although he has described the funding arrangements that will exist, we are well aware that the Secretary of State in another place is engaged on a review of railway finances. That review ought to address—I believe that it may do so, although I do not know—the issue of funding the railway police. The existing system under which the chief constable has almost to go round on bended knee to train operators to get the money—which comes mostly from the taxpayer, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said—seems to be a particularly circumlocutory method of getting the money. Why does not the Department for Transport pay the money directly to the British Transport Police instead of paying it in subsidy through the train operators' franchises or other agreements, and then the train operating companies handing it over to the British Transport Police after a great deal of costly and lengthy argument? It should go directly to the police force because it has to construct an annual budget and needs to know whether the money will be available.
In this context, there appears to be an element of policing relating to public order and terrorism which goes beyond that which is of general interest to a railway passenger but which touches on us all in one way or another.
I am also very anxious that any review of the British Transport Police and its funding deals once and for all with the powers of the police. We have amended the powers. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the extension of powers in respect of the terrorism legislation, but there is a need to make sure that police powers generally are the same for the transport police, the MoD police, the nuclear police, and so on. If a policeman is in uniform and out on the street, he ought to be quite clear that his duty to the public is to intervene if he sees a crime being committed or is approached by a member of the public for some sort of direction.
I think that this is understood, but I ask that any review should make it clear to the British Transport Police that with the setting up of the Rail Accident
918
Investigation Branch, the role of the police in investigating railway accidents should be confined to those areas where it appears that a criminal act has been perpetrated. We should not expect the British Transport Police to carry out the technical aspects of railway accident investigation which they are singularly ill equipped to do.
Finally, I turn to the funding of rail travel. Many railwaymen do not travel by railway because their travel facilities were taken away with privatisation. I know that the TOCs do not agree, but it is important that the travel facilities which are enjoyed at present by the police and police staff continue so that railway staff travel by rail rather than use their cars. In that way, they can see the system that the public have to put up with, day by day.
Apart from those points—and I am certain that I will not get a straight answer to them now because the Minister may not be able to give me one—I generally support the order.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, support the order, which comes out of the legislation passed last year. It is very welcome. As my noble friend said, the move mirrors the arrangements of local police forces in having an authority. It would be nice if the Government could publish the names of the members of the authority if they have not already done so. I did not quite hear whether my noble friend mentioned that in his opening remarks.
Although the transport police will have the same structure as local police forces, it is worth saying that the importance of having a specialist police force for the railways has never been greater than it is today. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said about changes regarding the Rail Accident Investigation Branch. It is very important that this force survives and prospers. We must also remember that half its activities are directed at London Underground, so the position is slightly skewed.
My concern is funding, a point that was also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Both noble Lords said that it all comes out of the Government's pocket in the end. Well, some of it does, but, as chairman of the Rail Freight Group, in which I declare an interest, let me make it clear that the rail freight industry does not receive a Government subsidy. Rail freight tries to compete with road freight, whose policing is not paid for by the road freight industry. This is not new—I have mentioned it many times before.
There are strong arguments from many quarters to fund the BTP on the same basis as other police forces and enable the passenger and the freight industry, whether it is in the private or public sector—as much of the passenger industry is—to compete and operate on the same basis.

919
As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, it would be very nice if some indication of changes to funding arrangements were made in the outcome of the review, which I believe is due next month. Other than that, I support the order.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, sits down, does he agree that the road transport industry is rather more heavily taxed than the rail freight industry?
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I certainly agree that the road freight industry is more heavily taxed, but most specialists in the field would still accept that it does not pay all the internal and external costs that it imposes on the environment and on the roads.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, says about creating a body about which the public will be blissfully unaware. In some ways, of course, supervisory bodies of this kind are doing their job well if the public is unaware of them, because the only time they come to public attention is when things go manifestly wrong. In seeking to create an authority which is comparable to and parallels the way in which our police services are governed by local police authorities, we want a structure which makes the transport police accountable. The body becomes significant if a significant complaint ever materialises about the operation of the police. Any offended member or members of the public will be very concerned to have a body which is accountable, to say nothing of issues that can arise when public money is involved, for which we need a structure that is accountable.
I note what the noble Earl says about costs. The biggest aspect of the additional costs in setting up the organisation is that the number of members has been increased from nine to 13. That changed the calculations based on the original numbers. One or two other areas have necessitated a rather greater expenditure than the original estimate.
Although not all members have been appointed to the authority yet, Sir Alistair Graham has been appointed as chair. That has been made public and I am merely confirming the excellent appointment of Sir Alistair to carry out this very important role.
I recognise that there are areas of concern on extended jurisdiction. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether I could cite instances. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated, policemen are policemen. They are people with authority. The public are in need of police support and protection on occasions which no one can predict. It would look very odd to the public if a police officer stood idly by if something were not in his immediate jurisdiction when the public interest would be served by putting all hands to the pump. He may, indeed, be the only figure of authority there.
920
As has been recognised in debates on these issues, the concept of extended authority is predominantly related to potential terrorist attacks and how to prevent them. If such a disaster should occur and authority must be exercised, it makes sense to incorporate the transport police. We cannot, as he knows, go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on all aspects of all police forces in their various capacities in this country. However, the intention is, as far as possible, to ensure that the British Transport Police can exercise proper authority when that is needed.
Travel facilities have been mentioned. I am afraid that the principle upon which we are working is that all those in employ up until 1996 will maintain their travel facilities and benefits. The difficulty is that the extension of benefits to employees joining the staff after 1996 would be paid for by the company carrying them. If we insist by legislation that these benefits are carried over into the new system then the Government can rightly be requested to make necessary provision for such benefits. That raises a real difficulty.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with me that the costs imposed by the additional travel of the people concerned are so small that it is doubtful that one extra train would be run on the system? Would he, in any remarks he makes, address the train operating companies and say that it is to their benefit that these people are on the system?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. He has a point. I am in danger of fulfilling his prophecy that I would not give him a straight answer, but he meant to say that I would not be able to give him a full answer in every respect. I certainly endeavour to give all answers as straight as I possibly can. I appreciate that his point is on the margin. But he will also recognise that there is the problem of the Government incurring additional costs in that respect.
In terms of the general issue introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the fairness of the allocation of such costs and who should bear them, we had extensive debates on this in the passage of the legislation. As my noble friend indicated in his modest manner, he has, from time to time—virtually every three weeks—alluded to that point since the last legislation was put on the statute book. He has taken his opportunity again today. I think that he will recognise that an order is slightly more narrowly confined than a debate about the proper allocation of costs but he has taken his opportunity to voice his real concerns in this area again. I congratulate him on having done so. I have no doubt that he will continue to make these representations whenever he feels justified. On the basis of those points—
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the answers that he has given to noble Lords,

921
but I have a horrible suspicion that he has come with his order instigating the police authority without knowing what the total costs of it are.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have a figure of £750,000 for the first year of its operation, its inaugural period. I have already recognised that that is higher than the original estimate. I have given some indications of why it is higher. I recognise the noble Earl's scrupulous attention to detail with regard to public finance. I am seeking to establish before the House that this authority is being established according to proper principles of the disbursement of public moneys. I hope that I have succeeded in answering his particular questions on specific costs. But I hear what he says. I merely indicate that the distinction between the estimate and the reality of the first year is not an unknown phenomenon in the establishment of a public body of this kind.

Transport Act 2000 (Consequential Amendment) Order 2004
2.34 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical order that seeks to make a minor correction to Section 44(10) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
Section 44 of the 1982 Act gives the Secretary of State powers to obtain, by order, rights over land to secure its safe and efficient use for civil aviation purposes. The Secretary of State may exercise those powers in relation to any land that is vested in, or will be acquired by, "relevant authority" as defined in Section 44(12) of the 1982 Act. As originally enacted, Section 44(7) prohibited interference with any works carried out on, or anything installed on, land subject to an order under Section 44. Section 44(10) sets out the penalties for contravening Section 44(7).
When National Air Traffic Services was established as a public/private partnership under the Transport Act 2000, Parliament agreed that it should be granted certain powers in relation to land, for example, compulsory purchase powers, and statutory undertaker status. In addition, the powers exercisable by the Secretary of State under Section 44 had to be amended and Section 44 subsections (6) and (7) of the 1982 Act were duly amended to include reference to the holder of an air traffic services licence.
The amendment to Section 44(7), however, was made in a way that divided the existing section into three parts: now subsections (7), (7A) and (7B). Section 44(7A) now contains the prohibition on interfering with any works or anything installed on land that is subject to an order under Section 44.
Unfortunately, Section 44(10) was not amended at the same time and it still, regrettably, refers to Section 44(7). It is necessary to make this amendment so that the penalty in Section 44(10) can correctly attach to the prohibition in new Section 44(7A). This is what the Transport Act 2000 (Consequential Amendment) Order 2004 seeks to do.
The order is amending primary legislation, so it is only right that it must be subject to affirmative resolution. It is, however, doing no more than bringing other relevant legislation into conformity with the Transport Act 2000 and the policies agreed by this House during the passage of that Act. It is not paving the way for, or implementing, any new policies and it is not bestowing new or additional powers on NATS. I therefore hope that the House will now agree to the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Children Bill
2.36 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 2.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, as Amendment No. 4 was agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 6 to 13 because of pre-emption.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of this Part the word "interests" used in the context of children is to be understood as referring both to those things which are of interest to children and to those things which are or may be in their best interests."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am slightly shaken by the changes in the Bill that took place before luncheon. I am told that I am allowed to move this amendment but that I am pre-empted on the amendments that follow it. So I shall have to bring the issue of the rights of children and the rights of parents back at a future time.
This is a small amendment. In Committee, I raised the issue that in the then drafting of the Bill the word "interest" is used ambiguously, as it is in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I must say that it is more ambiguous in the original Bill than it is in the amendment. "The interests of children" can mean those things that interest children or it can mean those things that are in the best interests of children.
The Minister explained that this was a subtle piece of wording intended to be understood to mean both those things. I believe that it is unsatisfactory to have one word that is meant to mean two different things and, having studied the Bill and the drafting of the clause carefully, it seems to me that the concept of the views and interests of children was closely woven into the Government's text. Therefore, the way to address this problem is simply to take a sentence to

923
define the two different meanings of "interests" in the Bill. I believe that this will avoid misunderstanding in the future. It might even avoid litigation in the future. I therefore commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is some confusion. By virtue of Amendment No. 4 being carried, Amendments Nos. 5 to 13 are not to be discussed. Therefore, we ought to discuss Amendment No. 14.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my understanding is that Amendment No. 5 is not pre-empted—Amendments Nos. 6 to 13 are pre-empted.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for his amendment. As he said, Amendment No. 5 would introduce a definition of "interests" as relating both to what is in the best interests of children and to what interests children. I believe that I am the culprit as regards the confusion that has arisen through what I said in Committee. It is a case of mea culpa in that respect.
I need to clarify how we have used the term "interests" in this part of the Bill. While the commissioner will concern himself with the best interests of children and with what interests them, the term "interests" in Clause 2 relates to the former interpretation only; that is, what is in children's interests—in other words, what is beneficial or advantageous to children. In determining that, the commissioner must have regard to the UN Convention. He or she will also take into account the views of children and others about what is good for children, and therefore in their interests.
The other concept—that of what interests children—is covered by the "views" of children. In expressing their views, children will make clear to the commissioner what interests them and what they think about such matters.
I hope that with that clarification I have set the record straight. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for returning to the matter. I hope that I have clarified the meaning of "interests" and that noble Lords will consider that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in the ordinary way I would have supported this amendment, but the difficulty is in fact on Amendment No. 4 on the—
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am so sorry. I have to say once again that the—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am referring to Amendment No. 5. With the leave of the Front Bench opposite I should like to say what I have to say. It is relevant or I would not be saying it. It is relevant to the structure of the Bill.
This is a definition clause in effect which is to be added on to Amendment No. 4, which I did not support—I abstained. I did not think that the argument was made out. But is it necessary to have a
924
definition clause? Where is the requirement? Is there really any doubt about what the interests of the children are? I would have raised this on the Bill in its original form or on the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that there probably is not a necessity for this amendment in that the noble Baroness has now explained that "interests" means the best interests. Will the noble Baroness go just one stage further and not only convince their Lordships but also the world by putting "the best" in front of "interests" in the text of the Bill? I shall perhaps consider moving an amendment to that effect at the next stage of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 13 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Annual report of Commissioner]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 46, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "he must—

(a) lay a copy before each House of Parliament;

(b) simultaneously send a copy to the Secretary of State."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 15.
I return to a matter that we debated in Committee relating to the annual report of the commissioner. At present, Clause 3 requires the commissioner to send a copy of the annual report to the Secretary of State, who must lay a copy before each House of Parliament. Only once that has been done is the commissioner allowed to publish his report.
The obvious thought that occurs here is that the clause as drafted would enable a government Minister to delay publication of the annual report—not, I am sure, any Minister in the current Government because we have had firm assurances that that would not happen. However, of course, Ministers cannot bind their successors. I believe that the sensible way forward is to proceed as my amendment proposes, which is to transpose the duty to lay the report before Parliament on to the commissioner and require him simultaneously to send a copy to the Secretary of State.
There would be more than a degree of symbolism in this arrangement because it would be yet another way—perhaps a subtle way—of underlining to the world at large that the commissioner is independent. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I had the pleasure of meeting yesterday a group of very bright young people who came to present their views on this Bill to a number of Members of the House. We spent some time talking about the commissioner and his role. One of the things they stressed most of all was how important it was for the commissioner to be independent of government, and be seen to be so. To tell those young people that the commissioner will not be able to publish his report until the Secretary of State says he can would serve only to confirm their worst fears.
It is worth our remembering that the parliamentary and health service ombudsman, for example, can make annual and other reports direct to Parliament, and that is one important marker of the independence that the parliamentary commissioner enjoys. So as regards this amendment, I think that we can go further than saying it would be no skin off the Government's nose if it were accepted. We can also say that it would convey a pretty loud message about the public standing of the Children's Commissioner and the autonomy that he has. I hope that the Minister will feel able to think again about it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support this amendment. It again clarifies the problem of what lies within the remit of the commissioner and what lies within the remit of the Secretary of State. This amendment has got it right in principle again. I ask only for consideration to be given.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I support the amendment. The Minister's reassurances in Committee were very welcome but those verbal reassurances are no substitute for a legally robust appearance of this power on the face of the Bill. I point out that this is already enjoyed by the other UK commissioners. A theme is emerging in our debate today.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. It reaffirms the independence of the commissioner. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, it would place the English commissioner on an equal basis with those in other parts of the UK. I hope that it can be accepted.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising this issue again. As has been indicated, we debated this in Committee. At that time my noble friend Lady Andrews gave assurances that the procedure for laying the annual report before Parliament was not an attempt to limit the commissioner's independence, or an opportunity for the Secretary of State to alter the report. I have made that clear in many of our conversations, and my noble friend made it clear. The Secretary of State would not be able to alter the report in any way. The proposal is a normal procedure for laying reports before Parliament and is a practice followed by other organisations that are required to produce a formal public record of their work and findings, such as Ofsted.
In Committee, however, we noted concerns that the wording of Clause 3 might be seen as an opportunity for the Secretary of State to—dare I say it?—sit on the report, and perhaps lay it before Parliament after some delay. We do not anticipate such an attempt to delay a report, but we do not think it unreasonable to put some criteria on the timing of publication. Indeed, we have proposed in the context of the commissioner's new inquiry power that he should publish his report as soon as possible after completing an inquiry.
926
My noble friend Lady Andrews indicated to Committee Members at the time that we would return with wording to that effect on Report. I reassure the House that we continue to think about the issue. My briefing reads,
"ask them to bear with us",
so I ask noble Lords to bear with us a little longer. Inevitably, what seems very straightforward is slightly more complicated for the annual report, which, as the House may appreciate, raises a wide range of issues that the Secretary of State may wish to draw to the attention of colleagues across government so that they are aware as publication draws near.
If noble Lords are willing to bear with us a little longer, I shall address that issue properly. I hope to do so at the next stage but, if all else fails, I shall commit then that it will be dealt with in another place. On the basis of that continuing assurance, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, of course I am willing to accept the noble Baroness's assurance, for which I thank her. It is not the alteration of the report about which I am concerned, but rather the possibility of delay in its publication. However, I await with interest the further news that she may bring us, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"INQUIRIES INITIATED BY COMMISSIONER
(1) Where the Children's Commissioner considers that the case of an individual child raises issues of public policy of relevance to other children, he may hold an inquiry into that case for the purpose of investigating and making recommendations about those issues.
(2) The Children's Commissioner may only conduct an inquiry under this section if he is satisfied that the inquiry would not duplicate work that is the function of another person (having consulted such persons as he considers appropriate).
(3) Before holding an inquiry under this section the Children's Commissioner must consult the Secretary of State.
(4) The Children's Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, hold an inquiry under this section, or any part of it, in private.
(5) As soon as possible after completing an inquiry under this section the Children's Commissioner must—

(a) publish a report containing his recommendations; and

(b) send a copy to the Secretary of State.

(6) The report need not identify any individual child if the Commissioner considers that it would be undesirable for the identity of the child to be made public.
(7) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) apply for the purposes of an inquiry held under this section in England and Wales as they apply for the purposes of a local inquiry under that section with the substitution for references to the person appointed to hold the inquiry of references to the Children's Commissioner.
(8) Subsections (3) to (5) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 65) apply for the purposes of an inquiry held under this section in Scotland as they apply for the purposes of a local inquiry under that section with the substitution for references to the person appointed to hold the inquiry of references to the Children's Commissioner.
(9) Paragraphs 2 to 5 of Schedule 8 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I.14)) apply for the purposes of an inquiry held under this section in Northern Ireland as they apply for the purposes of a local inquiry under that Order with the substitution for references to the person appointed to hold the inquiry of references to the Children's Commissioner."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to an important part of our deliberations on the Children's Commissioner, which I hope that noble Lords will enjoy. In Committee, we spent quite a lot of our time debating the whole question of the power to initiate and hold inquiries, and of at whose discretion they should be held. It is fair to say that there was a strong feeling that that was a key indicator of whether the commissioner was truly independent in the eyes of the Government. As noble Lords know, we have been concerned that the commissioner's role should be strategic, achievable, and focused on improving the operation of systems rather than delving down into individual cases.
I have reflected on the points raised in Committee. We have always seen the commissioner as independent as well as strategic, and we want to be sure that that is how others will also see him. I am therefore very happy to move Amendment No. 16, which gives the commissioner the power to initiate and hold inquiries in a way that strengthens his strategic role. It is grouped with Amendment No. 29, a consequential amendment which I shall go on to explain.
I am grateful for the very constructive debates in Committee. The comments made in those debates have helped us to shape this new power, which I hope strikes the right balance between granting the independence to inquire into issues raised for the system by key cases, and avoiding the risk of the commissioner being swamped by casework.
The amendment will permit the commissioner to hold an inquiry into a specific case if he considers that it has wider public policy implications. We set out the criteria that we think are important for him to satisfy: namely, looking at cases which raise issues of public policy relevant to other children, investigating those policy issues using what he may learn from the individual case, and making recommendations on policy and practice. We are talking about investigating cases with wider significance, so the commissioner is not in any way an inspector or a regulator, looking into standards in school X or children's home Y to take action against those establishments.
As noble Lords would expect, we have also considered duplication. We want the new role to ensure the proper working of the system already in place, to support and protect children's interests and promote their well-being, not to cause confusion between the commissioner's work and that of other bodies. Proposed new subsection (2) prevents the commissioner conducting an inquiry where he would
928
be duplicating the work of another body. In practice, therefore, the commissioner would consult other bodies that could be undertaking an inquiry, and that subsection places a duty on him to do so as he thinks appropriate.
The commissioner would thus be able to take on board the views of those bodies about the merit of potential inquiry. We are thinking of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. We hope that the consultation before starting an inquiry will be part of regular co-operation between the commissioner and other investigatory bodies. The commissioner's work can therefore complement that of the other bodies, and the consultation process can foster that co-operation.
I shall highlight one other circumstance in which it might not be appropriate for the commissioner to hold an inquiry, which is cases where legal proceedings are planned or under way, arising from the case into which the commissioner wishes to carry out an inquiry. We will expect the commissioner to make a judgment on whether it would be appropriate to proceed with an inquiry into such a case. He will not want his inquiry to prejudice those proceedings, which of course will be protected by the law of contempt. After legal proceedings, the commissioner may well look into the same case. As before, his purpose will be to improve policy and practice, not to review the role of the courts.
Proposed new subsection (3) requires the commissioner to consult the Secretary of State. I absolutely stress that that is not so that the Secretary of State can exercise a veto—although, if the Secretary of State had concerns that the commissioner was at risk of contravening proposed new subsections (1) and (2), he would make the commissioner aware of that. More typically, the Secretary of State might be aware of, or indeed planning, a broader inquiry that would take in the same case, or might suggest another case not known to the commissioner that could help to clarify the same issues. There could even be issues of public interest. A Secretary of State should be able to bring such issues to the commissioner's attention. However, the final decision lies with the commissioner, who is independent and free to act, but will make decisions in the context of the available information.
When the commissioner has been appointed, we hope to be able to work with him on some guidelines for that process, because he will be consulting across government and may consult various Secretaries of State. The term would refer to the Secretary of State whose department had primary responsibility for the issues to be considered. That might include making sure that the commissioner could indicate in the guidelines how quickly a response from the Secretary of State should be expected, as well as issues of information. We want to draw up such guidelines with the commissioner, but I stress that that is not in any way to limit his independence. Rather it is to ensure that the system works.
Most other parts of the proposed new clause echo the provisions of Clause 4. The main difference is that the inquiry is the commissioner's own, so he makes the decision about whether to disclose a child's identity,

