Sitting of 22 June 2004

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

  BICHARD INQUIRY REPORT
  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 on child protection procedures in Humberside Police and Cambridgeshire Constabulary, particularly the effectiveness of relevant intelligence-based record keeping, vetting practices since 1995 and information sharing with other agencies—[Ms Blears.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRANSPORT

    Translink Busway (Dunstable/Luton)
    Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement on the Translink guided busway proposed between Dunstable and Luton. [179609]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): Translink was given provisional approval for funding of up to £78.39 million in the 2004–05 local transport settlement, subject to statutory powers and planning approval being obtained. The scheme is now the subject of an application to the Secretary of State for approval under the Transport and Works Act 1992. It would not be appropriate therefore for me to comment on its merits, as doing so could prejudice our consideration of the application.
    Andrew Selous: Yet again, the wishes of the people of south Bedfordshire, as expressed in every survey of public opinion undertaken, and the wishes of all their county and district councillors, irrespective of party, are being ignored. They resent having an unwanted, expensive and bad value for money scheme imposed on them. Will the Minister please, even at this late stage, agree to put on hold the plans for Translink until a full and proper evaluation is undertaken into an alternative light rail scheme with feeder bus services, which would save the Government about £70 million and win them the undying affection of the people of south Bedfordshire?
    Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not able to put a hold on a process that has started to unfold under the Transport and Works Act 1992, but I can assure him that heavy rail and light rail alternatives to Translink were thoroughly assessed by the Department. Patronage for such projects was shown to be insufficient, and the alternatives did not offer value for money, despite some of the projects included. If he is serious about heavy rail or light rail alternatives, he might have a word with his right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and explain to him what public expenditure means.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My constituency could be served by Translink, but, unfortunately, only really effectively if it is a guided busway because bus services offer flexibility. However, does my hon. Friend not agree that the whole scheme could be expanded to cover much longer distances and a much wider area, especially when housing between Luton and Milton Keynes is developed in future years? Will he continue his strong support for the Translink busway scheme, which we strongly support in Luton?
    Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. All I can say at this stage is that we will wait and see how the process under the Transport and Works Act develops for the Translink project, but I am sure that the Department will entertain any subsequent well-founded applications and treat them in the appropriate manner.

    Travel Facilities (Disabled Access)
    Mr. Peter Pike: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that better facilities for the disabled are provided on the (a) rail network and (b) underground systems. [179610]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): Since 1999, we have required all new trains to be fully accessible. We have worked with industry and issued guidance on improving access to stations, as part of the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In addition, London Underground has a key network strategy to make more of its key stations accessible.
    Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that very few stations on the new underground map are marked as having disabled access. He will also know that travelling on the underground is a nightmare for many people who have disabilities. Even if they know that they can go to a station where they can get to the platform, they do not necessarily know whether the train will be at the right level to get on. Very often, they do not know what will await them at the other end of their journey. That is not acceptable for disabled people in 2004. When will the Government do more to ensure that we really meet the requirements of disabled people?
    Mr. McNulty: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes. He will know that 40 underground stations are currently accessible without stairs or escalators. Given the peculiar difficulties associated with the age and infrastructure of much of London's underground,

    1165
    Transport for London has developed a key network strategy to make about 100 stations accessible to disabled people. Stations outside that key network will be connected to it by fully accessible bus services. That is all fine and proper, but greater awareness and publicity is still needed when that network is in place to allow people to know not just where they can start their journeys, but where they can finish them with the same accessibility, as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Archie Norman: The Minister may know that the Minister of State wrote to me on exactly this issue last month. I am grateful to him for his letter, which was constructive. Does the Minister agree that the Department's current position is that there will be some money, sometime—we do not know how much and we do not know when—to make railway stations disabled friendly? Will he give the House some idea whether there is any target for improving railway stations in that respect in the next few years and, if so, when that is likely to be delivered? What is the earliest possible date on which a very busy station, such as Tunbridge Wells in my constituency, can be made disabled friendly?
    Mr. McNulty: I shall look into the specifics of Tunbridge Wells in more detail and get back to the hon. Gentleman. He will know, perhaps far more than others given his background in finance, that I am unlikely to make any commitment on a specific budget line for the overall rail budget when we are some weeks away from the spending review. However, I will write to him in the fullness of time specifically about disability access to stations.
    David Taylor: Discussion about accessibility for people with disabilities is too often restricted to those with the more obvious disabilities that require wheelchair usage. Is the Minister content with the progress made in recent years on enabling those with hearing or sight difficulties to use station services more effectively? Does he agree that progress could be made on that as well?
    Mr. McNulty: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Accessibility is not simply about wheelchair access, although we do need greater progress in that regard. There have been significant improvements throughout the rail network and the bus and tube network in London and elsewhere on the availability of real-time passenger information and the greater availability of assorted tactile, oral and other forms of information for those passengers with a degree of disability that is, perhaps, more hidden than other disabilities. The point that the issue is not simply about wheelchair use is strong and I take it on board.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Minister tell us how many mainline stations have tactile facilities to allow those who are blind to purchase tickets? Such facilities have been in operation in stations in the far east for years. Surely, as we are modernising, we should be dealing with that. Does he also agree that there is a tendency to forget that people with disabilities have a right to move about freely?
    Mr. McNulty: I certainly accept the second point. The whole purpose of accessibility, in its broadest dimension, in line with what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said, is about people's right to move around as freely as possible. I do not know the formal answer to how many mainline stations have that tactile dimension to ticket purchasing, but in researching further the wonder that is Tunbridge Wells station and disabled access to it, I shall also write to the hon. Gentleman in that regard, with a specific answer.