929
and he publishes the report. Amendment No. 29 is consequential. Clause 5 already prohibits the exercise of the commissioner's powers under Clauses 2 and 4 in relation to devolved matters in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The same should logically apply to the new power. That amendment serves that purpose. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 16, Amendment No. 17:
Line 24, leave out "and Wales"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we on these Benches, and I think those on other Benches too, very much welcome Amendment No. 16, which gives the new commissioner the power to inquire into individual cases under certain very carefully prescribed circumstances. Those of us who have fought for the complete ban on such inquiries to be removed from the Bill always felt that the power must be so prescribed and hedged around with sensible precautions, so that the commissioner was not bogged down with such cases. That was never the intention of any of us.
Having said that, I must mention that the reference to Wales in proposed new subsection (7), which is the subject of Amendment No. 17, and the proposed new subsections (8) and (9), which are the subject of Amendment No. 18, allow the commissioner to initiate formal inquiries into non-devolved matters in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is the strong view of the commissioner campaign group, and of all three existing commissioners, that the Bill should create a commissioner for England with no UK-wide powers. Other amendments tabled with cross-party support in this House will pursue that.
Meanwhile, these two amendments seek to remove the references to Wales and delete subsections (8) and (9)—about Scotland and Northern Ireland—of the new clause. That is consistent with a raft of amendments tabled by various noble Lords with Welsh interests in particular. I hope that they will meet with a fair wind from the Government. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wholly support Amendments Nos. 16 and 29. They are consistent with Amendment No. 19, which I propose to move in due course.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I, too, welcome the two government amendments and I shall briefly spell out some of the reasons why I think that they are well designed and fit for their purpose.
First, I like the fact that in subsection (1) the strategic approach is maintained—that the commissioner may consider the case of an individual child, but that in doing so the commissioner will be concerned with,
"issues of public policy of relevance to other children".
That is absolutely the correct approach.
Secondly, I am glad that in the second subsection there is a provision against wasteful duplication. Again, that is important because if other public bodies
930
are able to perform those functions, they should. Thirdly, it is most welcome that the ministerial veto has been abandoned in Clause 3. There is consultation but no override. Fourthly, I am happy with the other provisions in subsections (4), (5) and (6). I should like clarification regarding one point. Subsection (6) states:
"The report need not identify any individual child if the Commissioner considers that it would be undesirable for the identity of the child to be made public".
I assume, but just need confirmation, that the commissioner, as a public authority, must act in a way that respects personal privacy—that is guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—and, therefore, the standards to be applied under that would provide some safeguards in the exercising of the commissioner's discretion.
The provisions in subsection (7)—what I call subpoena powers—and subsections (8) and (9) are also well constructed because, as I understand it, one is building on powers in local government legislation that ensure proper control against any abuse of the power to obtain information by compulsion. At one stage I was worried that in the earlier amendment dealing with the earlier clause too much power was being given to the commissioner to obtain information, but I am satisfied that that is not the case, because that deals only with public authorities and the flow of necessary information. For those reasons, these amendments are well constructed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Walmsley in Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. We have already taken a decision today that the Children's Commissioner should have,
"the function of promoting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children in England",
and we have deleted the reference to the United Kingdom. Therefore, it would be anomalous and wrong that, in this clause, the Children's Commissioner should have the power to hold inquiries in Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland. Accordingly, those provisions should be deleted from the Bill; otherwise that inconsistency will remain—certainly up to Third Reading.
Why should the English commissioner, as he now is, hold inquiries in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland anyway? It is interesting that it was a public inquiry in Wales, dealing specifically with Welsh matters—namely, the Waterhouse inquiry—that sparked the desire in Wales to have a children's commissioner. That is why Wales took the first step in the UK to have a children's commissioner. We are perfectly capable in Wales of holding an inquiry of this nature, as the Waterhouse inquiry demonstrated, and we would resent in Wales having the English commissioner come in to hold inquiries at all.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 16 and 29. As noble Lords will know, I am greatly concerned about the role of the commissioner being further and further extended, but the wording of Amendment No. 16 is pitched extremely wisely in terms of raising issues of general relevance and

931
ensuring the avoidance of duplication. Regarding the Waterhouse report, although the facilities were in Wales, most of the children came from England.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I wish to point out that Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 create compatibility with amendments that I have tabled for debate later. Therefore, I would wish the House to consider carefully this group of amendments and for the Minister to consider the amendment to the amendments, because we would then have clear lines of answerability and a clear understanding of how this matter is to operate in each area of the United Kingdom in the interests, and for the benefit, of children.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish only to comment that Clause 2 should to some degree meet the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, because it puts a measure of safeguard on the inquiry.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I am pleased to note that this new inquiry power has been recognised as significant and positive in the development of the commissioner's role. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken the time to discuss this with me and to recognise this important step. It is about ensuring an effective champion in a job that can be done and a person who people perceive to be strong and independent.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 and the new inquiry power to which they relate. They would take from the commissioner the legal powers that he would have to hold an effective inquiry in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. He could still hold an inquiry, but would not have the power to take evidence or summon witnesses. Because of the consequential Amendment No. 29, the commissioner could not hold an inquiry into a devolved matter in those nations. In practice that would prevent him doing so on a non-devolved matter.
At present the other commissioners could not hold an inquiry or formal investigation into a case relating to a non-devolved matter. So this amendment would mean that there was no commissioner able to do so. I am sure that that is not what is intended, but it is important to understand the position that would be created. Later, we are to debate Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 about the commissioner's relationship with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am always tempted to pre-empt my own future debates. In fact this would pre-empt the future comments of my noble friend Lady Andrews and I would not wish to do that.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, no.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my noble friend says no. I hope that noble Lords will feel that at the end of that debate they will see the process that is under way about the links between the four commissioners. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment at this time. It is important,
932
as we continue to debate and work for the best way that the commissioners could work together, that we do not put children in a position of not having any commissioner taking responsibility for such issues. On the basis that there is much more to say about relationships and that there are other stages of the Bill at which we can discuss them further, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reassurance that we will hear more about the Government's attitude to the devolved commissioners. In the mean time, it would be sensible and appropriate for me to withdraw Amendment No. 17. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 17, as an amendment to Amendment No. 16, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18, as an amendment to Amendment No. 16, not moved.]
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER
(1) The Children's Commissioner has, subject to the following provisions of this Part, the following specific functions in respect of the sharing of information—

(a) to draw up and disseminate to the persons and bodies to whom section 8 applies guidance as to the sharing of information between and amongst themselves;

(b) to draw up and disseminate to the persons and bodies to whom section 8 applies guidance as to the circumstances in which it is appropriate for those persons and bodies to share information between and amongst themselves;

(c) to maintain under review the guidance drawn up under paragraphs (a) and (b).

(2) In drawing up the guidance set out at subsection (1)(a) and (b), and in reviewing such guidance under subsection (1)(c), the Children's Commissioner shall consult with—

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) the Information Commissioner;

(c) such other interested persons and bodies with statutory responsibility for children as the Children's Commissioner sees fit.

(3) The guidance under subsection (1)(a) and (b) shall in particular make provision—

(a) as to the nature of the information that, in the circumstances of the case, must or may be shared;

(b) as to procedures designed to ensure the accuracy and security of information shared;

(c) as to procedures designed to ensure, where appropriate, the co-ordination of the sharing of information between and amongst relevant agencies and persons;

(d) as to procedures designed to govern the circumstances in which information can be lawfully shared notwithstanding any rule of law which prohibits or restricts the disclosure of information;

(e) as to procedures designed to guarantee, as appropriate, the rights of data subjects in respect of any information about them that may be shared;

(f) as to procedures designed to govern the period for which it is appropriate that information should be shared and to ensure appropriate deletion of any information shared in compliance with the Data Protection Principles;

933

(g) as to procedures designed to impose penalties for the misuses of shared information and for the holding or disclosure of information contrary to the requirements of the guidance.

(4) The Secretary of State shall by regulations subject to affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament provide for the guidance referred to in subsection (1)."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first, I echo other noble Lords in expressing my considerable gratitude to the Minister, not only for keeping us informed via correspondence, but for arranging Tuesday's presentation of information-sharing Trailblazers. The event was extremely helpful in clarifying and crystallising my thinking and, I am sure, that of other noble Lords.
The Minister will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and I asked the practitioners present what would be the most important and helpful provision that they would like to see in the Bill. I do not think that I misrepresent them if I say that they cited as their top priority consolidated and concise statutory guidance on the protocols that should apply in respect of information sharing between and among agencies involved in child welfare. That is precisely what the amendment is intended to give them.
I shall not try the patience of your Lordships by rehearsing my arguments from Committee. Nevertheless, it is worth repeating the logic that has inspired the amendment. Put simply, it is the recognition of two related but quite distinct problems. On the one hand is the practical and/or technological issue of what provision should be made for systems, be they IT-based or not, that will facilitate information sharing. Clause 8 is the Government's chosen method of addressing that. On the other is the cultural issue of how to establish and inspire the sharing of information; that is, practitioners actually talking and communicating with each other on an inter-agency and intra-agency basis. As I said in Committee, the Bill is strangely silent on that, despite the fact that, to my judgment, the sense of it permeates a great deal of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the tragedy of Victoria Climbié.
I hope it is a fair reflection to say that the Minister was receptive to the principles underpinning the amendment in Committee, as indeed was the noble Lord, Lord Laming. I should also admit that the Government are well seized of the need for cogent advice on information sharing. The Minister put it thus:
"We are clear that guidance to practitioners under Clauses 6 and 7 needs to provide more clarity about the circumstances under which information may be shared to promote children's welfare, safety and well-being".—[Official Report, 6/5/04; cols. 1304–05.]
Against that background, I hope that it is not too presumptuous of me to suggest that my purpose is, if I can put it this way, supported by the Government, by independent experts and by practitioners in the field.
For avoidance of doubt, the original amendment provoked some points of concern; namely, the danger of implicating the Children's Commissioner in line accountability and whether, in effect, the guidance on information sharing should be statutory. Your Lordships
934
can rest assured that in drafting the amendment, for which I express my debt to Liberty and to my noble friend Lord Campbell for their considerable help and assistance, I thought long and hard about its structure. The nub of the problem, on which we have already touched today in the context of earlier amendments, notably Amendments Nos. 4 and 14, is whether the Children's Commissioner or the Secretary of State should be responsible for the preparation of the guidance. In the event, I settled on the former.
As the Minister has observed,
"the focus of the commissioner is on children—listening to children, representing children and hearing their views. His power comes from them and his focus must be on them".—[Official Report, 6/5/04: col. 1305.]
By extension, it is crucial that the commissioner be actively involved in preparing the required guidance in that sensitive area, if only to guarantee that it is properly child-focused. In truth, while respecting the anxiety that has been expressed, I am uncertain whether the amendment would create that line accountability problem. Certainly, that was not my intention. The commissioner will be responsible for preparation of the guidance with appropriate consultation, but responsibility for its issuance vests in the Secretary of State in the form of regulations subject to affirmative resolution. As it were, ownership of the processes of information sharing will rest with the commissioner, while effective responsibility for their enforcement will be derived from the Secretary of State's delivery of them in the form of regulation.
I turn to the question of whether the guidance should be statutory. The Minister implied in Committee that the Government favoured a non-statutory form, and I hold the opposite view. When we are dealing with an issue that impinges so seriously on individual rights, it is only right and proper that the guidance should be delivered in the form of regulation subject to affirmative scrutiny. That is not a matter of mere administrative detail; rather, it is one that has far-reaching implications for the rights of all our children, and it should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
It is probably as well to add here that it was my impression on Tuesday that the practitioners who expressed their heart-felt wish for consolidated guidance favoured it appearing in statutory form. I do not know what kind of response the Minister is bringing to the Dispatch Box today. It may well be that we must beg to differ on this point. Be that as it may, so far as I can see, this single issue is standing in the way of the noble Baroness accepting the amendment.
I conclude with this thought: the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has said that improvements to the way in which information is exchanged within and between agencies are imperative if children are to be adequately safeguarded. That provokes in me a simple question: where on the face of the Bill are those improvements to be found? Notwithstanding the thrust of Clauses 8 and 23, I cannot see them. This amendment is intended to plug that gap. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the amendment, even though my noble friend is as usual ahead of me, having thought through a persuasive line of argument before it had occurred to me. As I said in Committee, I have a number of hesitations about the creation of databases, both on grounds of cost benefit and the civil liberties implications. We will come to those later.
However, as my noble friend said, what matters is that information is shared between the right people at the right time and in the right amounts. That was one of the main issues identified by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in the Climbié case. Therefore, I am drawn to my noble friend's argument that primarily the issue is about information sharing. I can also see the logic of saying that there should be guidance and that we should entrust the formulation of such guidance to the commissioner. That is subject to appropriate consultation and the affirmative procedure, assuming that that arrangement is technically possible. I am sure that the Minister will tell us.
Those safeguards would appear to meet the obvious objection that might otherwise have been voiced that we would be placing too much reliance on the commissioner with too little parliamentary scrutiny. I shall therefore be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I am full of admiration for the thought that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has given to this important matter. The recent meeting we attended with Trailblazers was most helpful. It demonstrated not only what can be done, but what needs to be done and how the law needs to facilitate that.
My concern about the amendment was touched upon by the noble Earl. In the Bill, we attach a great deal of importance to the independence of the Children's Commissioner. He will be independent from government, independent from service providers and solely preoccupied with the interests of children. He will be able to comment on and evaluate any matter that affects children and their well-being, in the greatest sense of the phrase, and to criticise, where he takes the view that the current arrangements are not adequate.
It is therefore most important that the commissioner is not involved in anything connected with managerial accountability and service delivery. The management and exchange of data between organisations seems to be central to effective managerial responsibility, and a line of accountability must be clearly established. The commissioner's position would be weakened and compromised if he were associated with the guidance given to services and that guidance in due course proved to be inadequate. I hope that we will have the opportunity to reflect again on this matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall try to be brief, but it is not so easy to do justice briefly to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Howe, which was short but important, and that of the noble Lord,
936
Lord Laming. There is no doubt that in the light of those contributions, and the one that we hope to receive from the Minister, the provisions will have to be rethought and the structure—or at least the presentation—of the Bill will have to be reviewed.
Of course, I am the sort of dogsbody who takes responsibility for the drafting of the amendment, but I am not a draftsman, as all your Lordships know. The amendment essentially represents an inquiry into how we are to get an effective regime in the Bill and have an effective means of enforcement. We must face up to the situation. The only way in which we can achieve that is by getting Parliament to say what the rules are, putting it in plain English, leaving the judiciary to enforce the rules and keeping the executive right out of it. Apart from the remit of the executive that we have been discussing, which is in another mode, the executive have shown themselves totally incapable of dealing with what is a very serious problem. Ever since the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, we are still saddled in substance with the same rotten regime. We must face up to that.
The Government have given certain guidance about sharing, and it is proposed in the Bill that there should be key agencies. There always have been something like key agencies; it does not matter what one calls them, but they are set up by the local authorities, and there are now many more of them—I believe, about 150. The health authorities are now much larger and fewer—I believe, about 30. The frontline health services are provided by some 300 primary care trusts. But there is a vast and wholly unacceptable variation in the co-ordination, provision and equality of the services offered to our vulnerable children.
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, rightly criticised the existing practices on sharing information and what he called the widespread organisational malaise. That situation grew and festered under a ministerial executive administration. That is one of the main reasons why I assert and seek to persuade your Lordships—not today, but perhaps on another occasion—that the only way in which to do the right thing by our children is to leave it to Parliament to set out the rules and the judiciary to enforce them.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. Although I suppose that my drafting could lead to anything, it was not intended in any way to apply to the commissioner. It is intended to apply to the agencies which are obliged to follow procedures, and those procedures are intended to be laid down. I cannot for the life of me see what the object is in having a sort of intermediate administration in the local safeguarding children boards. On that I seek help, because it seems to me that there is tier upon tier and there is no enforceability. We are running back into the old ministerial quagmire and we are getting nowhere. I am totally opposed to that. Of course, I do get things terribly wrong at times, but I cannot see why that is so, and I invite an explanation why we must have tier upon tier of administration.
I must not take too long today, but I suggest that the only effective control is to be afforded in the Bill, in primary legislation. The amendment allows and

937
provides subsidiary legislation in the form of regulations, which are all under the control of Parliament, using the affirmative resolution procedure. Parliament controls the rules while the judiciary enforces them.
Perhaps one cannot get anything right first time—but, with your Lordships' help, perhaps we may consider these matters on another occasion.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I was going to be brief but I am not sure whether I have understood some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, so I may ask him for clarification—but on a future date, not necessarily today.
I am always in awe of the grasp shown by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, of these issues and the way in which he thinks them through. However, I challenge his thought that the commissioner would undertake the task suggested. I support my noble friend Lord Laming in saying that, yet again, by extending the commissioner's role into such an area we would impair his independence. My noble friend Lord Laming and I have come to those conclusions totally independently, and I am grateful that I find myself alongside him.
I am not going to discuss the database, or some of the points that were made about it, but it is crucially important that when we come to that debate we need to be clear that any regulation comes from central government. However, I fear that those regulations will be interpreted not between Parliament and the judiciary but on the ground, by those people carrying out the task, as was well demonstrated by the trailblazers' pilots. I am grateful to the Minister—as are other noble Lords—for organising that, as it clarified a wide number of issues. We may have other questions, but many issues were clarified.
Once local authorities have put the work in place, it needs to be inspected. I presume that it would be inspected, as with the rest of the work of the local authority, through the national Commission for Social Care Inspection. There would be an air of monitoring, therefore, because that body considers how all regulations are in place in relation to all services. If the commissioner undertook that task, again, that would lead to duplication. In order to carry out the task, yet another team would be required under the commissioner. I should have thought that, considering the Benches on which the noble Lords sit, they would be particularly keen to see efficiency rather than that kind of duplication.
I shall want to return to some of the issues relating to the database. However, at present, I am simply saying that I do not believe that it is a job for the commissioner. We need absolute clarity about where the job lies and how the practitioners will carry it forward.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful for all the comments that have been made about the trailblazer presentation. I, too, found it extremely valuable, having not had the privilege of seeing at least one before. I am also very grateful to
938
noble Lords for giving up their time—I know that their time is very precious. It was an interesting and useful occasion and it certainly enhanced my thinking, as I am sure it did that of other noble Lords.
I say in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that we are in something of a chicken-and-egg situation in relation to our discussion on this amendment. Although this issue falls within this part of the Bill, we shall also want to discuss it when we reach another part of the Bill. It is very much linked to the deliberations that we shall have later—to suit the needs of noble Lords, I hasten to add—about the whole question of information sharing.
I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has just said. It is a question of who is interpreting the guidance, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, rightly said, it includes the critical nature of bringing together the kind of guidance which is already available but which is perhaps misunderstood by different agencies in working out what they can do, when they can do it and how. One objective behind the Bill has been to address that point. The noble Earl will know that other issues were also raised by the trailblazer pilots.
I shall resist the temptation to talk more about Clause 8 and shall confine myself to the issues before us in this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, in particular said, the fundamental issue is the role of the commissioner and whether this is an appropriate role for him. Again, from my perspective, one objective of the Bill is to ensure that the commissioner does not take on roles which are either inappropriate or time-consuming and which detract from the fundamental wish, shared by all noble Lords, that the commissioner's work should relate to children and not to adults, machines or anything else. I fear that this falls into that category. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment on the grounds that such a role would not be appropriate for the commissioner in terms of the time that it would take and the work that would be involved.
The second, and perhaps more fundamental, reason why I think that it is not a role for the commissioner is that this is about issuing statutory guidance under Clause 6 to organisations and bodies which will be as wide-ranging as noble Lords have indicated. They include the police and local government and so on. I do not think that it is appropriate to appoint an independent commissioner, as we have now reached the conclusion we wish to do, and then to say to him, "You will now instruct the police on issues of information sharing". Taking that as an example, I do not believe that that is appropriate.
I have said previously in your Lordships' House that it is important not to let government off the hook in terms of our responsibilities and accountability. It is right that statutory guidance should be given by government and that we should be held to account for that guidance in your Lordships' House, in another place and by the electorate.
Therefore, I feel very strongly that there is a real difference of opinion between the Government and the noble Lords who tabled the amendment. I completely

939
support the notion that guidance is critical. It will be very important in our deliberations on information sharing to be clear about the form that the guidance should take. It is important to consider the guidance that is already available and to ensure that people understand what they are and are not allowed to do. We should not necessarily issue new guidance but, as the noble Earl said, we should bring the guidance together.
I accept that it is important to ensure that the guidance carries weight, is well understood and well used. Where I disagree with noble Lords is that that function should rest with an independent commissioner whose role is to have regard to the interests of children.
Finally, we also expect the commissioner to develop expertise and knowledge and to have experience. There would be nothing to stop the commissioner making his views known about information sharing or about the way in which government carry that out if he felt that that was appropriate within his remit of taking into account what is in the best interests of children. There would be nothing to stop the commissioner being involved with that. I submit to your Lordships that that is for the commissioner to determine and that we should put government in the driving seat so that they take responsibility for guidance of this nature. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I shall, of course, reflect very carefully on what has been said. At present, I believe that it is enough for me to say that I remain convinced that it is necessary to place statutory guidance on information sharing in the Bill. But the conundrum with which we are wrestling is whence that guidance emanates—that is, who prepares it. With that in mind, I am almost certain that I shall return to this issue with, it is hoped, an improved amendment that meets the concerns of those who have spoken. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Inquiries held by Commissioner]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 17, leave out "in such manner as he thinks fit".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we debated in Committee various aspects of the reports to be produced of inquiries held under Clause 4, where the Secretary of State has directed the commissioner to hold an inquiry. We have already debated in your Lordships' House various issues concerning inquiries.
In moving Amendment No. 20, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23—all relating to Clause 4. The first, Amendment No. 20, addresses a small but important point on the publication of inquiry reports. The other two—Amendments Nos. 22 and 23—are technical and relate to inquiries in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
For the first of these—Amendment No. 20—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is not in his place but who moved an identical amendment in
940
Committee. In the debate then, I said that we would consider the points that the noble Lord had raised and write to him, as I have done, and that we would introduce an amendment should that seem appropriate. I have reflected on the matter and believe that his amendment would achieve what we want. The wording,
"in such manner as he thinks fit",
added little to the duty on the Secretary of State, and it might have given the impression that the Secretary of State could choose to publish a report in some obscure manner in order to minimise awareness of it. That was certainly never our intention. Inquiries will be significant events, and the Secretary of State will wish to ensure that the findings and recommendations become known and that those who are the subject of recommendations respond to them.
I do not think that the words that we are seeking to remove would have allowed a Secretary of State to get away with obscuring the publication of a report. But I am happy, through this amendment, to delete the relevant phrase, and I reaffirm that we want inquiry reports to be widely known and available.
The other two amendments—Amendments Nos. 22 and 23—clarify the references in subsections (8) and (9) of Clause 4 to the relevant legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. The original wording had indicated the statutory provisions under which an inquiry might be held in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The amendments add that they would apply to such an inquiry as they would to a local inquiry. This is not a substantial change, but it makes the wording more accurate. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the great cartoonist, Bateman, used to do wonderful cartoons. One, for example, was about the barrister who admitted that his defendant had no defence, and so on. This amendment reminds me of the Minister who withdrew unnecessary powers voluntarily. It is a very good thing indeed that glasnost has broken out in the corridors of power, and I congratulate the Minister and her colleagues on having won that argument.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Lucas in Committee and for moving Amendment No. 20. It is, indeed, most welcome. The amendment in my name in this group—Amendment No. 21–was also proposed in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lucas. Clause 4(5) enables the Secretary of State to censor a report of the commissioner where such a report identifies an individual child. The intention of this provision is clearly to ensure that the identity of the child is not made public where that would be detrimental to the child's interests or undesirable in some other way.
As was said in Committee, I have considerable doubts about whether it is right for the Secretary of State to take this decision rather than some other person. The obvious person in my view is the commissioner, but that is a separate issue. If the Secretary of State is the person who is empowered to take this decision, he should not be able to

941
change the report in ways that go beyond what is necessary to protect the child's identity. In Committee the Minister said that is what subsection (5) implies and that it was not the Government's intention that the Secretary of State should alter or amend any of the commissioner's reports except to protect the child's identity where that was seen to be necessary. Of course, I accept her assurance that that is the Government's intention.
I am not fully comfortable with the argument about the drafting. To someone of benign character, like the Minister, her interpretation is certainly possible. To someone less benign like me, it is more than possible to read the subsection in a way that says that where a report identifies an individual child and it is thought undesirable for his identity to be made public, the Secretary of State may amend the report in any way he chooses. I should like the Minister's reassurance, once again, that that interpretation of the subsection is legally impossible. If it is not, I would invite her to take the matter away and consider it further.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot think of anyone more benign than the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but I like the idea that he thinks I am benign. That is very reassuring.
I am grateful for what noble Lords have said about the government amendment. The noble Earl clearly set out what he seeks to do in this particular case, and I shall not repeat it. I shall simply say that I shall take it away and consider what we might do perhaps to address this more fully. The noble Earl is right. We are clear about what it means but the point is made and I shall take it away.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 22 and 23:
Page 3, line 32. after "Scotland" insert "as they apply for the purposes of a local inquiry under that section"
Page 3, line 37, after "Ireland" insert "as they apply for the purposes of a local inquiry under that Order"
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote Baroness Howe of Idlicote moved Amendment No. 24:
Leave out Clause 4.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as many noble Lords have said, government Amendment No. 16, to empower the commissioner to initiate an inquiry, is very welcome news. Certainly, it will help to establish both the independence and credibility of the commissioner. However, that significant step forward is marred by the continuing power of the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner to undertake an inquiry into the case of an individual child.
Under Clause 4 it will be the Secretary of State, not the commissioner, who determines the terms of reference of such an investigation. It will be the Secretary of State, not the commissioner, who determines when the report from
942
such an inquiry can be published. It will also be for the Secretary of State unilaterally to decide to amend or stop the publication of an inquiry report, to protect the identity of an individual child. The reason for that has been given.
None of the commissioners in other countries in the UK can be directed or controlled in that way. Surely, it is a fundamental violation of independence but I would have thought it is also unnecessary. The Secretary of State has other powers to establish judicial-style inquiries such as the Victoria Climbié inquiry or the Bichard inquiry into the Soham murders, so surely he or she does not need this additional power.
The Government may approach the Children's Commissioner to undertake an inquiry just as it can any other individual or body. New legislation is certainly not required for that. The important point is that Clause 4 requires the commissioner to be permanently at hand to undertake inquiries set by government. That still gives the Government an unacceptably high level of control over the commissioner's agenda and raises questions about whether these arrangements will be seen as a potential cost saver to this and future governments which is, I am sure, not the intention of this Minister.
In giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 20 April, Scotland's Children's Commissioner, Professor Kathleen Marshall, described the process by which she will determine whether or not to undertake a formal inquiry. She stressed the vital point that the commissioner should be receptive and, most of all, responsive to issues raised by children. She stated:
"There is this issue, about [children] raising things themselves, that from their point of view are going to further their protection. The other issue, about the investigation being directed by ministers, is that I would not like to have an investigation or an inquiry foisted on me. … I plan to … assess before I undertake anything what it is going to cost me in time and resources, what … I am going to have to set aside, and I want to have control over that".
Of course I also welcome the deletion of the provision allowing the Secretary of State to publish the commissioner's inquiry report in such a manner that he thinks fit, but the commissioner will still, under Clause 4, be required to hand over his or her inquiry to the Secretary of State before publication.
I turn to another of the children's commissioners, Peter Clarke, commissioner for Wales. In giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 20 April he explained:
"The idea that someone could interfere with whether or not this report was published seems to me completely inconsistent with my understanding of what independence means. … Transparency is another word that is very important for our sorts of offices and the publication of a report and the processes being open and transparent are critical parts of our credibility. We have also had now increasingly numbers of professionals working in organisations who are willing to share information with us in private which might well lead to the improved protection of children because they see us as being independent and trustworthy in this way. The less independent we are the less we will be able to enjoy that sort of confidence."
Mr Clarke's observations are, I think, significant because he is the longest-serving commissioner in the UK having now been in post for more than three years. I accept that Ministers have stated categorically that the Minister will be an independent champion for children

943
and I believe that is their view, but I have to admit that it is difficult to reconcile the Government's stated aims for the commissioner, and the significant progress made in recent days, with the reality of Clause 4.
I hope that the Minister can be persuaded to go one stage further and accept the amendment as proposed to delete Clause 4. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I too wish to speak in support of the amendment, to which my noble friend Lady Walmsley has added her name. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, mentioned Mr Peter Clarke. In his evidence on 22 April last to the Welsh Affairs Committee he was asked what he thought were the significant differences between his powers, which he has exercised for some three years, and the powers proposed for the English commissioner. The very first thing that he said was:
"First, my full independence: I cannot be instructed by any minister to carry out an investigation. That is a key difference between what is being proposed in the Children Bill for a commissioner for England, with its UK parts, and my own office.
I consider that to be absolutely fundamental to the independence of the post, and I am sure it would be seen as such too by the European Network of Ombudsmen for Children. I think it is just so fundamental that I am surprised it is a model that is being put forward".
Then he was asked by Mrs Julie Morgan whether there was any other commissioner,
"in places in Europe that could be directed by a minister to carry out an inquiry?"
His reply was:
"I am having to pause. I cannot think of one. The problem I have in answering the question is that when I joined the European Network some three years ago there were 12 members and there are now 40: it is growing very rapidly, particularly in the former Soviet countries. It may just be that there is a model of that sort but I am certainly not aware of one".
So here we are with a commissioner being put in place; there are 40 commissioners who are members of the European Network of Ombudsmen for children. None of them can be told by a Minister what to do. If the Welsh commissioner cannot be told by a Minister what to do, why can the English commissioner be told by a Minister what to do?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I support the arguments of my noble friend Lady Howe for the reasons I gave earlier; namely, that I want children in England to be just as well protected as they are in the other parts of the United Kingdom. There is also a further consideration that some children—usually those of refugees or asylum applicants—fall into the hands of the Home Office. Therefore, it is all the more desirable that the commissioner should be fully independent and not told by Ministers what he can and cannot do.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as always I am very grateful to noble Lords for such a constructive debate on the issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has made very clear, the effect of the amendment is to delete Clause 4 under which the Secretary of State can direct the Children's Commissioner.
944
I understand the question being asked, which on the one hand is about independence and on the other the appropriate relationship between the commissioner and the Secretary of State and whether it is appropriate under new Clause 2 for the Secretary of State to continue to have that power. I do not expect that this power will be used with great frequency. However, I think that it is important as there may be a case which the Secretary of State believes has key significance concerning children's lives, and on which he believes that the commissioner is uniquely placed to hold an inquiry. It may be on an individual child or on a particular set of circumstances—for example, as mentioned by noble Lords, the Waterhouse inquiry.
We envisage that such inquiries would occur only after the kind of discussion and collaboration that one would expect. As I reassured noble Lords in Committee, we do not expect the Secretary of State to burden the commissioner in any way. One of the reasons we think the provision is important is that direction is followed by resources and resources will be critical if we are to see the kind of high-profile inquiries that sadly we have had to have from time to time.
I referred earlier to the importance and therefore, in a sense, the substantial costs that accompanied the tragedy of Victoria Climbié—£3.8 million. It is important that if the Government are going to, very rarely but none the less perhaps occasionally, say, "We need to look at an issue; we do believe it is critical", it is possible for the Secretary of State to say, "I wish this to be done and I wish this to be done by the commissioner".
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, in view of the opinions expressed by the Minister, do the Government intend to take powers for a Secretary of State to be able to direct the other UK commissioners to conduct inquiries?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have no suggestion that we would do that. Indeed, one of the issues that we will come on to when we discuss the relationship between commissioners in other parts of the UK is how best to ensure that we are able to deal with inquiries. I do not want to pre-empt that discussion because I feel I will move into territory on which we need to have a bigger debate. It is not an issue that we have not discussed and considered; it is a question of how we think it is best done.
I recognise that noble Lords will disagree with me on this issue. I am always, as noble Lords know, accommodating when I can be. However, on this issue, which we have discussed and which I have discussed with my right honourable friend, the Government are clear: we wish to retain this power. We expect it to be used, as I have indicated, rarely and to be the trigger for resources for directions. That cannot be done other than by resources following on from that.
In rare and probably exceptional circumstances, we might wish to be able to say to the commissioner that on behalf of the Government and on behalf of us all we would like him to undertake this. I appreciate the concerns raised. I trust that the relationship will be a

945
positive one. None the less, we would wish to retain the power. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask for clarification. I have some concerns that a commissioner is asked to undertake an inquiry of the size of the Climbié inquiry. My friend—and I mean without the noble in other circumstances—Lord Laming was lost to us all for over a year. Presumably, the commissioner would not carry out the inquiry personally. Even oversight of it might take him away from the work that the House has talked about wanting him to do. I ask for clarification.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on the issue of inquiry there is the ability of the commissioners themselves to initiate inquiries. For example, on the Victoria Climbié inquiry it may well be that a commissioner—or indeed in the case of the tragedy of the little girl Toni-Ann Bayfield—will say, "I wish to do this". We have talked about how that would happen and the commissioner could decide to do it.
In such circumstances there would be, I suppose, a danger that the commissioner would be, as the noble Baroness described it, lost to us. That is why the commissioner will have an office and staff. The commissioner will consider how best to carry out inquiries. Indeed, we anticipate that the Secretary of State will direct the commissioner. That is not to say that there will not be dialogue, or indeed an opportunity to delegate part of the responsibility for that role.
The noble Baroness is right: the issue is about who has the responsibility for conducting the inquiry. In this case we are saying that the Secretary of State would direct the commissioner. The following dialogue may well lead them to ways of doing it, which we will leave for them to discover. None the less, there would be an overarching responsibility and overview from it. That is very important. In thinking about inquiries the Government began with our concern that indeed the commissioner could be wrapped up in inquiries. If they are of such significance, I would argue that that is time well spent.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks, and indeed to other noble Lords who have spoken. I have to say that I remain puzzled. As I tried to point out in my comments, it is possible for the Secretary of State under existing circumstances to do just what the Government wish to write on the face of the Bill.
While for the moment I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, I think we may have to think again on the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"FURTHER ACTION FOLLOWING REPORT BY COMMISSIONER
(1) Where the Children's Commissioner has made a report which contains a recommendation as to action to be taken by a relevant body, the Commissioner may by notice require that body to provide the Commissioner within 3 months of the date of the notice with—

(a) such information as will enable the Children's Commissioner to determine whether the body has complied with the recommendation or will be complying with it; or

(b) a statement of the body's reason for not complying with the recommendation.

(2) A notice under subsection (1) shall include a statement that a failure by the body to respond within the period mentioned in that paragraph may be published in such manner as the Children's Commissioner considers appropriate.
(3) If, on receipt of a response from the body, the Children's Commissioner considers that—

(a) the action taken or proposed to be taken by the body to comply with the recommendation is inadequate; or

(b) the body's reason for not complying with the recommendation is inadequate,

the Commissioner may send to the body concerned a further notice setting out the inadequacy and requiring the body to reconsider the matter and respond within one month of the date of the notice.
(4) A notice under subsection (3) shall include a statement that a failure by the body—

(a) to provide what the Children's Commissioner considers to be a satisfactory response; or

(b) to provide any response within the period mentioned in that subsection,

may be published in such manner as the Children's Commissioner considers appropriate.
(5) The Children's Commissioner shall maintain a register containing details of—

(a) recommendations (together with the reasons for them) contained in reports;

(b) action taken by the Children's Commissioner under subsections (1) and (3); and

(c) the results of any such action.

(6) Any register maintained under subsection (5) shall be open to inspection by any person at all reasonable times at the offices of the Children's Commissioner and the Commissioner may make arrangements for copies of the register to be available for inspection in such other place or places or by such other means as he considers appropriate.
(7) The Children's Commissioner shall publish those arrangements in such a way as to bring them to the attention of persons likely to be interested."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at present there is no requirement on bodies to which the commissioner addresses recommendations to make any sort of response. This new clause enables the commissioner to require a response to his or her recommendation and to publicise any failures to respond. That is similar to provisions in the legislation establishing commissioners in Wales and Northern Ireland.
When the new clause was debated in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, responded:

947
"It is certainly not the Government's intention that the commissioner's inquiry reports should sink without trace … Reports should lead to action, as the Committee would expect, or to explanation of why the commissioner's recommendations have not been accepted or implemented".—[Official Report, 6/5/04; col. 1332.]
However, the Minister went on to suggest that it would be the Secretary of State's task to follow up recommendations in any reports of inquiries that he or she had directed the commissioner to carry out under the existing Clause 4.
The scope of this new clause goes wider than any recommendations made by the commissioner following a formal inquiry. I have welcomed the new clause proposed by the Government giving the commissioner the power to initiate formal inquiries. That is one of the matters on which the Government have listened. It is essential that the commissioner can require a person or body to whom he or she addresses recommendations to respond and can publicise any failures to respond.
Of course I accept that constitutionally it would be wrong for an unelected body such as a commissioner to be able to enforce a recommendation, but what is proposed in this new clause is a necessary and reasonable way of ensuring that the commissioner's recommendations are taken very seriously. Similar provisions exist in legislation establishing the Wales and Northern Ireland commissioners. It works very well and gives commissioners in those countries the teeth that they need. We want a similar set of dentures for the English commissioner. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the amendment has our names attached to it. It is hugely important that follow-up work is done as a result of whatever finding the commissioner might make. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said, it seems ironic that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland can do it whereas we cannot.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, who is not in her place at the moment, spoke very keenly in Committee. She said that further action following a report was essential. I tried to make that proposal in my opening remarks on that amendment at that time.
The Disability Rights Commission strongly supports the aims of the amendment to give the commissioner essential powers also. I cannot add much more to what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, except perhaps to point out that the amendment is strongly recommended by outside groups ranging from Barnardo's and Childline to Save the Children UK and UNICEF. I have done great disservice to all those groups that come in between, but I fear that we will not progress with this Bill, if every time we have an amendment we support it so strongly that we keep repeating the same remarks. In case the Minister has not been briefed in this regard, we have had a lot of support for the amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for speaking to the amendment, and for the very helpful way in which it was introduced. I appreciate that it is important to
948
look at what happens beyond, and to ensure that things are acted upon. As drafted the amendment would apply to all adult reports, annual reports and any reports of inquiry. There is no disagreement on the principle of what to do.
I am not sure whether I agree with the bureaucratic process proposed. Although I recognise that it reflects some of the work on the Northern Ireland commissioner—I do not want to suggest that that was a bureaucratic process—it goes a little further than required. We expect that, when a commissioner makes recommendations addressing government practice and policy in particular, Parliament will be the place that demands of us the answers. That is right and proper; it is very important that we ensure that it happens. I have no doubt that, if my department were under question by the commissioner, issues would be raised in your Lordships' House, to put it politely. I expect that we would look to Parliament to do that work.
Where we have local government and service providers, part of the role of government is to press for answers to the commissioner's concerns. Regulatory bodies may be able to exert their influence. I have no doubt that the commissioner will be very public and vocal in raising concerns, as is right and proper, so that there is a general embarrassment factor, which is also very important.
I am not wedded to the proposed system; it does not quite work for me. I am always anxious about putting so much on the face of the Bill, although I appreciate that such amendments are often tabled to elicit debate in any event. Perhaps we could have a conversation about the matter—this is off the top of my head—as we are very comfortable with the principle, but I would like to explore further existing mechanisms that might be better used. I am always reluctant to create new mechanisms if we can use existing ones. Perhaps we could consider where the tension points might be, as so many organisations feel very strongly about the matter—although it has not been raised with me, so I am in the dark in that regard. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am shocked, horrified and mortally wounded to know that the Minister thinks that my amendment is bureaucratic. She is criticising the legislation on the commissioner for Northern Ireland, because, as she correctly said, we have based the amendment on that legislation. We were so specific in order to avoid accusations of being woolly and vague; yet, in being specific, we are criticised in a different way.
The Minister mentioned what would happen if the commissioner made recommendations about her own department. She is correct in saying that if her own department did not respond to such recommendations, noble Lords would keep her very busy at Question Time. The problem is that noble Lords would not be able to keep other organisations so busy. That is why we need something in the Bill to ensure that the commissioner has teeth.

949
However, I very much welcome the Minister's on-the-hoof seat-of-the-pants flying today—with a sideline glance at the Officials' Box—in suggesting that she may be able to come back at Third Reading with a recommendation on how we could ensure that the commissioner was responded to appropriately. I look forward to hearing what happens in that respect, and would very much like to carry on the conversation with the Minister until Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"POWER OF CONSIDERATION AND REPRESENTATION BY COMMISSIONER
(1) Section 75A of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14) (additional power of consideration and representation) is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
"( ) The Commissioner may consider, and make representations about any matter affecting the rights and welfare of children in Wales to—

(a) the Assembly, and

(b) where the matter is not devolved and the Commissioner considers it appropriate, to the responsible United Kingdom Minister of the Crown or government department.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I preface my remarks by thanking the Minister for the open way in which she has discussed the issues. I am slightly hopeful that her response may bring me some comfort, following our brief discussion before we entered the Chamber today.
I shall also speak to Amendment No. 27. Amendment No. 26 is identical to an amendment tabled in Committee. It amends the Care Standards Act 2000, by which the office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales was established in the first place. Amendment No. 27 sets out how the Children's Commissioner in England shall consult and work with the other Children's Commissioners. It is essential that children in the same household have a clear route to their champion and that the Children's Commissioner can deal with all the issues that children raise with him or her in the same manner, whether the department is devolved or not.
Children are unaware of government structures and their difficulties do not easily split between devolved and non-devolved issues. A child can request help from the Children's Commissioner in Wales because he is homeless, but it appears that he could not do so if he was then in police custody. That seems perilously to cut across the child's access to the commissioner and all that is intended with that. As the English commissioner will now have such powers, it is essential that the Children's Commissioner in Wales is able to represent the issue for Welsh children direct to whichever body that child has raised issues about, whether it be in Wales alone or centrally in England on a UK basis.
In Committee, the question was raised about the appropriateness of amending the Care Standards Act during the passage of the Bill, but it seems to me timely—indeed, essential—that as the Children's Commissioner is to be established for England, the Children's Commissioner for Wales has powers to work with the commissioner in England. I briefly remind the House that the Government have stated that they want a fair, consistent and equal approach to all non-devolved policies, irrespective of their geographic location. That was outlined in their response to the first report of the committee session on the empowerment of children and young people in Wales.
The purpose of Amendment No. 27 is consequential on focusing the Children's Commissioner in England. It requires the Children's Commissioner for England to consult and collaborate with the other commissioners on UK-wide issues and with appropriate commissioners on issues affecting children in more than one country. That has been strongly supported. I will not go through the list of supporting organisations, but I draw the House's attention to the fact that it is also supported by the commissioners themselves in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The idea of the Secretary of State in England directing the commissioner to go into one of the other countries to carry out a formal investigation seems strange, given that there will be a commissioner in each of the devolved countries. This debate is not about devolution of government functions; it is about an independent Children's Commissioner being able to exercise his functions in each country in relation to all matters that affect children's rights and interests.
A legal opinion from Jack Beatson QC has advised that there is no obstacle inherent in the devolution settlement to prevent the sovereign Westminster Parliament from establishing a commissioner with the powers envisaged by the National Assembly for Wales. I emphasise that the National Assembly for Wales also supports the request for those increased powers for the commissioner in Wales and for collaborative working between the different commissioners.
On UK-wide issues—tackling child poverty and increasing safeguards for children in custody, for example—there will be clear value to the commissioners consulting together and collaborating to promote and safeguard children's rights, views and interests. However, it is essential that in each country, children have their own commissioner who fully understands the law, policy and practice in that country, as well as being aware of the society's culture, languages, traditions and demographic make-up.
I finish simply by citing a joint briefing issued earlier during the Bill's passage. The commissioners in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland together stated:
"We want all children to have easy access to a Commissioner who will act independently on their behalf and jointly with other Commissioners where appropriate. We need to take a holistic view of children's needs—not one dominated by the complicated government and legal structures arising from devolution".

951
In the words of Jane Hutt, whom I met earlier today, we need a one-stop shop for children.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, as Amendment No. 27 is grouped, I should say that if Amendment No. 27 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 28 or 29 due to pre-emption.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we have touched on the substance of these amendments in discussing Amendment No. 4 earlier today. That amendment changes the remit of the Children's Commissioner and confines him or her to England, rather than the United Kingdom. As I pointed out, that has implications as far as the situation in Wales is concerned. It is clear that there is a need for clarification, if nothing else, of the respective roles of the Children's Commissioners for Wales and the United Kingdom, or England as the case may be, and the relationship between them. There is a functional overlap between them in Wales, and I dare say similarly in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
By the nature of his appointment, the Welsh commissioner—which is a Crown appointment, but paid for by the National Assembly for Wales—can officially only deal with children in so far as they come within the scope of devolved powers. When children are affected by non-devolved powers, the Welsh commissioner can make representations to the Assembly, which can then carry them forward to the relevant Secretary of State. As I said this morning, what happens in practice is that the Welsh commissioner has informal talks with officials at the department concerned.
Again, as I pointed out this morning, under the present dispensation the Welsh commissioner can call on the UK commissioner to back him up by devoting himself to the problem that the Welsh commissioner has seen in a non-devolved area. There is no doubt that it is an untidy situation. An individual child may have a problem that crosses the boundaries of devolved and non-devolved areas of government. Such problems are no respecters of such artificial boundaries. I look forward to hearing the Government's comments on the solution proposed in Amendment No. 26, which seems reasonable enough to me, and formalises what happens informally now.
Amendment No. 27 does much the same. One of my first concerns on reading this Bill was the relationship between the commissioners. We all want there to be close collaboration between them to avoid duplication of effort and to maximise mutual benefit. Amendment No. 27 puts all that in the Bill. Although the Government may argue that it is not necessary, the Bill is improved by having these matters in it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in Wales, when we have a rugby match, the team warm up and there is a lot of punching of one's chest, punching of other players, running up and down on the spot, and even banging one's head against the wall. Then you go out to play. It was in that spirit that in 2001 when we were dealing with the Children's Commissioner for
952
Wales Act, that we attacked the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was then leading for the Government.
As a result of that match, we ended up with Clause 75(a) being inserted into the Care Standards Act 2000 as a little bit of a compromise. It provided that the Welsh commissioner may consider and make representations to the Assembly about any matters affecting the rights or welfare of children in Wales. The compromise was that the Welsh commissioner could not go straight to Whitehall and deal directly with the Secretary of State in the particular area that he was concerned with, but he had to go through the Welsh Assembly.
That was as much as we could gain in that match, and so we warmed up today, but it may be that we are in a situation where if you go out on to the pitch and someone hits you on the nose in the first minute, all the steam drains rapidly away. We were informed that the Minister was going to give us some good news at a later stage this afternoon. However, I must play the game as it is written, so she will forgive me if I remind her of some of the evidence that has been given to the Welsh Affairs Committee of the House of Commons by Jane Hutt, on 22 April. She said:
"We are going to see a much more holistic service for children, safeguarding children, as a result of a Children Bill which has strong Welsh clauses and I think this is the spirit in which we must try now to move forward in enabling and ensuring that children in Wales have one point of contact, with one Children's Commissioner, our Welsh Children's Commissioner".
Jane Hutt is the Minister responsible in the Welsh Assembly. She made it clear to the committee that whatever the arrangement, there should be a single person who is the Children's Commissioner for Wales to whom children could take their complaints. Of the Bill, she said:
"It is difficult for me to go into practicalities, but … if a child is engaged with the youth justice system, then we would hope that the child or young person would be able to relate to the Welsh Children's Commissioner. But obviously the Welsh Children's Commissioner then would be relating to the English Children's Commissioner in relation to the issues or problems and thence, if appropriate, to the Secretary of State for that reserved function".
She was suggesting that the English commissioner would be a buffer between the Welsh commissioner and the Secretary of State.
The amendment proposes to remove the English commissioner and all his officials and make it possible for the Welsh commissioner to go directly to the appropriate Secretary of State; not through the Welsh Assembly, not through the English commissioner, but as of right himself.
Indeed, Jane Hutt, who clearly is very sympathetic to the point of view that we are putting forward, said that,
"we would want to make sure that the Welsh commissioner was able to have the clout … on behalf of Welsh children to know that something was being considered fully by the Secretary of State and the UK Government as it would be by the Welsh Assembly Government".
In giving her evidence, Jane Hutt was followed by Mr Peter Clarke, the Welsh commissioner. I have already referred to some parts of his evidence. He was

953
told that the recommendation of the Welsh Affairs Committee was to have the powers given to him under both reserved and non-reserved powers within Wales; indeed, they would be extended into England where there are Welsh children who are in custody and that he should have the power of direct representation.
He was asked what powers he lacked at present. He said:
"My current powers are there but I do not have my strongest powers in the area of non-devolved matters. I cannot require documentation to be given to me."
That means that he cannot call for documents. He continued:
"I cannot require the attendance of witnesses to give evidence on oath if I am conducting an inquiry. From the point of view of being the most powerful children's champion possible it would be good from my perspective if the current Children Bill were amended to extend my powers over those matters".
Peter Clarke told the Committee that the Westminster Minister, Mrs Margaret Hodge, had told him that it was non-negotiable for this Bill to extend those powers. On 4 May, when she gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, she was asked about that. She said:
"I said it was non-negotiable whether or not we would use the vehicle of creating an English Commissioner for England as a means of adding to the powers of the Welsh Commissioner on non-devolved matters".
Dr Francis, who was questioning Margaret Hodge, said:
"'Non-negotiable' is a word that would have been used in the days of undemocratic devolution. Now we have democratic devolution. Surely these issues are all negotiable".
Margaret Hodge replied:
"The government view is … reflected in the clauses that we have put in the Bill that is being currently considered through the parliamentary process. Clearly, we will have to see how that parliamentary process works its way through the system, but the government view is that this is not a vehicle in which we are prepared to extend the power of the Welsh Commissioner on non-devolved matters".
Why not? When are the issues of a Children's Commissioner—whether in Wales, England or any other part of the United Kingdom—next going to come before Parliament? When will there be an opportunity for this matter to be debated and considered further? It would be extremely sensible and practical for the Welsh commissioner to have access to the relevant ministry in non-devolved matters. That does not mean that we would be breaching something that I have often attacked, the devolution settlement, by so doing.
We would not be adding to the powers of the Welsh Assembly by giving the Welsh commissioner these powers. It is only sensible that he should have within his compass powers to look after the interests of every child who happens to be in Wales, whether that child is in prison and therefore subject to the Home Office—a non-devolved area—or whether the child is in hospital and subject to the devolved matters concerning health. What difference does it make?
We have already debated today why the English commissioner should have any powers in Wales, and we have carried the necessary amendment at least to limit
954
them. Why should not there be direct access to Ministers? As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, pointed out, the Welsh commissioner has already made informal approaches on a number of occasions to the Prison Service and the police, along with various other institutions, to make representations on behalf of children in Wales. On only one of those occasions has he met a problem. He had been able to obtain the medical records for a child, but the police refused to allow him to see the police reports because it was a non-devolved matter. These distinctions are ludicrous.
I shall not weary noble Lords by going into the question of what should and should not be devolved to Wales; that is for another day. But it is ridiculous that whether a matter is devolved is used as an excuse to prevent the Welsh commissioner having full powers over the interests of children in the Principality.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 and I wish to express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for tabling them. The background to Amendment No. 26 has been fully explained to the House. I think that I can best help by pointing out that the situation is unsatisfactory and that there are four basic and obvious weaknesses in the present arrangements.
First, the Assembly may decide not to carry the matter forward. Secondly, even if the Assembly decides to take the matter forward, the Assembly Minister or official in charge of the exercise will not have full command of the detailed facts which are available to the commissioner. I am sure that the Assembly Minister or official would do his best, but that can be only second-best and therefore he may fail to get to the root of the problem.
Thirdly, there may well be a waste of valuable time for the child or young person in deciding whether or not the particular subject area is a devolved matter. That can be a difficult issue. Fourthly, I recall that my noble friend Lady Gale asked at Second Reading about the child or young person in Wales who does not know the difference between a devolved and a non-devolved area. It is puzzling, confusing and unsettling.
So for all those reasons the position is simply unsatisfactory. Therefore the question must be: how can it be improved? I believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness offers a way forward. As explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the object of Amendment No. 27 is to provide a secure statutory basis for the commissioners to consult and work together on matters concerning children's rights and interests throughout the UK. I have read the Bill carefully but a statutory duty to consult on such matters does not exist. If I am wrong, I am sure the Minister will correct me.
But there are matters which affect all children throughout the countries of the United Kingdom. These should be addressed by a dialogue between the UK commissioner on the one part and the three territorial commissioners on the other. I believe that whatever the UK commissioner can do on issues and themes that

955
affect the children of the UK, can best be done in consultation with the other three commissioners—drawing on their knowledge of their territories, drawing on their experience, drawing on their skills—and then agreeing or negotiating a common approach wherever possible.
Without such consultation one can safely predict that the reports of the UK commissioner could prove to be inappropriate in Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland. I therefore very much hope that Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 will bring forth a positive response from my noble friend Lady Andrews.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the opportunity to debate again the implications involved in the relationships between the four commissioners, not least because it gives me a chance to report on the progress that has been made since we met in Committee. I do not know how good the good news will be. I am sure that I shall be unable to deliver it with the sheer charm of the beloved late Lord Williams. I hope noble Lords will understand that we have listened to the arguments but—I cannot soften the blow—we cannot accept the two amendments. I shall explain why in due course.
As previously, there have been powerful arguments. I understand how strongly noble Lords feel about these issues. Essentially, the amendments address the Welsh commissioner's remit over non-devolved matters and his relationship with his UK counterpart. Amendment No. 26 would give the Welsh commissioner powers to make representations to the National Assembly for Wales and to UK Ministers.
The situation has not changed since the Committee stage, when I described at some length the existing scope and ability for the Welsh Children's Commissioner to make representations to the Assembly on non-devolved matters affecting children. There is nothing to stop him making representations to the relevant UK Minister. Indeed, I know that the Wales Office has confirmed to the Welsh commissioner that he is welcome to approach it at any time.
In the light of the changes that were made to Clause 2 today, which have slightly complicated matters, Amendment No. 27 would require the four commissioners to work together on matters relating to the rights and interests of children across the UK. However, it would still leave a gap in that the commissioner would not be able to report to the UK Government on non-devolved matters. The Government continue to believe that this is a serious omission and that the English commissioner, working with his counterparts, should have this function.
Let me take these issues one at a time. We had a very good debate in Committee on the impact that the commissioner clauses might have on the devolved nations, and on Wales in particular. The focus of the debate was primarily on the relationship between the Children's Commissioner and the Welsh commissioner and how it
956
might affect the way in which the interests and the representation of children in Wales on non-devolved matters were dealt with.
The issues we discussed, however, obviously invited an outcome that worked for all the devolved nations. At the end of the debate, I told the Committee that we would take the issue away and explore the ways in which we might be able to ensure that there was no confusion about the roles and effectiveness of the new commissioner and his or her three equal counterparts. Issues of confusion were very much in the minds of noble Lords, with various illustrations given of how that might occur.
I must repeat two important provisos that I made in Committee. This is not the good news, I am afraid. First, we will not use the legislation to extend the powers and the remit of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. We remain convinced that it is neither the right time nor the right way in which to make such changes.
Secondly, I should like to give the assurance that I gave earlier that by creating a new commissioner, we will do nothing that will undermine or diminish the existing powers and remit of the three established commissioners in the UK. We have reiterated that pledge in many different ways and circumstances.
What we want to do—it has been described this afternoon as tidying-up or matters of dialogue—is make sure that the relationship between the commissioners works as smoothly and transparently as possible for the benefit of all children in the UK, wherever they are. We aim to create a system that children can understand and from which they can benefit.
We have listened very carefully during the debate, and discussions have since taken place at both ministerial and official level to find a solution that works, above all, for children and young people. First, in response to the debate over the formal relationship between the proposed commissioner and other commissioners, we are attempting to clarify matters. We are looking at ways of sending a clearer message by way of the legislation that the England/UK commissioner is not a "first among equals" but an equal partner with other commissioners. We still want to find a clearer way of presenting his role in relation to England and in relation to the UK as a whole, defined in terms of language and scope, but also in a way which is consistent with the devolution settlement. We continue to believe, however, that it is logical for the English commissioner to have the reporting power to the UK Government through non-devolved issues. We need to think about this and, as I said, discussions are in progress.
Secondly, we still want to ensure appropriate and effective co-operation between the commissioners so that children are not confused and their interests are served properly, no matter what they entail. We think the best approach is for the commissioners to get together to decide how best to do this—that is the nature of the dialogue we envisage.

957
We will also study the Bill and make any necessary changes we believe are important to enable this to happen. Should we conclude that there should be legislation to promote effective co-operation between the commissioners, we would want such legislation to be of an enabling nature, which would allow commissioners to work out the detailed procedures between them. For example, if the English commissioner has a remit to report on non-devolved issues, as we intend, the commissioner could be enabled to ask his or her counterparts to undertake certain tasks relating to non-devolved matters in their nation, on his or her behalf. They would, of course, have the right to refuse. Such a conclusion would seem to take care of some of the issues that have been raised.
Noble Lords will know that the existing commissioners are extremely committed and impressive professionals. They have children's interests very much at heart. We are confident that they will use the legislation as a frame around which to develop effective practices. We have spoken before about the commissioners drawing up their own independent protocols or memorandum of understanding. These are extremely useful tools. They will certainly help to ensure the clarity of the communication process. We anticipate that they will cover issues such as how the commissioners pass on communications from children, when it is appropriate to do so, and how they will keep one another informed of the views of children. We hope that this will be explicit.
We listened carefully to what noble Lords said in Committee. Discussions are taking place at all the relevant levels. I therefore ask noble Lords to bear with us as we take these very complex discussions forward. We must be certain of the outcome. There are technical and legal aspects that need to be thought through very carefully and we want to press ahead with the full agreement of our colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
As noble Lords know better than most, with many powers and functions devolved to the administrations in other nations, and an independent commissioner in each of them, it will require thorough investigation. I cannot provide more detail at this point but I reassure noble Lords that we are working very hard to find a practical way forward that best serves the views and interests of children, wherever they are in the UK. I am sure that the commissioners will support us in that. With that in mind, we hope to have concrete proposals to bring forward when the Bill is debated in another place in a short while. I hope that with those reassurances, and recognising the hard work that is going into making these relationships and processes as clear, transparent, robust and effective as possible for children across the UK, noble Lords will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I have listened very carefully to what she said but it seems to me that it is not a full explanation of why the Government are rejecting the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 27, which
958
spells out that the commissioners shall consult and work together. It is something that looks fairly simple to put on the face of the Bill and yet the Government say that it is a complex matter and so on. Is that really the sticking point? Or is there a financial angle to this difficulty over collaboration?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we believe that the process that we are taking forward will ensure that effective consultation will be achieved by the creation of opportunities for dialogue between the commissioners and by looking at the potential for enabling this. The problem with the amendment is that it would leave us in a position where the commissioner would not be able to report to the Government on non-devolved issues in relation to Clause 2. We would have to address that omission. As this is slightly complex, I would prefer it if I could write to noble Lords about this and give some further detail.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am, of course, disappointed but I hear the message asking us to bear with the Government and the commitment to carry on looking at this and to introduce changes to the Bill when it goes to the other place.
I am concerned that the amendment stressing that the commissioners must consult and work together is not currently going on the face of the Bill because one could have a clash of philosophy, for example, that could impede the working of the commissioners. There is a lot to be said for making this a statutory requirement. I am very grateful to the noble Lords who spoke in support of this amendment for making their points so strongly. They are now all on the record.
I advise the Government to look again at the legal opinion from Jack Beatson QC in February, of which I think they are aware. He said:
"The operation of the doctrine of ultra vires and the (sometimes uncomfortable) nature of the Commissioner's investigations and recommendations make it fundamentally important that the Commissioner be given as broad a mandate as Parliament considers possible and for this mandate to be laid down in law to enable the Commissioner to conduct his office without having to depend upon the "good will" and co-operation of the UK government (of whatever composition) for his effectiveness".
This, of course, was advice given to the Children's Commissioner for Wales group.
Given that I accept the Government are actively looking at the matter and discussing it with the Assembly, I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage. However, I shall be concerned if the Bill progresses further without these issues of compatibility between the different regions really being addressed. I am convinced that there is confusion out there, and that confusion will continue unless we have very clear lines of reporting regarding to whom the children go and to whom the commissioner goes—sometimes rapidly, as has been said—when a problem seems to be emerging. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 5 [Relationship with other Commissioners]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Baroness Thornton Baroness Thornton moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
"(d) to the extent that such matters relate to children in one or more of the English Regions, take account of the views of and any work undertaken by any relevant Regional Children's Commissioner"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in a way I am following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. She used the word "regions" when I think that she meant nations. I am talking about regions. It is ironic that if the previous amendment had been accepted, it would have meant that the House was precluded from a discussion about the English regions, which is what these amendments are concerned with.
Amendment No. 28 would add to the subsection concerned with the relationships between the different commissioners. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 would add a suggested remit of what a regional commissioner might do. Amendment No. 33 has one of those things in it that brings my noble friend the Minister out in hives; that is, a list. Amendment No. 144 seeks to amend the Title of the Bill.
The heart of this problem is that there is no recognition in the Bill of the regional dimension for England. I should like to put on record my thanks to the Minister for the discussions that we have had so far. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who added his name to the amendment, is not present. I suspect that he is on a train between here and Brussels where he has attended a meeting on the European regions, funnily enough, and has not yet made it back. However, we had a useful discussion with the Minister, and I am very grateful that she found the time to do that.
These amendments in a way constitute a gallop around this issue at this stage. A key omission from the Children Bill is the lack of regard to the role of regional government structures in England. The amendments would include provision of an appropriate regional mechanism within the national commissioner structure. The amendments would introduce a mandatory requirement to appoint regional children's commissioners, which would ensure a consistent and coherent approach rather than allowing them to develop in a patchwork or ad hoc fashion.
In Committee, noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber supported the need for the Children's Commissioner's office to operate with an understanding of the complexity of regional government structures and responsibilities affecting children's lives. These amendments address the Government's point, made by my noble friend Lady Andrews in Committee, that,
"a model for London takes us into the issue of models for other regions".—[Official Report, 6/5/04; col. 1338.]
In many ways, my concern echoes the debate we have just had in which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about a one-stop shop for children in the nations of the UK. The same applies to children in the regions of England. While it would be possible for variants of, for
960
example, the office of the Children's Rights Commissioner for London to be set up in other regions, if this was done outside the process of this Bill it would have the significant disadvantage of being non-statutory. By not falling within the Children's Commissioner provisions in the Children Bill, they would lack the statutory authority or power. In addition, such a model could be confusing for children and young people and the wider public in the regions if there were an England commissioner and a regional commissioner with different roles and responsibilities.
The Minister expressed concern in Committee about the creation of an inappropriately complex structure at this stage and suggested that the first months and years might not be the time to overload the commissioner with new challenges. However, I pray in aid the Government's proposals to create the new commission for equality and human rights. That new commission would have a presence in each of the nine English regions, as proposed in the DTI White Paper issued very recently, Fairness for All: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights. It is envisaged that that regional network would help to deliver the commission's strategic priorities in a way responsive and sensitive to local and regional needs, rather than through a one-size-fits-all or overly centralised approach.
We seek to ensure that the Children's Commissioner's function is engaged with local government on the issues of health, social care and education, and with regional government in the issues of planning, community safety and cultural and transport policies as they affect children. I am aware that that has budgetary implications. The current budget for the Children's Commissioner for Wales is £1.4 million a year. The cost of a regional commissioner mechanism would be substantially less than that. The principle needs to be discussed.
I want to say something about numbers and give the example of a regional commissioner in London. London has 1.62 million children, which is two and a half times the number in Wales, three times the number in Scotland, and one and a half times the number in Northern Ireland, where there are already commissioners. London's children continue to experience the highest levels of poverty and inequality of any region in the UK. For example, after housing costs, the child poverty rating in inner London is 48 per cent. A regional commissioner structure would help to reflect the diversity of London's children, 41 per cent of whom—53 per cent in inner London—belong to a black, Asian or ethnic minority group.
London is also home to a disproportionately high number of children who are doubly disadvantaged by poverty and discrimination, including refugees, the homeless and the disabled. London's children are particularly susceptible to the effects of environmental degradation such as poor air and unsafe play areas. However, in the fullness of time, similar arguments will be made and deployed about the things that affect children in rural communities, isolated communities and small villages, as the English regions develop and

961
set up their own structures. Therefore, the question facing us is how to recognise the regional dimension at this stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, it is good that the amendment was moved from the Government's Back Benches; I am very glad that that is the case. Amendment No. 28 suggests taking account of regional views, which is important. I hope that they will be genuinely helpful to the Government. I also welcome the group for a reason that I gave on Second Reading and twice earlier today—that I want English children to be just as well protected as those living in other parts of the United Kingdom.
There have been some references to the very much larger workload concerning children that arises in the natural course of events in England. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made special reference to London. Of course, that is true. I should add that in London one will find a disproportionate number of children whose first language is other than English. That poses huge problems for the education system.
Finally, in support of this group of amendments, that accountability of regional children's commissioners will be important and the long-term solution will lie with future English regional assemblies—whenever we get them. I hope that the Government take this group seriously.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment, particularly to my noble friend, because she is a great champion of regionalism. I wish I could give her more satisfaction in response to her amendments. I shall explain why it is difficult for us to do that and our solutions.
Amendment No. 32 establishes posts for regional children's commissioners in each of the nine English regions and Amendment No. 33 specifies the role of those commissioners in assisting the Children's Commissioner and the issues to which they would have regard. Amendment No. 28 requires the Children's Commissioner to take account of their work and Amendment No. 144 is consequential on the Bill's title page.
We discussed these issues in Committee in the context of an amendment seeking to establish an assistant commissioner for London. As I said then, different regions and areas face different challenges. We would expect the commissioner to be aware of and to respond to them.
Without reiterating the argument, we would expect the commissioner to be well aware of the differences and the imperatives of different regions that make a critical difference to children's lives. The issues that contribute to regional differences—equality, the different pressures on children and families, and language, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned—can mean a loss of opportunity and access, as well as discrimination and disadvantage across the country.
962
Those issues are listed in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 33 and are those that the commissioner will wish to bear in mind when considering whether and how to address regional matters. However, returning to our point of principle, there are no analogies between other bodies and the commissioner, who will be a unique agency for addressing complex and widespread issues. We, in Parliament, should not impose structures on the commissioner. We should leave it to him or her to decide how best to deploy their staff and priorities. It is possible that the commissioner may choose to focus the work of his office by region, by age group, or by topic—or any mixture of those options. We will all watch that closely, but he will be independent and we should not interfere with his freedom to operate as he sees fit.
There is a separate question of how the commissioner takes account of and interacts with regional bodies. In exercising his functions he will relate to regional and local bodies as much as to national bodies. Again, in response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the commissioner will certainly take account of regional views. He will be aware, as we all are, that there is a powerful regional dimension to policy that is developing all the time. Regional and local organisations are extremely relevant to the scope and impact of the commissioner's work. As regional government grows and becomes more powerful, it has a serious job to do in listening and responding to the needs of children. We must not undermine that in any way and I am sure that the noble Baroness would not dream of that—nor would her amendment do that—but it is a matter that we should bear in mind.
There is a powerful dynamic in regional government and it may be that there will be more local or regional commissioners along the lines of the London pilot. Of course, the Children's Commissioner would want to build on the work of others. That would be certainly be a way of engaging young people in the regions and assisting the national commissioner in getting their views. Ensuring that children across the diverse regions of the UK receive equal benefit from what the commissioner will bring will be a vital dimension of the commissioner's work.
I am sorry that I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment, but I hope that she understands the reasons why we take that position and that she will be able to withdraw her amendment on those grounds.
5 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answer and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his support. I had hoped for slightly more comfort and that the Government might recognise that the Bill does not mention the English regions at all. If we expect the commissioner to do all of the things that the Minister has described, the Bill must reflect that—a list may be too prescriptive. There has to be some mention in the Bill of the need to recognise the regions.

963
The Government need also to address the issue of how children will be best served by the legislation. They will not be best served by a patchwork of different commissioners at different levels doing different things, with something like 10 different telephone numbers being available to children to ring a Children's Commissioner. I fail to see how English children will be served by that. While I am of course prepared to withdraw my amendment, further discussion of this matter is needed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) The Children's Commissioner may not under section (Inquiries initiated by Commissioner) hold an inquiry where the issues referred to in subsection (1) of that section relate to a matter referred to in subsection (1)(a) to (c) above.".
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"CONSISTENCY OF LEGISLATION WITH CHILDREN'S WELL-BEING
(1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill—

(a) make a statement to the effect that the provisions of the Bill have been assessed for their contribution to the well-being of children, relating to the aspects specified in subsection (3)(a) to (e), and that, in his view, the provisions of the Bill do not act to the detriment of any child or group of children in respect of those aspects; and

(b) make available in each Library of the Houses of Parliament a copy of the assessment made under subsection (1)(a); or

(c) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement under subsection (1)(a) the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.

(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the aspects of children's well-being are—

(a) physical and mental health;

(b) protection from harm and neglect;

(c) education and training;

(d) the contribution made by them to society; and

(e) social and economic well-being."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to an amendment that was tabled also in Committee. It was written for us by the Children's Society. It would place on the Government a similar duty to that under Section 19 (1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998; that is, to make a statement of compatibility with the five outcomes proposed in the Bill.
Of course, the amendment was written before we upset the applecart this morning and threw out the five outcomes. However, I should like to initiate a debate on the principle of the need for government to assess the impact of legislation on children. The amendment would also ensure a child impact assessment process for all new legislation, for which the Children's Commissioner, under Clause 2, and local agencies, under Clause 6, will
964
be accountable. That would provide a much needed and effective mechanism for improving the co-ordination and consistency of policy-making affecting children across all departments and levels of government.
When the amendment was tabled in Committee, it received Cross-Bench support. Although the amendment was rejected by the Government, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, welcomed its underlying aims and gave an assurance that the intention of the Government was indeed to ensure consistency and co-ordination in improving outcomes for children at national government level.
The Minister also highlighted a number of developments and initiatives that the Government have already put in place. The Government's commitment to changing and improving policy-making for children, as expressed in Committee, is both recognised and very welcome. However, there are several reasons why we believe that the amendment, or something like it, should be accepted. Clearly, given earlier events, I shall not be testing the opinion of the House on it in its present form, but it provides important added strength to the new framework that is being introduced.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked why such a child impact assessment process should not be based on the articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, rather than on the outcomes for children as are being created in Clause 2. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady David, who is not in her place at the moment, may have been looking at her crystal ball and may have realised that the outcomes would not be there. Therefore, the UNCRC may be a more appropriate framework for such an assessment.
What is essential at this stage is that a lasting statutory commitment to children is made right across government as part of these measures. It is important that national government should monitor and account for their impact on children's well-being, to make them as accountable as the Children's Commissioner, who is required by the Bill to report on progress on the outcomes, as it used to stand, and the new children's services authority, which will be responsible in planning arrangements.
We wholeheartedly agree with the Minister's statement in Committee that all legislation that we pass in the House has an impact on children. She said that she could think of no exceptions. It would be all too easy to presume that some new policies and legislation are not children's matters and need not be the subject of explicit assessment or debate about their impact on children. For example, reforms to the NHS, transport, environment or housing policies can be seen as either managerial issues in which children have no obvious interest, or areas in which children are invisible members of the general population, represented by their parents' interest as adults, rather than seeking to identify impacts on children as a discrete group. We all know, however, that children can be significantly affected by such wide-ranging reforms. For example, they have been affected by the

965
way in which primary case services have changed and evolved as a result of the primary care trusts, and we know of the health impact of traffic pollution on children's asthma rates.
The Disability Rights Commission believes that child impact assessments for all new legislation would provide a vitally needed means in which to address the impact of new measures on the life chances and opportunities of disabled children and other disadvantaged groups, and the extent to which they promote equality or potentially discriminate. Requiring Ministers to provide statements with all Bills, setting out the compatibility or otherwise of the measures with key outcomes or sets of rights for children, would open up the legislative policy-making process to more effective scrutiny and accountability.
The case for expert assessment of the possible impact for children remains. The responsibility should be clearly placed on government to account for the way in which any new legislation will contribute to outcomes for children, thereby enabling local structures to deliver those outcomes on the ground. Parliamentarians have a vital and well respected role to play in championing the rights and needs of children and young people. The publication of the Government's assessment of the impact of any new legislation on children will greatly enhance the level, depth and quality of debate in both Houses of Parliament and the contribution of Members to the parliamentary process.
This is the first major Bill relating to children since 1989, and it is important to get it right, as it may be another 15 years before we get another chance. If we passed an amendment such as this one—although perhaps not this one, given the faults that I have just outlined—it would be an opportunity not only to improve this Bill but to set in place a mechanism that can improve all future legislation as it relates to children. It is a very far-reaching amendment and, although I shall not press it to a Division today, I shall be most grateful for any other contributions on the matter and for the Minister's response about the principle of the impact assessment. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have for some years been an enthusiast for the idea of child impact statements on legislation, and it may have been a remark of mine that led to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children experimenting with impact statements. The difficulty is that it is an extremely complex issue. For example, what is the impact on children of a gas Bill? It will be different for children of different ages and in different circumstances. It could be dangerous or advantageous—because it keeps them warm. One ends up not with a piece of paper such as this but with a great tome, which is what happened to the All-Party Parliamentary Group, and it cost a great deal of money. It is necessary to have, if at all possible,
966
a more limited impact statement. I had not thought this matter through, but that is my modest contribution to this debate.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness on the question of principle. In other areas, I have been used to impact statements which, as a specification, are no longer than one side of A4 paper. I think that it is possible to achieve such a specification. However, it makes people think, and we in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children and many other places have been doing just that. I understand that that is the emphasis that the noble Baroness is trying to achieve. In the most obscure Bills, one might well find that the impact on children is highly significant.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am also a signatory to the amendment, which clearly will have to be redrafted. It would provide a very timely method of checking on the impact of any new legislation and how it affects children.
I accept what my noble friend Lord Northbourne said. To a certain extent, like the gas Bill, the impact that legislation will have on children of different ages is a question of common sense but, in the area of equal opportunities and in areas where it has eventually come to be used, impact statements have been seen to have a very positive effect. I hope that we can work out something which will have roughly the same effect.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the principle behind the amendment. Because of the comments that have been made, it is almost a relief that the wording is not quite right at present. However, it would be an opportunity missed if we allowed a Bill about children to go through without trying to come up with a form of words which meant that the issues appertaining to children in the different ways that we live and organise our society in the UK were not given consideration somewhere on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I wish that Ministers had such an effect when they called for help with their amendments. The noble Baroness has some powerful champions. I am also glad that the noble Baroness reflected on the impact of what was achieved this morning in terms of outcomes. That is something of which we should be very aware.
I must repeat some of the comments that I made in Committee not only because we are sympathetic to the reasoning behind the amendment—of course, we are extremely alert to the need to be aware of the impact of legislation, and indeed of policy and practice, on children—but because we are entirely committed to ensuring that children are consulted and that their needs and well-being are taken into account when new legislation or policy is developed.
However, I continue to believe that it is unnecessary to place a duty of this kind on Ministers. I think that it could even be counter-productive. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, talking about

967
the gas Bill and the processes, outcomes and complexity implied in it, we must bear in mind that there is a very real danger that a duty of this kind could add to the bureaucracy that we are working hard to reduce. Such bureaucracy gets in the way of delivering the best services.
We must also reflect on what we are doing to represent the views and interests of children. I shall not refer to all the things that I said in Committee. Then, I went through a list of the ways in which the Government are moving to put children's views and interests at the heart of what we do. That includes the new Cabinet Committee, Misc 9(D), and the work that Margaret Hodge is doing—for the first time, we have a Minister for Children.
I outlined our core principles, which lay down a common framework for government departments to involve children in the development of policy and legislation through to implementation and evaluation and the training that civil servants receive. They must take into account how children's lives are affected. Therefore, over the past year we have seen significant changes in the machinery of government.
I, too, have experience of impact statements, and I think that there is potential for the situation to go one way or the other—either by over-bureaucratising and causing, in some senses, an obstruction to delivery or by being too superficial. We need to move beyond the sense that a tick in a box indicates real progress.
The Bill is not about making symbolic gestures. It is about achieving real and lasting change in our culture so that policymakers, politicians and practitioners anticipate and think about the impact on children of ideas, decisions and actions not after we make them but before and during the process of making them. Establishing a children's commissioner is a key step forward in that. He will bring access and expertise. The noble Baroness spoke about new legislation. I would see him having a key role in anticipating how new legislation will affect children. Doubtless, he will advise Ministers on the development of legislation as a key task, and I am sure that he will not hesitate to put forward his views on that.
The promotion, protection and involvement of children in decision making is a priority for this Government. We are making real strides, but I believe that it is more effective and appropriate to continue the way that we are doing it and now with the extra support of the independent children's commissioner to ensure that children's views are integral to that process. That is better than for the Government to comment on their own plans and develop procedures which could be either over-bureaucratic or over-simplistic. I hope that, in the spirit with which that is intended, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank all those who have supported the amendment and the Minister for her response. It is often a very effective strategy of those who oppose something to stretch it to a ridiculous extent and then ridicule it. What we propose
968
has been based on our own experience of practice in the All-Party Parliamentary Group producing a relatively short but not superficial—
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I want to make the point that doing that within a group is rather different from when a Minister has to make a statement, because the Minister's statement carries with it legal obligations and liabilities.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, indeed, I accept that. It would be up to the Government to do that in a way which is balanced, appropriate and reasonable. I am sure that this Government would do that. But the All-Party Parliamentary Group found it extremely useful. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, said, it makes one think about the impact on children. Where the Government are concerned, of course there are resource implications for all legislation. Most children's services have a limited budget. It could very well be that it would be a useful service if the Government were able to consider the impact of any legislation on those limited budgets in relation to children's services. A new piece of legislation could very well impose obligations on them which they simply do not have the budget to fulfil.
The requirement is to make people think. As I said earlier, I shall certainly not press the amendment, but despite the reassurance of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, we may want to redraft this and bring it back at Third Reading. It is a matter that we shall want to consider. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 31 to 33 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Co-operation to improve well-being]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) the quality of family life in the family or other care setting in which they live;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall take a few moments on this amendment. Amendment No. 7 having been cut away from under my feet, I see this as an opportunity to address the same issue. This amendment flows from amendments I tabled in Committee together with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It raises issues about the list of five principal aspects of children's wellbeing, the list of five objectives for children service authorities in securing the welfare of children in Clause 6(2). It is the same list as is used in Clause 2(3), to which my Amendment No. 7 referred, and in Clause 20(2) in connection with Wales.
The doubts which were expressed by certain noble Lords about that list of five amendments were opened up earlier in our debate today. In a way I do not want to cover the same ground, but I should like briefly to make my points. I defer to the Minister that if a discussion is to be held between now and the next stage of the Bill, of course I certainly shall not move the amendment.
In Committee the noble Baroness made it clear that the five aspects of child welfare listed had been captured from the consultation carried out by the Government in conjunction with developing the Green Paper Every Child Matters. They represent children's views and priorities. I have studied carefully the analysis of the consultation questionnaire and the report on the consultations with children. I do not know whether these were the documents the noble Baroness was referring to, or whether she has a secret weapon that she will give us in addition to those. The replies to questions 4 and 7 in those papers are about the family. If one bears in mind the terms in which the questions were cast, it becomes perfectly clear that the children who answered those questions were extremely concerned about and interested in the quality of family life within which they lived out their lives.
I believe that many of those children would, if they had been given the opportunity to do so, have placed a secure, supportive and happy family as the most important single thing for their well-being. There is another point which I would superimpose on that. The statistics in the consultation do not identify the ages of the children questioned except those over 18, those aged 18 to 16 and those under 16. I am interested in the under-16s. Children under 13 represent two thirds of the nation's child population and children under 10 represent half.
The language used in the consultation and various other clues suggest very strongly to me that although they were represented, there were relatively few children under 10. Perhaps the noble Baroness will, either when she replies or in writing, let the House know the number of children under 13 and the number under 10 involved in those questionnaires. If there had been more younger children, there is no doubt in my mind that that would have weighted even more strongly the argument in favour of the environment of the family being a supremely important consideration to children.
Noble Lords may say—and I am trying to dispose of the argument in advance—"Ah, but you cannot legislate for happiness in the family". The answer of course to that is that one cannot legislate directly for some of the other things in this list of five. The list is an instruction to the Children's Commissioner to be concerned about the effect of certain things on the welfare of children. There is no reason whatever in my view why the quality of life in the family or other places where children live or are cared for should not be a key factor which the Children's Commissioner should take into account. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in speaking to Amendments Nos. 39 and 84 I shall address the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. These government amendments to Clause 6 and Clause 20–its Welsh equivalent—seek to meet the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others about the importance of the role of parents in the context of arrangements to
970
improve well-being. I have considered very carefully the best way to ensure that the Bill makes proper reference to the importance of parents and carers.
Our amendments add to the Bill a strong statement from the Government about their understanding of and respect for the critical importance of parents and carers to the well-being of children. They require the children's services authority to have regard to this in making the arrangements under the clause. In doing so, they suggest that the arrangements should support parents and carers and therefore not undermine their role—a sentiment that always underlies the noble Lord's comments. The amendment also ensures that the role of parents and carers is properly reflected in the legislation in a way that does not lead to bureaucratic intrusion in their lives.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and other noble Lords for their valuable contribution to the process. In that spirit, I welcome the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment, which adds quality of life to the list of outcomes. Family life, including quality of provision for the small group of children who do not live with their family, for whatever reason, makes a crucial contribution to securing good outcomes for children.
We have had several debates during the passage of the Bill about amending the list of outcomes. Noble Lords will know that I have made many comments about lists and adding to them; I shall not repeat them. The outcomes in Clause 6(2) translate from Every Child Matters to define well-being. I would be very happy to look more carefully at statistics about which children were involved. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about meeting children yesterday; it is not necessarily about the numbers of children one meets but about the opportunity that one gives them to contribute to debate and deliberation. As I have tried to point out, it is not about where you end, but where you begin. There is much more to do on that.
I have no doubt that family life makes a terribly important, if not fundamental, contribution to well-being. We simply do not think that it sits properly in the list of outcomes. We have tried to address the noble Lord's concerns, but I am always happy to continue the dialogue, and to meet the noble Lord and others to see whether we can do anything further. We have thought very carefully about how best to reflect what we felt were genuine concerns—we set parliamentary counsel many challenges, and this was one of them. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. In the confusion arising out of Amendment No. 7 being cut away from under me, I missed the opportunity to thank her for the other two amendments that the Government have tabled. They were a generous response to many of my concerns. I should have said that at the beginning.
I would like to continue the discussion, if I may. There is a marginal difference between, on the one hand, listening to parents as a channel of communication with

971
children, conveying information about them, and, on the other hand, the experiences that children have in their families. Those experiences are affected by all sorts of external considerations, such as housing, and should be matters for consideration by the commissioner. In that regard, I would like to challenge the five outcomes and say, "Hey, you cannot get away with those five outcomes unless you put in the other one as well". On the basis that we may discuss the matter further, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I strongly welcome Amendment No. 39, in the Minister's name, as it is the first government amendment to the Bill to mention parents. Elsewhere the Bill does not mention parents at all. As a result, my noble friend Lord Northbourne and I thought, "How brilliant; let us put it in to our amendment on the children's commissioner". In the process, however, we have shot our fox. So we may have to revisit that in another way.
It is very important that the role of parents and carers is recognised. I thank the Minister for that. I support the intention behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I am sure that we shall find some way of returning to it later.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I put on the record my sincerest apologies to my noble friend Lord Northbourne. I really should have given him warning that I was withdrawing the amendment just before his amendment. It did not appear to me that it impeded his presentation, which seemed to me to he very eloquent, but I apologise to him. In future, I will make sure that this does not happen again.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I warmly welcome government Amendments Nos. 39 and 84, which repeat twice over the importance of parents. I have received briefing from a wide range of children's societies and organisations saying that they did not want any reference to parents in the Bill at all, as if children could be treated and legislated for in vacuo, which must be nonsense.
Finally, I say to my noble friend Lord Northbourne and to the Government that the words in the latter part of his Amendment No. 34, "other care setting", are important and may be helpful phraseology for the Government to use somewhere, somehow. When children cannot be looked after and cared for by their parents, it is essential that family-like conditions be created for those children.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise briefly to support and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on pursuing his amendment. I know that he has technically withdrawn it, which is a shame. I will respond to the Government's amendments and speak to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Ever since I came to this House some seven years ago, we have consistently had debates on the family and on the importance of parenting. On as many
972
occasions as I have been able, I have supported those debates, because I feel strongly about the role that the family and parents play in society. It has worried me that there was no direct reference to parents in the Bill, which I thought was a great oversight. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord has pursued it.
I thank the Government for coming back with their amendments, because it is helpful to have something in the Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will not necessarily agree about the completeness of the amendments, but he will recognise the importance of including them. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for bringing forward the government amendments, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for having pursued what is a critical issue.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I too was going to support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his amendment, before he withdrew it. I also thank the Government for bringing forward their amendments. It is important that we have in the Bill recognition of the role of parents and the role of the family. Again, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on his perseverance with this issue, and for the fact that he brings it forward time and time again, not just in the context of this Bill, but in many other contexts, as a reminder of how important it is.
I am delighted that the Government have placed their Amendment No. 39 in Clause 6. In looking at the process of co-operation and the relevant partners, and so on, we need to be reminded that none of this co-operation will work unless the fundamental family situation and the role of parents is taken into account. I am pleased to see this amendment, and I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, briefly from these Benches I also congratulate the Government on bringing parents into the Bill in a proper, recognised way. As a society we ask parents to do more and more, and we hold them responsible for more and mere. The least that we can do is ensure that they will be properly taken into account in the Bill.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I think perhaps I should withdraw the amendment again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote Baroness Howe of Idlicote moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 33, at end insert "including the need for a nutritious diet"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe that I am entitled to speak to this amendment now. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 76 in the group, which also includes Amendments Nos. 36, 79 and 80. When withdrawing a very similar amendment in Committee, I ended my remarks on the role of the Children's Commissioner in ensuring children's well being and diet by saying that the House,
"can take considerable comfort from what the Minister has said".—[Official Report, 6/5/04; col. 1237.]

973
Indeed, it was encouraging.
Since then, the House of Commons Select Committee report on obesity has been published. In the light of that worrying report and the urgency of promoting a healthy diet for children's well being, I felt that your Lordships would wish to have a further opportunity to discuss the role that both the Children's Commissioner—I realise that currently, to some extent, there are problems about that in what I am saying—and local authorities might play in tackling that increasingly worrying phenomenon.
I hope that your Lordships and the Minister will forgive me for raising that subject once more, but it is increasingly important as well as an urgent issue. Clearly, conclusions from the Health Select Committee inquiry in another place have reinforced the need for an integrated and wide-ranging programme to tackle the obesity crisis that they describe. Of course, that should include recreation, sport and physical activity in schools, on which, in a previous debate about this group, considerable emphasis was placed. I am sure that others will refer to it now.
The Select Committee pointed to the shocking fact that if current trends continue, half of all children in England could be obese by 2020. Future generations could die before their parents. Quite apart from the physical and psychological suffering that is caused to each individual, the financial cost to the economy—particularly the NHS—of the many illnesses that are caused by this condition make preventive action imperative.
Therefore, hardly surprisingly, that Select Committee called on the Government to adopt a health education campaign to be dedicated exclusively to tackling obesity. Obesity is one of the most easily recognised and visible forms of poor nutrition. But if we are to address that particular problem, we need to look at the diets of all children and not just those of children who are overweight or termed obese.
In the spirit of this Bill, and rightly so, there is a need for the Children's Commissioner and others involved with children to ensure that the views of children are heard and incorporated into the development of any future campaign. In that context, it is encouraging to see from a recent FSA study that 14 to 16 year-old children have a broad sense of the key constituents of a healthy diet. But, alas, they do not critically assess their own diet against those criteria. Clearly, there is a need for more educative work to be done here.
The debate about whether food and drink advertising should be banned from children's programmes has yet to be resolved. Meanwhile, with more and more of the population consuming ready-made meals, it is horrifying that, as a Which? report entitled Recipe for Disaster tells us, we are apparently consuming up to three times as much fat and nine times as much salt depending on the make of pizza, chicken tikka masala or steak and kidney pie that we buy.
In her reply in Committee, the Minister gave several examples of welcome government action in support of a healthy and nutritious children's diet, including the important role that schools in less affluent areas could play in providing breakfast for pupils. But the question about what to do about school vending machines still largely hangs in the air. Like food advertising in children's programmes, the indication is that that is to be addressed by guidance and self-regulation.
The Health Select Committee's view was that the food and drink industry had some three years in which to put its own house in order before legislation was inevitable. Should we not be asking whether the time has come right now for stronger action?
I hope that the return of this amendment will give the Minister an opportunity to expand on what action the Government intend to take in response to the report of the Health Select Committee, in particular as it affects the priority role of the Children's Commissioner, as well as what further action local authorities might be expected to take. It is clear that we have to do far more to ensure that there is at least some hope of a healthy beginning to our children's lives.
For example, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister, among other things, whether and how the Government intend to ensure that the views of the Children's Commissioner are included in forthcoming government policy initiatives on food and health, as well as on the involvement of local authorities.
I want to ask one other question. Is it intended that the Children's Commissioner should also be involved in initiatives such as follow-up on the forthcoming White Paper on healthy living, and the reviews and work programmes of both the Food Standards Agency and Ofcom? I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend—I beg the pardon of the noble Lord; I shall give way.
Lord Pendry: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords have their minds set on the passage of this Bill, but equally I am sure that many will be wondering what is happening to the England side playing in Portugal. I can tell noble Lords that we are now one up against Switzerland.
Other amendments in this grouping relate to the outcome of education and training. They were to be headed by Amendment No. 9, but that was swallowed up earlier. However, Amendments Nos. 36 and 80 are still essential if we are to define children's well-being in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, had intended to speak in support of these amendments, but he has informed me that this debate clashes with another commitment involving one of his many charitable works. He wishes the amendments well, but he cannot be here today.
As I and other noble Lords on all sides of the House have argued since Second Reading, the existence of opportunities for children to enjoy their free time cannot be taken for granted. The concept of the outcome of enjoyment as being essential to a child's

975
well-being, which was made prominent in the Green Paper, has been lost in the Bill as it stands. These amendments seek to recognise that the enjoyment of freely chosen free-time activities—recreation—are essential to a child's healthy development and well-being. I believe that children's services and the Children's Commissioner should be concerned about the provision of opportunities for children to enjoy their recreation time as an essential element in safeguarding and improving that well-being.
A vital part of that includes safeguarding opportunities for children's play in the widest possible sense: staffed and unstaffed play provision, unstructured play as well as more structured activities; and opportunities for children to play independently, to explore and find adventure in their local environments. The proposed term "recreation" encompasses all this and more, and yet warrants some further clarification.
Successive governments have recognised sport and the arts as essential aspects of recreation for children, with accompanying programmes and strategies to deliver them. But no such recognition has hitherto existed for play. In Committee we heard from noble Lords on all sides about the importance of play for play's sake. Yet the importance of play to children has not always been evident in government thinking and guidance. In my view this is a serious oversight, and the result is that local play provision is often a low priority and is vulnerable to cuts in funding.
Without sufficient provision for play, children's opportunities for enjoyment become restricted. As I and others have argued—although I shall not go into the details again today—play is far too important an issue in the development of happy and healthy children to suffer such neglect.
5.45 p.m.
I therefore seek assurances from the Minister that if these amendments are supported by her today the meaning of children's play, in its widest sense, will be encompassed within their terms. In other words, I hope that she will state clearly that the Government recognise play as the main form of recreational activity for most children and that this will, at the very least, be explicit in the definition of "recreation" in all guidance and documentation associated with outcomes for children in the new Children Act.
I hope the Minister will be able to give that assurance. The whole House is indebted to her for listening to the case that I and others have placed before her, and for her understanding on this issue at Second Reading. As I make these comments about the Minister, she trips out of the Chamber. She is certainly the pin-up girl of the House today.
I wish to have that assurance because it will be vital in interpreting the Bill as envisaged in the Green Paper. I believe that it will adequately reinstate the outcome
976
of enjoyment and achievement into the legislation, responding to children's and young people's requests that they should be able to enjoy their childhoods.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, has been able to speak to his amendment. At one stage I thought we were going to lose it altogether. I apologise to him that my name has not been added to his amendment. My name was attached to Amendment No. 9, which was lost earlier because the other amendment was carried.
I strongly support his amendment. I shall not repeat what I said at Second Reading. Play is a hugely important part of a child's development. Whether they live within a family or live in care, every child needs the opportunity to learn to play, whether through informal sport or formal sport, which I used to teach. To a certain extent, the noble Lord's amendment sits very well with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, because nutrition and health go hand in hand. I am happy to support both amendments.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. I tried to contact his office but there has been a slight misunderstanding. My name is attached to the earlier amendment but is missing from this one. I support both amendments.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Howe. The two amendments go very well together. What I was going to say originally and wish to say now is that it is no good telling children what is good for them; you have to make it fun and you have to convince them that it is delicious. Equally, recreation is a wonderful way to sell all kinds of different learning and experiences to children. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to the amendments to which I have added my name. Amendment No. 81 has been moved into this group for the convenience of timing and because it is the relevant place for it to be.
My noble friend Lady Howe has said almost everything there is to say about the importance of nutrition in children's well-being. I should like to add that obesity per se does not mean that the child is over nourished; the child may be malnourished. There are some very obese children with severe deficiencies of trace elements, iron deficiency and so on. Hence the term "nutritious diet". I fully recognise the Government's concern not to have long lists on the face of the Bill, but there is a huge issue in the nation at the moment in regard to diet and the use and abuse of ingested substances in the name of food.
The importance of play is beyond doubt. These are very important amendments. I will be happy to withdraw Amendment No. 81 if the Minister can reassure me that the term "recreation" completely covers play and will therefore allow the National Assembly for Wales to implement its play policy and

977
use the term "play" in secondary legislation when the word "play" is not mentioned on the face of the primary legislation. It is a legal technicality. If the Minister can give me that reassurance, the word "play" would be redundant because it is subsumed within the activity of recreation.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment No. 36. However, my name did not get attached to some of the earlier amendments, which have been lost in any event.
We spoke on this issue in Committee, and I supported the amendment. It is, as we discussed then, vital to children's mental, physical and academic development to be able to explore the world through play as well as through other more formal procedures. I take it that "recreation" encapsulates the important informal elements of play as well as the more formal ones, and the enjoyment of life that comes from play.
While I have some reservations about the inclusion of the phrase "nutritious diet" in the Bill, I very much endorse what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Finlay, about the importance of diet in child development and in the understanding of how to bring up children. We support both the amendments.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this issue, but I wanted to emphasise one particular aspect. The list comes under the area of co-operation in well-being. I am not often keen to add to lists, but the work done between the Department for Education and Skills and the Food Standards Agency on school meals—I declare an interest as an FSA board member—is very revealing. What has emerged from the debate is clear: one cannot have one without the other. Children can have two hours' play at school, which is recreation—exercise, at the end of the day—but what they eat there is quite horrifying. They may have a choice but they regularly choose chips, nuggets and hamburgers. I saw a piece of research recently in a school, where photographs were taken of children and the meals they ate—there was not a green in sight.
If the Bill contained provisions about food, exercise and fun, it would reflect the way children see life, and we might be able to do something about widening the co-operation which we have already demonstrated has taken place between some departments. The co-operation we have sought with some other departments has not been as easily achieved as that with the Department for Education and Skills. It needs to be clear that unless we work together, our children's health will deteriorate, they will have less exercise and they will die at an earlier age than previous generations.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I spoke in Committee in favour of including "play". I would like to see "play" in the Bill, but I would support "recreation", for reasons about which we all agree.
978
I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about the need for a nutritious diet. Of course we do not want to make lists longer, but including something in legislation has a very powerful educational effect in the country. In the same way that it took many years to wake up to the dangers of smoking, we are only just beginning to wake up to the dangers of obesity. The Government can play a real part in this educational programme by ensuring that this requirement is in the Bill.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short and enjoyable debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and other noble Lords that there is a close relationship between the two sets of amendments. It is sad that I have to accept one while not accepting the other. I hope I do it with good grace.
I shall start with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I thought she spoke very powerfully about the significance of her amendment on a nutritional diet. It is sounds rather bleak to say that we are sympathetic but think that it is unnecessary to include the need for a nutritional diet in the Bill. It is not just a matter of lists. The first outcome that we originally had in Clause 2 referred to physical and mental health. That obviously encompasses nutritional requirements. We think that it is very clear that when we are talking about physical and mental health we are obviously talking about the way children thrive and flourish. To do that they need a good diet for good health.
The noble Baroness invited me to say a little about the Government's policies on obesity. I shall not spend too much time on the subject. She will know that our focus is on coherence, prevention and increasing physical activity levels. We are waiting with great interest for the outcome of the public consultation on Choosing Health?, in which young people have responded quite significantly. That is good news. We shall be looking very seriously at how best to respond to the Select Committee report, which is extremely powerful in its analysis. There are various consultations going on that will feed into the public health White Paper. Our response to the Select Committee report will be published at the same time as the White Paper and will tie in with it. We will reinforce and extend that coherence. That will be published later this year.
I should say that the Assembly recognises that a good diet is extremely important. Wales has traditionally not been an area of the UK where a healthy diet has been much in evidence. There is a national nutritional strategy for Wales, Food and Well Being, which was launched in February last year. It identifies children and young people as a priority group for action. There is a food and fitness health promotion grant scheme that provides financial support for community projects. Wales is addressing the issue in a very proactive way. I know my answer is

979
disappointing but, on the basis of those assurances, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness moves off that subject, will the Government be willing to think again? I was one of the people who took the Food Standards Bill through the House. There were two matters which we wanted to make sure were in the Bill. One was food labelling, which we did get into the Bill. The other was nutrition, which we did not. It is something that we bitterly regret. So I am sorry to interrupt but I thought it worth raising because there are so few opportunities to put nutrition into a Bill. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is a member of the Food Standards Agency and I know that it gives a greater direction to its thoughts. I know I should have mentioned this earlier. These opportunities come so rarely. It is a hugely important issue and I thought I should share it with noble Lords.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I understand why the noble Baroness has taken the opportunity but I am afraid that, for the reasons that I have mentioned, we have to stick with the broad definitions. We will make clear what they encompass in the guidance that we put out subsequent to the Bill.
I turn to the amendments concerning recreation, so persistently and ably pursued by my noble friend. I am not surprised that he has taken the opportunity to give us the latest score. I think that that was something we had all been waiting for. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to resolve the concerns raised in relation to play and recreation at different stages of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 36 and 80 are designed to include recreation within the aspect of well-being. In Committee, we agreed to go back and look at the need to ensure that play and recreation were reflected in the Bill and we have done so. Noble Lords have paid tribute to my noble friend, which I think is quite right.
We accept these amendments, which will cover England and Wales. We are completely at one in the importance that we attach to play as a developmental aspect of children's lives in terms of learning and enjoyment. It is extremely important that there are opportunities for informal as well as formal play. We are building that sort of opportunity into programmes such as SureStart.
6 p.m.
When we considered the way in which it could best be done and fully reflected, we looked at precedents such as Section 508 of the Education Act 1996, which made it clear that references to recreation cover the range of play-related activities. We recognise that recreation embraces play. That captures well-being and the important element of enjoyment that might otherwise be missing. Play will be a major element of recreation. We hope to ensure that that is understood. My noble friend and I would be very happy to be in the Ministry of Fun but, unfortunately, we cannot include fun on the face of the Bill. As I say, we value play for the sheer enjoyment that it brings. In Committee we
980
made clear that key parts of play are encompassed within the education and social elements of children's well-being. I hope that noble Lords are happy with that outcome.
As regards the question raised by my noble friend in relation to her Amendment No. 81, I assure her that the Assembly will be free to include play in secondary legislation. I hope that on that basis she will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I have no doubt that noble Lords will share our pleasure in accepting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pendry.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her comments. This has been an extremely stimulating debate. All the points that were made were extremely relevant. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her suggestions. Nutrition is crucial, just as recreation is crucial. You need to see a measure on the face of the Bill to bring the matter home.
I should like to think that the Government will give us rather more comfort at Third Reading. In the mean time I thank noble Lords for their comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pendry Lord Pendry moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 35, leave out "and training" and insert ", training and recreation"
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 4, line 37, at end insert"—
( ) housing"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I can think of nothing worse than following a success and standing here trembling because I do not think that I am likely to score again.
In Committee the Minister declared that housing should not be specified as an outcome and relegated it to a function to be considered by agencies in co-operating with each other.
I refer again to the statement made by Adam Sampson of Shelter and his claim that poor quality housing is adversely affecting more than 1 million children. Quality may mean size; it may also mean state of repair; it may mean multiple occupancy. It may also mean design features such as poor insulation, lack of soundproofing or inadequate ventilation. I find it hard to agree that a problem of this size and complexity can or should be relegated to a minor matter in a long list of affairs over which the Government expect co-operation.
The number of homeless families in temporary accommodation has more than doubled since Labour came to power according to new figures released on 16 June by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In 1997, there were more than 41,000 households in temporary accommodation. That figure has now risen to a horrendous 97,000. With that rising figure, and given the fact that there are more than 700,000 empty

981
homes in the United Kingdom, and 97,000 homeless families, I believe that the Government have not got their act together. Therefore, I am trying again with this amendment.
It will be difficult—the Minister may say that it is not possible—for the Government to accept the amendment, having fought so fiercely over some that have already been turned down, but I must again bring to noble Lords' attention the importance of housing in the well-being of children and families. Vulnerable children and young people are being put at risk of homelessness because social services and housing departments are not collaborating effectively, according to Shelter. The charity called on the Department for Education and Skills to amend the Bill so that housing departments were included in all information-sharing arrangements. It is said that disputes and new duties are being laid down under the Homelessness Act 2002. Joint working between the two departments and health authorities continues to be fragmented. If it is fragmented now when they know that they should work together, that only adds to the thrust behind the amendment.
The Bill sets out new arrangements for children's services, but fails to identify the effects that housing can have on children's lives. For instance, many homeless families fail to access basic healthcare as they move from one grotty place to another. At an earlier stage, the Minister said that local housing and district councils were included, which was one reason why my amendment was turned down. She said,
"we expect housing decisions to be looked at in the context of wellbeing".—[Offictal Report, 6/5/04; col. 1233.]
She pointed out that district councils were included in Clause 6(3)(a), which I accept. However, I am still concerned that, with the pressures placed on local authorities, the housing needs may be less considered in the overall well-being of the child.
It is very difficult to keep arguing that that should be specified. In Committee, we highlighted the fact that, once one starts on a list, it is difficult to know when to stop. I therefore accept the Minister's slight dilemma. However, I feel extremely strongly about the issue. Many of the families who find themselves homeless know only too well the difficulty of providing for a child's well-being. I redoubled my efforts when I saw the figures announced on 16 June, with that huge rise in the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I added my name to the amendment because, when I was a teacher, it became very clear to me that few issues had more effect on a child's life chances than its housing status. If the child is homeless and in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, there is enormous instability. There is very often overcrowding and a lot of noise, and it is not the most healthy environment for children. It is certainly not conducive to them doing their homework and having a peaceful environment in which to consolidate their learning at school when they get
982
home. Even if children live in a normal stable home, its being damp or overcrowded affects their health tremendously, which affects their education.
I shall move on to the information-sharing part of the Bill. We are considering what happens to children when they move from one authority to another, and how to ensure that vulnerable children are attached to the services that they need. It strikes me that the housing department is the one department of a local authority that is bound to come into contact with a child moving into its area. The family will look for council housing or housing benefit, or pay council tax if they own a home. One way or another, the housing department of local government will have some contact with the children.
For all those reasons it is important that the duty to co-operate extends to the issue of housing and those people responsible for housing in relation to children. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in her attempt to insert housing into the Bill.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. However, it is not broad enough. My amendment relating to the environment in which children have to live would include housing. While I do not wish to have an argument about the exact wording of the amendment, it would be right to sit down and take to pieces the five objectives in Clause 6(2) to try to make them more in line with what is really in the best interests and needs of children.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I very much support the amendment. I was particularly impressed, at the same gathering that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, attended yesterday evening, with the children themselves and the messages that spread around the reception area about what they wanted out of life. One loud and clear message was their wish for a decent and safe home, because we were talking about domestic violence. All of those children had been affected and had suffered a great deal. However, the wish for a decent home and one in which they could feel happy, secure and do the things that they wanted to, was strong on their list.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, nothing divides us at all regarding the importance of housing as an aspect of equality in children's lives—and everything that they do, from achieving at school to maintaining good family relationships. I understand the concerns that are reflected in the amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, spoke passionately about her concerns over the potential lack of co-operation within and between local authorities. I also recognise that there is a need to involve housing associations, for example, that are discharging functions under contract from housing authorities. I am aware of concerns about the effectiveness of existing legislation that requires social landlords to co-operate with social services departments. So we are concerned to ensure that at every level the housing department is fully integrated with all the other services that deliver benefit for children and families.

983
We have several problems with the amendment. Adding housing to the broad outcomes is not the most effective way of addressing such concerns. The positive outcomes in Clause 6 define well-being for all children in the broadest sense and are what the children's services authority should be aspiring to achieve. There are many factors that contribute to those. Housing is one of those. Good quality housing is extremely important hut, in itself, is not an outcome within that definition. It is a means of achieving an outcome in relation, for example, to physical and mental health. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, spoke clearly about her experience.
The second problem with the amendment is that we have made arrangements for that co-operation. I have to re-iterate what we said in Committee—it is why, regarding two-tier authorities in England, we have placed the district council under a reciprocal duty to co-operate in the arrangements under Clause 6. That encompasses all of their functions that impact on children's well-being, including housing.
I hope that the noble Baroness will take some comfort from the intention in Clauses 13 and 14 to issue statutory guidance on Clause 6 and on the lead member and director of children's services, so that local authorities must have regard in formulating polices and strategies. That guidance will make it crystal clear that co-operation applies not only to local authorities and their partners, but to departments within authorities, such as housing. The lead member and the director of children's services will have a key role in overseeing that internal co-operation—so we are trying to pin that down as best we can.
In Wales, all children's services authorities are unitary and, therefore, housing and other functions are within the same authority. But the Assembly also recognises the importance of housing in a child's life and the need to ensure that housing matters are included as a priority in the consideration of children's needs. That will be recognised in the preparation of Welsh guidance.
The noble Baroness drew our attention to homelessness and it is worth putting on record that in 2002 we set a target that by 2004 no homeless family with children should have to live in a bed and breakfast hotel, except in an emergency—and even then for no more than six weeks. On 4 May, we announced the final monitoring figures against this target, which showed a 99.3 per cent reduction.
6.15 p.m.
From 1 April, this target was reinforced by new legislation, which means that local authorities can no longer discharge their homelessness duties by placing families with children in B&B for longer than six weeks. The Government are also making significant investment in improving the quality of housing stock. By the end of this year, the number of non-decent homes will have been cut by 1 million. In Wales, the Assembly is also considering legislation to achieve this objective to provide additional support and set performance indicators in terms of housing.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the three points I have made: the first in relation to definition; the second on what is in the Bill; and the third in relation to statutory guidance. I hope that that will reassure her that her amendments are taken seriously but are not acceptable to the Government in that form.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she clarify a few issues? Is the statutory guidance in being and on the face of the Bill or will it be issued in due course? Secondly, I understood that recently the B&B figures have risen. Thirdly, if my figures are correct and the figure of 41,000 has risen to 97,000, how does that sit with the Minister's assertion that the figures are falling?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, statutory guidance will be issued on Clause 6. That is the easy question to answer. Clearly, we have different figures. Our monitoring figures against the target showed a 99.3 per cent reduction, but I will take the noble Baroness's figures and write to her about the reconciliation between them.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. It is always difficult at the Report stage because we are not allowed to come back and the Minister would not have been able to respond. I am grateful to all noble Lords who supported the amendment, but I am slightly disappointed in the response. I accept that statutory guidance will be issued later. I accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to discuss the matter at length before the next stage. However, having listened to what has been said, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) equality of opportunity"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the first of a group of amendments about equality of opportunity. They appear at various places in the Bill where we felt it appropriate.
While we obviously strongly welcome the commitment given by the Minister in Committee to use guidance to spell out that,
"all organisations involved in the co-operation arrangements in England must—I emphasise must—have regard to promoting equality of opportunity".—[Official Report, 20/5/04; col. 954.]
we feel that without a clear statutory basis such exhortations will have limited impact. In any case, this is of such importance that it should be enshrined on the face of legislation—at least somewhere in the Bill.
The inclusion of equality of opportunity in the list of core outcomes for children's services and partner agencies locally would be consistent with the positive equality duties set out in Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and, indeed, the Government's avowed commitment to a new inclusive society and more equitable outcomes for children.
The Government have set great store by the fact that Every Child Matters was widely welcomed, but the Disability Rights Commission did not feel that the Green Paper gave sufficient weight to the particular disadvantage faced by disabled children and their families; to the fact that disability is a key factor affecting children's life chances; or that resolving the marked inequalities experienced by disabled children and young people was a specific issue around which services should coalesce. I am therefore anxious to ensure that the remit and accountabilities of new and existing institutions and agencies key to delivering the Government's new policies should include clear instructions to address and measure progress in the area of equality—and, in particular, disability equality.
The new arrangements for promoting children's interests and improved co-ordination of children's services and multi-agency working set out in the Bill could lead to major improvements in the social inclusion and life chances of disabled children and their families. Indeed, we all hope that they will. But to realise that potential, this important new legislation must take a firmer focus on tackling the specific discriminatory barriers that disabled children face and include a specific reference to promoting equality.
Current equality legislation does not provide comprehensive protection for disadvantaged children. Disabled children and children from black and minority ethnic communities—girls and boys—already enjoy some individual protection in access to local authority and other public services under equality legislation, but others do not. There is no equivalent protection on grounds of religion, refugee status, sexuality or family status. That penalises disabled children, as there is no mechanism for addressing multiple discrimination. Often a disabled child may be discriminated against, which may happen on the grounds of disability, religion, family status or a combination of all those things.
Public bodies under the Bill will now have positive duties. They already have duties to tackle racial discrimination. In the next few years, we should see similar duties on disability and, eventually, gender; but there are sadly no plans as yet to extend rights or positive protection on other grounds. Such is the vulnerability of children that they should benefit from proactive cross-cutting promotional equality duties, which should be put in the Bill.
I hope that the Minister looks kindly on the amendments. If she felt that she was able to accept only some of them, I suggest that the priority is with those to Clauses 6 and 20, which is probably the most appropriate place to put equality of opportunity in the Bill. However, all the amendments are appropriate if we want to emphasise the fact that equality of opportunity is an important issue, which all the
986
agencies that we are addressing should have at the front of their minds in operating children's services. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments, to which our names are added. They are hugely important. Early in Committee we had long debates, especially about the position of disabled children. It is always very difficult to find ways in which one can ensure that people who are less able than others—in the widest sense, not only disabled—have equal opportunity to things that most of us take for granted. I spoke at length on that matter in Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly raised specific issues today, and I shall not repeat what she said. However, I am still worried by the evidence of how disabled children in particular have failed to date to be looked after adequately, when they are among the most vulnerable in our community. They warrant clear statutory provision in the Bill.
On disability and equality of training, the NSPCC and the national working group highlighted the need for children's protection training better to address the needs of disabled children so that professionals can track and identify abuse. Where disability equality training is provided to members of the local safeguarding children boards, how will that be rolled out across the child protection services and what is the Government's overarching strategy for implementing that recommendation? In Committee, the Minister promised Peers news on the plans for disability equality training for LSCB members, and we hope to hear more from her later.
The Minister knows—we spoke about it in Committee—that I attended a meeting with disabled children. Whereas we might have been too embarrassed to say openly that we realised that they had a disability and that they should be treated equally, the children said to us, "Yes, but we are disabled". That is one of the problems that we have. Therefore, I hope that, having changed the wording in the amendment, the Government will look at it more sympathetically, remembering the strong contributions that were made in Committee in relation to this matter. We hope that the amendment is now wide enough to cover everyone who should have equality of opportunity, which most of us assume is our right.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. My name was not added to these amendments but I am totally in favour of them. The Disability Rights Commission has made it clear that the evidence relating to how disabled children have been failed to date is so strong as to warrant clear statutory provision. The continuing evidence that one sees over time certainly supports that. We may have moved some way from the BBC programme, "Does He Take Sugar?" but there is still a long way to go. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will find favour.

987
To my mind—I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on this point—if there was only one reference to a clear duty in relation to all aspects of the various tasks that the Children Bill is addressing, that might at least satisfy many people.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken with great understanding and great passion about the issues involved here. Perhaps I may go through the amendments briefly in order to explain our position.
As noble Lords have indicated, Amendments Nos. 46, 53, 88 and 91 deal with safeguarding. As noble Lords know, in these clauses we have been focusing on the safeguarding of children. That is not to say that it is not possible to identify groups of children who might be at greater risk of harm and to work with them to good preventive effect. But our primary aim here is to ensure that, in the day-to-day work that takes place, those working with children identify potential problems and act on them. That is a clear and distinct purpose.
Clauses 6 and 20, to which Amendments Nos. 38 and 83 relate, in many ways concern the equality of opportunity. We want local services to work together to improve the well-being of all children in their area—and I mean "all" children. However, I do not think that it is necessarily right to amend the list of outcomes as suggested. Equality of opportunity is not an outcome in itself or a definition of well-being; it is something that we must strive for in seeking to improve the outcomes for children.
That means that, inevitably, we must provide different, and more, support and different levels of support or, indeed, different kinds of support—the issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred in talking about the needs of children with disabilities. We must recognise them as equal, recognise that their needs are different and ensure that we do that well.
Therefore, helping families and children to be well equipped for the issues that they face must also be about dealing with any inequalities that they face. These are issues that partners must look to in reaching their decisions under the arrangements in Clauses 6 and 20. But they should do so on the understanding that the elements of well-being that we are seeking to establish are universal aspirations that we should have for all children and all young people, whatever their background or circumstances.
I also recognise that the most disadvantaged children are often the hardest for mainstream services to support, and therefore there is a greater risk that they will be sidelined. We need to ensure that the levers we intend to use to secure change, all the performance indicators, inspection, intervention and so forth—better training is a critical part of that—deliver for them. The Government are committed to ensuring that.
As noble Lords will realise, I am not terribly drawn to putting this in the Bill. However, whenever someone says two things, "Somewhere in the Bill" and "Once",
988
my ears prick up because I am mindful of the spread of support for this. Although that is not representative in numbers this evening, it is certainly representative in quality. I would ask that I might perhaps have one more look at Clause 6, which I think is where the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, indicated, on the basis that I have listened to the words "Somewhere in the Bill" and "Only once".
Whatever I do, I hope noble Lords will understand that there is nothing in anything I have said or anything we are trying to do which detracts from equality of opportunity. We understand that we cannot support all children unless we recognise that some children and families begin with huge disadvantages. It must be for services to focus their attention on ensuring that they support them effectively. Nothing I have said detracts from that, but I shall have one more look.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for promising to have one more look. I accept that we cannot always ensure that all children come out equal but we can at least give them an equal opportunity to get there. That is what I think we should seek to do.
I mentioned Clause 6 but I would point out that Clause 20 is the Welsh equivalent, so one would really have to do both. I wait with bated breath to see whether the Minister is able to accept the amendment. It would be significant if she did and widely welcomed by all the groups which care for children with disabilities, in particular, but all kinds of disadvantaged groups would be most grateful for this kind of improvement to the Bill. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) In making arrangements under this section a children's services authority in England must have regard to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of children."
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 5, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) a youth offending team for an area any part of which falls within the area of the authority;"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 40 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 51 and the Welsh equivalents, Amendments Nos. 85 and 90. Those amendments relate to the inclusion of youth offending teams in the duty to co-operate to improve the well-being of children and as members of local safeguarding children boards.
Noble Lords who took part in discussions in Committee will recall that the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, tabled an amendment that sought to name the youth offending

989
team as part of children's services. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, tabled a similar amendment that would include a youth offending team among the relevant partners under a reciprocal duty to co-operate in the arrangements made by the children's services authority. The same noble Lords also tabled similar amendments to include youth offending teams in local safeguarding children boards.
I made it clear in Committee that it has always been our intention that youth offending teams would have a role in local co-operation arrangements and local safeguarding children boards. I agreed that we would give further thought to whether the original drafting achieved that adequately.
Having done so, I now propose amendments which will name youth offending teams as relevant partners under the duty to co-operate and as board members of the local safeguarding children boards. Amendments Nos. 40 and 85 will place a statutory duty on youth offending teams to co-operate in the arrangements made by the children's services authority under Clause 6 in England and Clause 20 in Wales. Amendments Nos. 51 and 90 will include the youth offending team in the list of board partners of children's services authorities, who will be members of the local safeguarding children board under Clause 9 in England and Clause 24 in Wales.
The amendments are the best way to secure the involvement of youth offending teams in local co-operation arrangements and local safeguarding children boards. With thanks to noble Lords who brought this to my attention, I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the amendments. They more or less entirely meet the point we were trying to make when we moved the amendments in Committee. I am glad that she is able to table amendments that are not only in relation to local co-operation but also to the local safeguarding teams. It is important that they are included. It is an excellent outcome for that reason.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I too add a brief word of thanks to the Minister for listening so carefully to the concerns we raised in Committee. The amendments are extremely good news not just in this Chamber but I am sure outside as well.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 40A:
Page 5, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) the Immigration and Nationality Directorate"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, particularly in the light of the Government's plans in Clause 8 to improve the sharing of information, and in view of cases such as that of Victoria Climbié, it would seem essential to give the duty to co-operate to improve well-being to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. That is why I move Amendment No. 40A.
The Immigration and Nationality Directorate is usually the first to know about a new child coming into the country who may be vulnerable. So it really should be included in the duty to co-operate in Clause 6.
On Amendment No. 43, the critical services responsible for the welfare and support of refugee children and their families are excluded from the exhaustive list of those to whom the new duty applies in Clause 7. I ask the noble Baroness—I know she has an aversion to lists—to add them to that list. I perhaps helped her earlier today by removing a list from the Bill, so there is some room to put a few more people in.
Seriously, we believe that this is contrary to the Government's intentions as set out in Every Child Matters and ministerial commitments given in Committee that its wording includes all children. The Minister has repeated that again today. She used the words "all children". In Committee, she said:
"noble Lords can rest assured that the wording of the Bill covers all children. There are no exceptions; noble Lords would not wish it otherwise, and neither would I".—[Official Report, 4/5/04; col. 1086.]
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has also recently criticised the exclusion of refugee agencies from Clauses 6, 7 and 9. It stated:
"the omission of this particular group of children from the institutional arrangements designed to fulfil the State's positive obligations to children and Articles 2, 3 and 8 [of the Convention] raises the question of whether this gives rise to unjustifiable discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights".
The amendments I have tabled would rectify those omissions.
The Refugee Children's Consortium wholeheartedly agrees with the principle behind the agenda of Every Child Matters of an agreed set of outcomes and standards for all children. Refugee children are children first and foremost and should be afforded the same rights and protection as any other children in the UK. The agencies responsible for providing support and accommodation to refugee children, for their care while being detained with their families and for making critical decisions about their entry to the country, should be included in the new duties and arrangements in Clause 7.
This amendment was tabled in Committee and we return to it today. The amendments were resisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. She stated:
"The amendments go much further than our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and could be exploited".—[Official Report, 20/5/04; col. 976.]
I understand the Government's fear about this, but it is clearly a reference to the UK's wide-ranging reservation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on all matters relating to immigration and nationality, including the treatment of refugee children, which is Article 22.
The reservation is essentially an opt-out clause in respect of immigration and nationality and has been severely criticised for being incompatible with the object and purpose of the UNCRC, most recently by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the JCHR. It is alarming that the Government feel that the duty in Clause 7 would extend further than their obligations under the UNCRC, particularly given the

991
fact that the Government have repeatedly argued that the purpose of the reservation is not to deny refugee children their rights, but that it is needed for an effective immigration system. I hope that the Minister can explain how and why the provisions in Clause 7 would be too onerous for refugee agencies, and how she considers that the excluded institutions responsible for refugee children would not be able to meet the duties under the clause.
Concerns about the treatment of children in Prison Service establishments have led to their inclusion under the new duty in Clause 7. Many parallels can be drawn between conditions for children detained under immigration law and those detained under criminal law. Similar concerns have been raised about the treatment of children in immigration detention centres and those in Prison Service establishments. Can the Minister explain why, if the Government consider it appropriate to detain children, and the care for children in detention is of a high quality, those responsible for their care should not fall under this duty? How can the Government distinguish between the imposition of the duty on prison governors and its imposition on detention centre managers?
The Minister argued in Committee that measures had been put in place to improve the situation, including the toolkit and training for immigration officers. Those measures are welcome but they are no substitute for the inclusion of this essential service in the new duty, particularly given the necessity, as outlined in the toolkit, for a multi-agency response to trafficking. It is certainly no argument against its inclusion.
It is hard to recognise the Government's assertion that the Bill's provisions extend to all children and the Every Child Matters agenda with the exclusion of key refugee agencies responsible for the care of refugee children from the important duty in Clause 7. That is particularly so when we consider the vulnerabilities of refugee children and the significant criticisms made of the institutions responsible for their care.
The last amendment in the group was also tabled in Committee. In response, the Minister stated that she did not think it necessary that the Immigration Service or NASS be required to be on the safeguarding children boards, but gave an assurance that:
"Both NASS and the Immigration Service recognise the importance of local safeguarding children boards and will be fully involved in the boards where appropriate".—[Official Report, 24/5/04; col. 1168.]
However, no such assurance was given about whether there would be a similar expectation regarding immigration removal centres. Can the Minister confirm whether there would be such an expectation? I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I wholeheartedly endorse everything that the noble Baroness has said on this important issue. Without going over the same territory at length, it seems that there are key points to emphasise.
992
The first is the comment made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the exclusion of refugee agencies from this part of the Bill raises the question of whether there is unjustifiable discrimination in the enjoyment of convention rights. It is true that this is not a categoric condemnation by the Joint Committee, but I suggest that it puts the onus on the Government to demonstrate exactly why they think that the omission of these agencies from the Bill is human rights compliant. As the noble Baroness said, if prison governors are within the scope of the duty, it is difficult to argue that detention centre managers should not be.
The second point is practical. Why do Ministers appear to think that the provisions in Clause 7 would be too burdensome for refugee agencies? The current wording does not impose a particularly burdensome duty; it is simply a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare. Why should the Immigration Service and the NASS be exempt from such an obligation, when, by the nature of their work, they clearly have a key role in safeguarding children?
I said in Committee that, when we consider the deficit in the delivery of these essential services to such very vulnerable children, we should not speak, as the Minister did, of the situation being exploited by such people. I feel that the Government have not defended their position very convincingly; I doubt whether they can. We await their response.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I suggest that we need all three amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 40A, 43 and 52. They are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. The noble Baroness has already shown today that she is in a very responsive mood and I hope that she can go further than she was able to do in Committee. After all, the Green Paper and the document, Every Child Matters, showed clearly that the Government want to protect and benefit all children. The noble Baroness said in Committee that the wording of the Bill covers all children. She even said that there are no exceptions.
This evening, she said again that all children should be embraced by the effects of the Bill. Previous speakers have, properly, mentioned the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I would just like to add to that list the Chief Inspector of Prisons in relation to immigration removal centres. We already know from reports received that provision for the care and welfare of children in those centres is not of a very high standard—contrary to what was claimed by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, when speaking for the Home Office on the parallel Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill.
So I am bound to agree with the Refugee Children's Consortium when it points out the discrepancy between the Bill as it stands and the particular vulnerability of refugee children—and, I would add, trafficked or potentially trafficked children. That is why I support the amendments and urge the Government to be as sympathetic as they possibly can.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Walmsley for her speech. It is not often that I hear things on the subject of refugees that I find totally fresh and lucid and that put the whole argument in a totally new light. I have found that today. That was an unusual experience—I will say no more.
Those of us who were in the House last Tuesday afternoon will have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, manfully struggling to put forward government policy and explaining that one could not make things too nice for refugees because that might increase the pull factor that brings them to the United Kingdom. The whole background to that thinking is contained in Jack Straw's White Paper of 1999. I think that the reference is to paragraph 8.19, but I would not like to answer to that from memory, where it is argued that conditions must be made reasonably unpleasant so that people shall not be attracted to come here because the conditions are too nice. In fact, that is an invitation to other powers to conduct a Dutch auction.
I will not trouble the House with the reasons why I think that that is totally impractical and why I think that such choice does not normally exist. But I will trouble the House with the reasons why I think that that is particularly relevant to children. If families have made the decision to come here, it is in the highest degree unlikely that that is the choice of the child. Even in the case of unaccompanied children, that is still in the highest degree unlikely. It will be either on parental advice, or if they have escaped on their own after the massacre of their family—as has often been the case—it will simply be a matter of where the next flight is going to. Attempting to deter children by making conditions unpleasant, or less than totally pleasant for that purpose alone serves no useful purpose whatever. As a Dutch auction, it invites responses about which I do not particularly want to think.
This was a stupid policy in the first place, and this is one of its most stupid effects. The department has its own degree of autonomy. It is capable of resisting the spread of the Home Office in setting up secret cells within its own walls. The Department for Education is perfectly capable of conducting its own policy, and it would do it a great deal better.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I say extremely briefly that having listened to everything that has been said, but also having been impressed by the briefing that one has been sent, particularly by the Refugee Children's Consortium, I have no hesitation in supporting all three amendments. As we have heard from the noble Lord, they are certainly inter-related and connected. As has been well outlined, the whole business of being in detention as a child with few facilities, nowhere to go, nowhere to play, in detention, and frightened, having come from another culture and another country, all adds up to the fact that they should first and foremost be treated as children.
994
Therefore, they should come under the responsibilities of those who will be given new responsibilities under this Bill.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, in the mid-1980s, I found myself working in bed and breakfast hotels where there were hundreds of homeless families. The attitude towards those families at that time was that because they were undeserving, and they had got themselves into these difficulties, they had to be where they were, despite the fact that most of these places were rat-infested, had insecure doors and were lice-ridden. Children were at risk, because there were abusers in the same hotels.
The attitude is now the same for these refugee children. We heard earlier how the Government's attitude had changed in relation to families in bed and breakfasts, and that families with children were no longer to be placed in bed and breakfasts. A new and enlightened view has been taken by this Government. I would hope that they would take the same enlightened view about refugee children, although I fear that the Minister may find herself in a difficult position in the context, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, of the wider political agenda.
However, what I said about homeless families, I now say about refugee families. Even if I believed, and I do not, that their parents deserve to be where they are; and even if I believed, and I do not, that those parents got themselves into those difficulties on their own, those children had no responsibility whatever.
Therefore, we who have spoken so widely—and I listened to my colleagues' erudite speeches about the rights and needs of children—are now saying that there is one category of children for whom we will not take the same responsibility. If we cannot do it today, I hope that we will battle on, as we did with homeless families in bed and breakfasts, to make sure that all children have equal opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, and that we can dispose of what is an absolutely appalling position for some of these refugee children.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as always, it is true to say that I have listened with great interest to noble Lords, who feel passionately about these issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, I have been very responsive where I can. It is important to make the Government's position clear regarding each of these issues, which I shall set out as succinctly as I can. In doing that, perhaps I shall be able to deal with some of the issues that have been raised. Of course, I will reflect on all that has been said.
Although the amendments are grouped, I think of them separately and in three distinct ways. My response is different to each amendment, so it is important to turn to them separately. Amendment No. 40A is about the relevance of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate as a partner to the children's services authority in making arrangements to promote co-operation.

995
Noble Lords have made clear, and I appreciate, that the Immigration Service and the National Asylum Support Service play very important roles in certain areas of the country and their work will impact on services for children within the local area. But the arrangements that we have put in place under Clause 6 have been designed with the intention of ensuring that bodies with responsibility for strategic decision-making and commissioning services at local area level are covered.
The Immigration and Nationality Directorate has a much wider national focus; indeed, there are some local areas where it has no presence at all. To include it would not only be inconsistent with the design of the co-operation arrangements, but would also confuse its focus. However, I recognise that in some areas the activities of the Immigration Service, NASS and others will be major influences on local decision-making. Where that is the case, there is nothing to prevent children's services authorities, where they and their partners think that it is right and proper, including those bodies in their co-operation arrangements.
As noble Lords know well, immigration impacts on different localities in different ways. I would therefore argue that that must be a matter for local discretion. Previously, in connection with the Clause 6 co-operation arrangements, I said that we want to give partners the flexibility to make arrangements that reflect and meet local needs in the best possible way. We will make clear in the guidance covering the co-operation arrangements that the Immigration Service, NASS and other IND bodies should be involved where they have a major impact on local decision-making.
I hope that that addresses the point without making it universal, which we think would be inappropriate for the reasons that I have given about the make-up of different communities. With that new assurance, I hope that noble Lords will be able to reflect on the matter and come back to me to seek greater clarification. But the guidance will be clear, which will help in those cases.
Amendment No. 43 seeks to impose the Clause 7 duty to have regard to the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare in exercising the normal functions of agencies and individuals; namely, regional offices of the National Asylum Support Service, the centre manager of an immigration removal centre and the chief immigration officer at the port of entry.
This amendment came up in Committee. Noble Lords have referred to some of what I said then. We have been very careful in the way in which we have worded this clause: we do not put a duty on agencies that would make them unable to fulfil their primary functions.
The Immigration and Nationality Directorate carries out an essential task in providing immigration control for the United Kingdom and in ensuring what would be described as a tightly managed asylum system. It is probably unavoidable that in performing that task IND may do things that would be judged
996
inconsistent with a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. I know that noble Lords find it difficult, but I said in Committee, and I repeat now, that that could be exploited in ways that the drafters of this amendment would not support by those seeking to abuse the system. We also have to be careful about what we expect individuals who often work in difficult circumstances to be able to do. It is very important that we are clear in the focus of the work that we expect people to undertake in those services.
Noble Lords know that the National Asylum Support Service does not support unaccompanied asylum seeker children who are supported by local authorities under the Children Act. Some children are directly referred to local authorities by the Immigration Service. Indeed, I have spent time talking to young people who are unaccompanied asylum seeker children about some of the work that is going on in Kent. In the main, that has been extremely good in dealing with a whole range of children who have very different needs.
NASS provides accommodation and cash support for families with children. In these functions, NASS acts in the same way as any other provider of accommodation or subsistence for families and seeks to respect the right of families to a private and family life. It plays a key role in ensuring an effective asylum system and we must ensure that, in everything we do, we do not undermine the system. It is important to recognise that were we to accept Amendment No. 43, we would be providing greater scope for challenge, thus possibly undermining that system.
In relation to the Immigration Service, again we fear that the amendment would provide another basis that could exploit the appellate and judicial review systems to argue that the detention of asylum seeking families is not compatible with safeguarding children or protecting their welfare. The Government's position is that it is an unfortunate but necessary element of our immigration control procedures.
However, noble Lords know that we do not detain unaccompanied children for any longer than overnight except in exceptional circumstances where there are concerns for the child's welfare. In the overwhelming majority of cases, those families with children who are detained have had their applications to remain in the UK refused and have removal directions in place. Children are therefore detained in these circumstances only for the shortest possible time. Moreover, we have introduced rigorous and enhanced arrangements and have put in place a system of regular ministerial authorisations for any detention of children beyond 28 days.
7 p.m.
On the question of the IND, I hope that noble Lords can agree that a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children could severely compromise our ability to maintain an effective asylum system and strong immigration control. But that does not mean that we do not think

997
that these services have a role to play in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children; rather we think that this Bill is not the right vehicle to ensure that. We believe that those working in these services take their responsibilities for children very seriously. Both NASS and the Immigration Service have well-established working relationships and arrangements with local authorities so that concerns are dealt with swiftly.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned in Committee the results of the ECPAT report in terms of some of the measures that have been taken. I shall not repeat those because I dealt with them in Committee, but I shall be happy to do so at a later stage if noble Lords wish. We believe that Amendment No. 43 would compromise the ability of these services to maintain the system that we need in place.
I turn to Amendment No. 52. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, we dealt with this in detail in Committee when I said that these arrangements are well established and that they could link into the new boards. However, her specific question to me was whether that would apply to the centre manager of an immigration removal centre. The answer is yes, it would.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this group of amendments, and the Minister for her response. On Amendment No. 40A, I welcome the confirmation from the noble Baroness that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate can be brought in as a partner with a children's services authority and that this will be clearly outlined in guidance.
On Amendment No. 43, the noble Baroness said that our amendment would put duties on these organisations that would be incompatible with their other core functions. However, if they do things that are inconsistent with safeguarding children, my aim is to ensure that they do not. Putting this provision on the face of the Bill would stop them. I believe that the asylum system is more undermined by slow or poor decision-making than anything that this amendment would do. A strong and fair asylum system is not inconsistent with treating children humanely and I really cannot understand why a caring government could not find it in their heart to add these organisations to the list of those who have a duty to safeguard children.
On the last amendment in the group, I thank the Minister for confirming the answer to my question. However, many noble Lords feel very strongly about Amendment No. 43. After consultation with others, it is highly likely that we will bring it back at Third Reading. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 5, line 11, after "section" insert—
"(a) provide staff, goods, services, accommodation or other resources;
(b) "
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 41, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55, and the Welsh equivalents, Amendments Nos. 86, 92 and 93. The amendments concern the ability of partners to make non-financial contributions in support of co-operation arrangements and the activities of local safeguarding children's boards.
In the amendments we respond to concerns expressed in Committee by, among others, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Sharp and Lady Byford. Noble Lords rightly emphasised that the contributions partners can make to the exercise of functions under Clauses 6 and 9 need not only be financial. During the Committee stage I undertook to take the issue away and examine how we might make provision for this in the Bill.
As the Bill stands, it gives children's services authorities and any of their relevant partners the power to pool funds to support arrangements made under the duty to co-operate. As well as supporting co-operation arrangements through funding, however, it is clear that agencies can also provide non-financial resource to facilitate joint working—for example, accommodation in order to locate a multi-disciplinary team.
Amendments Nos. 41 and 86 are necessary to make it absolutely clear that partners can support their cooperation arrangements with contributions of non-financial resource. In doing so they can strengthen their commitment to the activities of the partnership. We need local partners to be aware that pooling their budgets as part of their co-operation arrangements can be complemented by providing non-pecuniary resource. This includes staff, goods, services, accommodation or other resources. Similarly, Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 92 and 93 will also clarify to local partners that they can make non-pecuniary contributions to the activities of their local safeguarding children board.
I am grateful to noble Lords for clarifying our thinking on this matter and I hope they will feel able to support the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments. They answer the question that we posed in Committee when we raised these issues. Quite clearly, voluntary and other agencies can contribute in kind rather than always in cash. This is a significant recognition of the role of the voluntary and

999
community sectors in relation to the provision of children's services. I thank the Minister for her response.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the points that we put to the Government.
It is an encouragement to a voluntary organisation if it feels that it is fully in a partnership and can contribute in a material way, regardless of whether it is in money or in kind. I fit is in kind, though, it will feel that it is a partner in the fullest sense. There is a definite psychological benefit as well as material benefits in the changes the Government have agreed to. This is a change for the better and I thank the Minister for listening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) A children's services authority may, if the authority considers it expedient to do so for the purpose of promoting co-operation between schools, the authority and relevant partners under this section, issue guidance which governing bodies of schools maintained by the local education authority, and the proprietors of academies and city colleges located in the area of the authority, shall have regard to."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we moved a similar amendment in Committee. It is an attempt to make absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that schools should have a role in delivering the Government's reform under Every Child Matters.
Some noble Lords may have read this week in the Guardian, on Tuesday, 16 June, an article by Fiona Millar in which she asks,
"Why are schools not explicitly mentioned as having a 'duty to co-operate' in the children bill. It may seem a small technical point now but in 10 years' time, when we reflect on whether we have truly integrated services for children, it might be one of the factors that determines the success or failure of the Every Child Matters strategy laid out in the green paper by ministers".
This amendment would meet the concerns expressed by the Minister in response to an amendment that we tabled in Committee. The Minister stated on 20 May that expecting schools to comply with guidance from the Secretary of State on co-operation,
"would create unnecessary bureaucratic burdens and would distract schools".—[Official Report, 20/5/04; col. 949.]
However, she also said:
"For schools generally, it would be more appropriate for the education authority to issue tailored guidance that reflects the local arrangements that have been set up for co-operation".—[Official Report, 20/5/04; col. 948.]
It is to meet this suggestion that we have expressly tailored the amendment. It would ensure that schools take account of the guidance from the children's services authority, which is a more appropriate body than the local education authority.
It is accepted that 99 per cent of schools will wish to work with their local education authority and other local bodies in driving forward the Government's
1000
reforms. There will be some schools, however, which are reluctant to do so, for whatever reason. That is why it is imperative to put in the Bill a duty on schools, even if it is only to take account of local guidance. Without such a duty, the only way that reluctant schools can be persuaded to join local efforts is either through the discredited "name and shame" techniques or through a direction from the Secretary of State under Section 496 of the Education Act 1996. That gives the Secretary of State the power to prevent the unreasonable exercise of functions in individual cases. This is a very long-winded procedure which the Government could circumvent in most cases by agreeing to this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment and would have added my name to it if I had been quicker off the mark. I agree with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said in support of it.
At the end of the Committee stage, some of us were left feeling decidedly uncomfortable that, despite the Bill's huge and welcome emphasis on co-operative working, many of the key individuals who will, in practice, be expected to breathe life into this concept, have been omitted from the Bill. Perhaps the most extraordinary instances of this omission are schools and GPs.
The kind of co-operation and co-ordination in the Bill is at strategic and policy level. That is certainly necessary, but it is surely as good as useless if those on the front line, such as schools, are not signed up to joint working as well. It is not enough to say, as the Minister did before, that the views of front-line staff would be sought when policy was being framed at a strategic level. That is quite different from saving that schools and doctors are under a positive duty to work co-operatively where such co-operation is helpful to meeting the needs of a particular child. However, I suspect that we need not hold our breath for the Government to abandon their opposition to augmenting the list of partners in Clause 6. As an alternative, I hope that they will consider this amendment, which seems to provide a neat way forward.
The Government are clearly expecting a great deal from schools and the teaching profession in helping to deliver their wider agenda to improve the overall well-being of children. I have no objection to this idea—indeed, I think it is entirely logical, given that teachers and school staff spend more time with children up to the age of 16 than any other professional people. They are ideally placed to help children in a broader sense than just educationally by acting as the gateway to other public services where those are needed.
I fear for the way in which teachers and schools may react if they are not given some support in becoming a part of this new co-operative culture. The road will not be easy. I am sure that many teachers feel ill equipped and under-resourced to take on this enhanced and very responsible role. More and more schools are becoming community-minded and looking beyond the narrow

1001
confines of exam results, but to implement the well-being agenda, there surely have to be clear objectives for schools and teachers.
Co-operation is a fine word, but it has to be recognised that members of different professional disciplines are accountable in different ways and very often do not share the same understandings, language or practice. Addressing and overcoming these differences cannot be left to chance. It has to be planned. By that, I mean that professional development and training need to be put in place to ensure that common standards and practices become the norm and that there is mutual understanding between partners. Given half a chance, I am sure that many teachers will be very excited by this new wider role but, unless they are properly signed up to the big objectives and understand what they are about, they will not be in a position to sign up to the day-to-day implementation.
If schools are to be involved in this way we ought, at the very least, to find out what the pitfalls are. I am quite surprised that there has been no suggestion of pilots or an evaluation strategy to see what works and what does not. It is surely not sensible to encourage many dozens of local authorities to go down this track unless we can be more confident of the best route to take.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am going to be very brief, as I know that we are well past the time that we normally rise. Over these months, I have been rather impressed by the lack of involvement of the teaching profession and, having recently had a meeting with the General Teaching Council, I was equally impressed by the extent to which it is aware of the amount that needs to be done. It is already working at local level to try to get the co-operation that we are all hoping to achieve.
I think that some form of structure, which welcomes rather more their fairly large role in delivering what we all want to deliver, would be helpful and would be some form of encouragement. It may be that this particular amendment cannot be endorsed but later on, when we are talking about the detailed methods whereby the different members of the group can work together and share certain agreed objectives, it will be important. That is the end.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for raising this issue. I have not read Fiona Millar's article—she is a great friend of mine—but I shall do so with great interest because she writes extremely well and interestingly on these issues. I shall draw her attention to my remarks in Hansard.
I recognise noble Lords' concern that we should ensure that schools, academies and technology colleges should be in the right framework. However, the amendment is problematic and I am confident that we have better methods of achieving the ends that we all share.
1002
I accept what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said: educational establishments and schools are absolutely key. Because they have the same contacts, they often know children and young people extremely well. We have children captive—in the best sense of the word—for a day. Being able to work with schools is critical.
I also recognise that if we are to pursue our agenda of standards in education and increasing the opportunities for education and training for children, we must look more broadly than at what I call the "9 to 3.30 experience". We must consider what happens to children before they arrive at school and when they leave and establish what role we can play in providing services around schools.
I could talk for at least 25 minutes on extended schools because that is one of my policy areas. As noble Lords know, I do not often get a chance to do so. However, I sense—particularly with the arrival of the Chief Whip—that that would be resisted in this Chamber. However, I wanted noble Lords to know that I could do so without using notes, which makes me feel very good.
I accept all that the noble Earl said about involving the profession—he said that there should not be a burden on teachers and that teachers already feel sometimes that they are social workers. We want to remove the burdens by bringing in support and expertise and enabling children to be seen in a more rounded way. There are some exciting developments: there are many pilots and projects all over the country, but I shall not discuss them at length. We are doing a huge amount of work.
The amendment is technically flawed. We did not put a legal duty on schools to co-operate because the arrangements are strategic. As noble Lords said, we placed the duty on education authorities because we felt that that was right. There is nothing to prevent children's services authorities putting out guidance on co-operation arrangements. Because of the Bill's approach to putting a legal duty on schools to co-operate, it is not appropriate to apply a duty to have regard to the guidance. Technically, the amendment does not work.
Behind the amendment lies the view that we may need some compulsion. Some noble Lords suggested that some schools will not do that. The framework is provided by our actions in terms of the new inspections, area reviews, the new relationship we are seeking with schools and extended schools and our ambition to support schools to offer services and see the child in a broader way. That is the framework in which to achieve what the amendment seeks.
Schools are already judged by the extent and effectiveness of their partnership with others. In particular, inspectors must evaluate and report on the quality of links with local communities and other schools. There is much more to do in that regard. The difference between us is that we think that in our work with schools and extended schools, we have the right approach. Using the framework of inspection and what we expect of schools without placing the

1003
burden—it would be resisted with good reason by this House—we can secure the cultural change and engage schools properly through the co-operation agenda.
On that basis—and because children's services authorities can issue guidance if they believe that that would be helpful—I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should be very grateful if I could ask her one question that I forgot to ask relating primarily to GPs. In Committee, she explained that the co-operation duties in Clause 6—she made similar points in relation to Clause 7–apply to the relevant partners at strategic level but that independent practitioners such as GPs will not be required to co-operate. However, I think she said that there will be arrangements to direct primary care trusts to ensure that the contracts for primary medical services include a condition requiring the contractor to safeguard the welfare of children and to provide supporting guidance as appropriate.
If the noble Baroness cannot answer that now, I should be grateful if she would write to me. The contracts for GPs are, of course, negotiated nationally and the contract is in place, so I am not quite sure how this kind of arrangement will be built into the contract given that, as I say, the GMS contract is already signed and sealed.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Earl is reading the same briefing as I read last night going home; I recognise some of the wording. I am confident that we have addressed this matter through the PCT contracting arrangements I described in Committee. However, I shall write to the noble Earl as I was struck by the fact that the NHS Confederation briefing said that as the contract was national it could not quite see how the measure would work. I am confident that we have addressed the matter but, if I may, I shall write to the noble Earl about that to ensure that he understands how we have addressed the matter
1004
rather than pretend I know the answer. I passed the briefing to officials this morning and asked them to look at it. As there were no amendments on the matter on the Order Paper I did not think to obtain the relevant briefing in time. However, I should have known better.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. There is a little bit of a problem here. She talks about getting a cultural change. The question is whether we can get that cultural change without the extra "kick" that comes from having a measure in the Bill.
I recognise that, particularly in relation to Clauses 6 and 7, we are looking at the strategic partners rather than those who actually deliver. There is a similar problem in relation to schools, in the sense that not all schools come under local authority auspices. A number of schools these days, particularly new city academies, are semi-autonomous.
I am not totally happy about the fact that there is no mention of schools as the co-operation partners, given that the schools have the day-to-day dealings with children, and have the responsibility, through their governing bodies, for looking after the children. We may well return to the matter again. I will read what the Minister said with care and look at the different aspects of it in relation to the Bill. Perhaps she and I can have some discussion about it as well. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Racism
  Northern Ireland: Racism
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Culture
  Ulster-Scots Culture
  Northern Ireland: Funding of Newspaper Publishing Companies
  Northern Ireland: Funding of Newspaper Publishing Companies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland: Electoral Office
  Northern Ireland: Electoral Office
  Official Languages Act: Government Meetings
  Official Languages Act: Government Meetings
  North/South Language Implementation Body
  North/South Language Implementation Body
  House of Lords: Moses Room Grand Committee Sitting, 15 June
  House of Lords: Moses Room Grand Committee Sitting, 15 June
  UK Military Commitments
  UK Military Commitments
  Northern Ireland Judiciary
  Northern Ireland Judiciary
  Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004
  Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004
  Taxation: Publication of Information
  Taxation: Publication of Information
  Inland Revenue: Corruption and Fraud Cases Involving Staff
  Inland Revenue: Corruption and Fraud Cases Involving Staff
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Gypsies and Travellers
  Gypsies and Travellers
  Health Impact Assessments
  Health Impact Assessments
  Pre-Cancerous Skin Lesions
  Pre-Cancerous Skin Lesions
  Obesity: Food Labelling
  Obesity: Food Labelling
  Chief Nursing Officer
  Chief Nursing Officer
  Orchards
  Orchards
  Fallen Stock Disposal Scheme
  Fallen Stock Disposal Scheme

  Iraq: Service Police Investigations
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
  I can confirm that the fourth unnamed defendant referred to in my Statement on 14 June (Official Report, cols. WS 22–24) has now been told of the charges he faces. He is Lance Corporal Darren Paul Larkin of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. The charges relate to incidents which allegedly took place on or about 15 May 2003 in a camp just to the west of Basra.

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act: Commencement
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act received Royal Assent on 13 May. The Government intend to bring the provisions of the Act into force over the coming months through a series of commencement orders. It is the convention that no part of an Act should be brought into effect earlier than two months after Royal Assent other than in exceptional circumstances.

  The Act contains a number of powers enabling the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation such as regulations or orders. The first commencement order will bring the enabling powers to make subordinate legislation into effect, and it is intended that this order will be made in the second half of July. Subordinate legislation will then be made. Our general approach is to bring substantive provisions of the Act relating to England into force by further commencement orders, which will take effect at the same time as the relevant regulations or orders.

  The following timetable sets out an indicative timetable for these commencement orders.

  Provisions

  Commencement Date

  Regional Planning (Part 1)

  September 2004 (together with associated regulations and PPS 11)

  Local planning (Part 2)

  September 2004 (together with associated regulations and PPS 12).

  Development Plan and Sustainable Development (Part 3)

  September 2004

  Development Control (Part 4)

  A number of these provisions are dependent on new regulations or changes to the General Development Procedure Order. Where that is

  WS 34

  Provisions

  Commencement Date

  the case and the draft regulations or GDPO changes have already been subject to consultation, provisions are expected to be brought into effect in September 2004. Where the regulations or GDPO changes have not yet been subject to consultation, that will take place in the autumn and the provisions are expected to come into effect in early 2005. Regulations on planning obligations will not be made until early 2006.

  Slip rule (Part 5)

  September 2004

  Crown Immunity (Part 7, Chapter 1)

  End 2005

  Compulsory Purchase (Part 8)

  End October 2004

  The National Assembly for Wales is responsible for the commencement order for Part 6 of the Act.

  Scottish Ministers are responsible for the commencement order for Chapter 2 of Part 7.

  The provisions in Part 9 (Miscellaneous) and the schedules will be brought into effect on the same date as the substantive provisions to which they relate.

  English Indices of Deprivation 2004
  Lord Rooker
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Today I am publishing revised tables for the Indices of Deprivation 2004. The index is based on a total of 37 indicators and the tables published on 28 April contained two errors.

  IMD 2004 is a major improvement on previous deprivation indices, introducing two new domains—crime and living environment—and a very significant new small area geography: super output areas. It makes available a much better evidence base to improve policy making and delivery at all levels. But these improvements make it a much more complex index to produce. Despite a long and very detailed period of consultation, and extensive prepublication checks, there have been some teething troubles. I very much regret that these errors have occurred.

  The errors occurred in creating the two new domains in the index—living environment and crime. In the former, one set of data was input in the wrong rank order. In the latter, there was a technical error in the way in which the data were smoothed to deal with inaccuracies introduced by small numbers of particular crimes.

  These errors have now been corrected, and very extensive checks have been made both by the contractors, and at the request of Ministers by independent experts, to ensure as far as possible that there are no further such errors in the index. I have placed revised tables in the Library.
  WS 35
  The revised tables show changes in the rankings both of individual local authorities, and of the new small super output areas. The most significant of these is that Ashfield has moved out of the list of authorities which are in the top 50 on at least one of the district level measures in the index, while Hammersmith and Fulham rejoins that list.

  The new tables are also being placed being on the department's website.

  Medical Expert Witnesses
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)
  My honourable friend the Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Widespread concern has been expressed about the quality and validity of evidence given by medical expert witnesses following the recent appeals against convictions of mothers alleged to have been responsible for killing their children.

  Medical evidence from expert witnesses plays an important part in court proceedings. Proceedings in the criminal and family courts are different from one another and do not follow the same processes. Requirements differ between them in relation to standards of proof, rules of evidence and admissibility of material. In criminal procedures, the competency of witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution can be challenged. The prosecution has to establish facts beyond reasonable doubt. In civil proceedings, evidence is assessed against a threshold of proof that is based on the balance of probabilities, though there too the input of expert witnesses may be tested by the parties to a case and by the court, before judicial determinations are made.

  The concerns surrounding the reliability of expert witnesses are both complex and substantial and are worsening the already acute problem which the family courts are experiencing in finding experts of high standing to give medical evidence in proceedings, particularly where child abuse is suspected. None the less, these issues of concern go beyond child protection or children's cases and involve the scientific basis for medical evidence given both in criminal and civil courts, and extend to other areas, such as forensic pathology.

  We have already taken a number of steps. I have, as indicated in my Statement of 23 February 2004, issued guidance to local authorities in Local Authority Circular (2004)5, asking that they review the cases of children who are the subject of current care proceedings or where local authorities are exercising responsibility for children who are currently the subject of care and related orders. The results of an initial survey have today been placed in the Library. The survey was carried out by the Association of Directors of Social Services, and asked questions relating to the first stage review we asked local authorities to undertake. This first stage review covered all of the cases of children who are the subject
  WS 36
  of current care proceedings. This stage did not cover children who were already the subject of a care or related order. These cases will be reviewed as a second stage review and a more comprehensive picture will be obtained once this second stage has been completed.

  Of the 150 local authorities with social services responsibilities, 130 have responded to the survey. The 130 local authorities reported that the number of cases in which disputed expert medical evidence features, or is anticipated to feature, is relatively small, arising in only 47 out of the 5,175 cases. There were a total of nine cases where the impact of this evidence on the live proceedings is already known. In one of these cases there has been a change in the local authority's care plan. In a further 38 cases, the proceedings are not yet sufficiently advanced for it yet to be clear whether the disputed medical evidence will result in a change to the care plan. The further survey of the second stage review, which is now being commissioned, will ascertain the extent to which the review of existing orders, perhaps 30,000 in number, has led to changes in current care plans. The results of this second survey will also be placed in the Library.

  None the less, the results of this initial survey should not give rise to complacency that the interests of children and their families are being optimally served. We are, therefore, also announcing today a programme of work to determine how best to ensure the availability and quality of medical expert resources to the family courts. Sir Liam Donaldson, the Government's Chief Medical Officer (CMO), will lead this work and plans to involve a wide range of interests, including judicial, legal, clinical specialities, scientific, statistical and consumer interests, as well as health regulatory bodies. The CMO will determine how this work will be taken forward.

  I also wish to take this opportunity to highlight the publication, on 14 May 2004, of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the family cases of Re LB and Re LU. This important judgment sets out clearly the ways in which the judgment in the case of Angela Cannings impacts on the family jurisdiction. I will be writing to local authorities, in order to draw their attention to this new judgment and to the action taken by the GMC in relation to Dr Colin Paterson's past performance as an expert medical witness in certain family cases.

  Financial Services
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  In July 2002, Ron Sandler published his report into the medium and long-term savings industry in the UK. He found that the savings market was daunting for the consumer, that the industry's products were complex and opaque and that there were weak competitive pressures on providers of financial products. He identified a number of formidable challenges for the Government, the regulator and for the industry. He recommended the introduction of a suite of simple

  WS 37
  regulated products—with capped charges, investment risk controls and no exit penalties—to build on the existing stakeholder pension and CAT-mark regime and to entrench competition in the market, stripping out substantial elements of cost.

  I can today announce some important steps forward which will offer a robust basis for the future of the savings industry—one in which effective competitive forces can be made to work for the benefit of consumers, the wider economy and, ultimately, the industry itself.

  First, in response to Ron Sandler's recommendations, the FSA has successfully market-tested a new basic advice regime for stakeholder products. This would reduce the time taken for a typical pension sale from several hours to approximately 30 to 40 minutes. In the future, employees would be able to buy a pension or other stakeholder product in their lunch hour.

  The FSA has today launched its consultation on the details of the new basic advice regime. The regime reflects the simpler, risk-controlled nature of stakeholder products while maintaining consumer protection.

  Secondly, I can today announce that the charges on the new stakeholder regime will be excellent value for consumers, while allowing lower-income consumers greater access to financial products.

  The Government have always maintained that the price cap for stakeholder products should reflect the economics of the stakeholder market.

  Therefore, in 2003, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions commissioned research by Deloitte on the market impact of a range of price caps to inform the Government's decision on the price cap. This research is being published today. We have also consulted widely with consumer groups and industry.

  For the deposit account product, the Government have decided that the interest rate earned should be no lower than 1 per cent below the Bank of England base rate. This product will replace the cash ISA for which the price cap was set at 2 per cent below the base rate and therefore represents even better value for money for consumers.

  For the medium-term product, the Government have decided to set the cap at an annual management charge of 1.5 per cent for the first 10 years that the product is held and 1.0 per cent thereafter. This will provide excellent value for money for consumers while giving providers satisfactory returns and the scope for price competition under the cap.

  In the pension market, the stakeholder pension has already had a huge impact. Nearly 2 million stakeholder pensions have been sold and charges have been driven down right across the industry. When the price cap was set in 2000 it allowed for advice to be charged for separately. However, the market has not evolved as expected, with very few firms separately charging for advice. The result has been that the industry has been reluctant to sell its products to
  WS 38
  lower-income consumers. We have listened to representations from consumer groups and from the industry. The Government have therefore decided to raise the cap on the annual management charge for the stakeholder pension product to 1.5 per cent for the first 10 years that the product is held and 1.0 per cent thereafter, matching the cap set for the new medium-term product and encouraging long-term saving. This will allow the cost of basic advice to be incorporated under the cap, while maintaining excellent value for customers.

  The Government would expect there to be significant price competition under these caps and in particular prices to be lower than 1 per cent for substantial numbers of stakeholder products sold, for example, without advice or to group schemes. We intend to review the new caps in three years to assess their impact on competition in the market.

  We realise that, for less efficient providers these charge caps represent a challenge. But it is only right that firms are challenged so that our objectives of good deals for consumers and increasing efficiency are met. But for those firms that can exploit innovative and efficient ways of distributing stakeholder products, these charge caps represent an excellent opportunity for profitable growth and so I hope that they will be welcomed by the financial services industry.

  The Treasury consultation document is available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

  British Energy plc: State Aid
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Statement.

  The Government were expecting to receive a decision from the European Commission in summer 2004 on the Government's proposed restructuring aid to British Energy plc. Receipt of a positive decision is a condition of the proposed restructuring of the company.

  Due to the need to complete final assessments in relation to the financing of the company post-restructuring, it will now not be possible for the Government to present all the necessary information to the Commission in time to enable the Commission to take a decision before its summer break. Consequently, I now expect the Commission to take a decision in the autumn 2004.

  British Energy continues to make progress on its restructuring, which remains subject to a number of significant uncertainties and important conditions. As I have said previously, the Government's contingency plans to fund the administration of the company should any of the restructuring conditions not be met or the restructuring fail for any other reason will, therefore, remain in place.

  Chemical Weapons Act
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths) has made the following Written Statement.

  I am pleased to announce that in accordance with the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, I have today laid a report before the House on its operation during 2003.

  Estate Agents: Government Response to OFT Report
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Gerry Sutcliffe) has made the following Written Statement.

  I aimed to publish the Government's response to the Office of Fair Trading report on the estate agency market in England and Wales by 18 June, but we have
  WS 40
  received a number of recent representations on the report which we are still considering. I expect the response to be published shortly.

  Houses of Parliament: Travel Office
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
  The Travel Office contact, managed jointly by the two Houses, has been let for a number of years to American Express. This contract will expire at the end of August.

  Following a full open competition under EU procurement rules, it has been decided to award the new contract to Carlson Wagonlit Travel (CWT). CWT will offer a wide range of services, including an office within the Palace of Westminster, access to preferential prices for both air and rail travel, foreign exchange and an Internet self-booking facility for those who wish to book online. It is expected that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations will apply, and the jobs of existing staff in the Travel Office will thus be protected.