    Blackpool Tramway
    Mr. Michael Jack: What investment his Department will be making in the refurbishment of Blackpool tramway. [179611]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand, there are many pressures on the transport programme and there are several major light rail schemes currently under consideration. We will announce a decision on Blackpool as soon as we can.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he confirm that all the Members of Parliament who represent the Fylde coast and who have an interest are in the Chamber? Will he also confirm that sustaining an existing transport system, like the Blackpool tramway, is compatible with Government policy? Does he recognise the importance of the project to the regeneration of Black pool and the effect that it will have on the Fylde coast? This project, as it exists, should not be the subject of a determination using an optimism index. The system works and needs to be sustained. Can we have the Minister's support?
    Dr. Howells: The right hon. Gentleman is well known for his optimism. I pay tribute to him and to my hon. Friends who have campaigned for the project for a long time. I must remind him. however, that a great deal of investment has gone into light rail. Indeed, the number of passengers carried on light rail has increased by 86 per cent. since 1996–97. We will certainly consider all the light rail schemes that have been proposed, including Blackpool. I hope that we can make an announcement on Blackpool in the short term rather than the long term.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend will be well aware from his previous incarnation in the tourism game that the Blackpool tram system is very well used and patronised, not just by tourists, but also by residents. Picking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), will my hon. Friend convey to his officials and those charged with making a final deliberation that, whether or not an optimism index is reasonable, it is not necessarily reasonable to apply the same optimism index to a blue-sky scheme as it is to one that is tried and tested, which has no nasty surprises in terms of rerouting utilities and things of that nature?
    Dr. Howells: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the nature of the scheme. It is long established. We know its strengths and limitations. I shall certainly pass on his observations to officials in my Department.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: To reinforce the point again about the importance of the Blackpool tramway, is my hon. Friend aware that it goes through Cleveleys all the way up to Fleetwood and is an existing service, used not just by tourists, but by local residents' My constituents in Fleetwood use the tramway to travel down into Blackpool to work and to get back home again. Equally, tourists in Blackpool use it to go up to Fleetwood to enjoy the facilities there. It is vital that the investment is put in to ensure that the tramway, which has been in existence for 100 years, continues for another 100 years.
    Dr. Howells: I commend my hon. Friend on the case that she has made for the Blackpool tramway and on reminding the House that it is a working tramway that carries people to and from work in the centre of Blackpool. I can only repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden)—we are well aware of the importance of the scheme, but we must consider it in the context of a number of other proposed schemes, all of which are regarded as important to their neighbourhoods.

    British Transport Police
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the funding arrangements for the British Transport police. [179612]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The British Transport police are funded primarily by the rail industry, and this year its budget of £162 million includes funding for 100 extra officers on the London underground.
    Dr. Cable: Is it not fundamentally unsound that a key part of the British police service that not only enforces law and order on trains and at stations but conducts sophisticated anti-terrorist operations on the underground and at mainline stations should be dependent on grudging and capricious contributions from the private rail companies? Can the Minister not insist that those companies fund the British Transport police at the same level as the rest of the police force?
    Mr. Darling: I do not think that it is wrong that the railway industry funds the British Transport police. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as the Government fund quite a lot of the railway, public money is going to the transport police one way or another. We have just set up a new police authority that will have the job of looking at the budget needed by the British Transport police, especially in light of the report by Her Majesty's inspectorate to be published tomorrow. It shows that certain aspects of the force need to be looked at, and it has the power to get money from the industry to the police. However, the budget has been increased by about £25 million, and the Government have funded £2 million-worth of expenditure on the anti-terrorism
    1168
    measures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Money is therefore going into the force, and force numbers have been increased.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State will nevertheless be aware that the increase in force numbers was needed because on the London underground and the overground trains British Transport police are being called on to do more to contribute to security. Will he insist that the new police authority tells the train companies that they must pay up and look cheerful, as they need those dedicated forces and had better get on and find the cash?
    Mr. Darling: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said.
    Bob Russell: Smile then.
    Mr. Darling: How can one smile when talking about railway finances? Believe me, it is simply not possible. Every day, I go to the office and see a black cloud hanging above my desk, but I shall try to be cheerful. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), however, is absolutely right—the British Transport police do a first-class job, and we are asking them to do more. In the current climate, we are likely to ask them to increase the amount of activity that they undertake, which is why it is important that the organisation is properly equipped and funded. I believe that that can and will be done, and we are looking at it in the context of the railway review.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Is the problem not whether the Secretary of State is cheerful but that he is complacent? There is more violent crime, fewer detections and, notwithstanding his remarks about increased numbers of transport police on the underground, there will be a reduction of 150 transport police on the overground as a result of the £40 million deficit in the British Transport police pension fund, which only last year Ministers assured us was in surplus. The running costs for the new police authority are six times higher than forecast, so why do the Government not apologise for that manifest failure?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about police numbers—they will not be reduced. As for crime,
    yes, it has increased in some respects, but on the other hand theft on the London underground and criminal damage to railway carriages has been reduced. Detection rates for robbery have gone up. I am certainly not going to say to the House that there are not still problems and more that needs to be done, but the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to claim that police numbers are to decrease. They are not. They will remain exactly as they are at present. As I said earlier, there will be 100 extra officers for the London underground.

    Rail Freight Interchange Facilities
    Jim Dobbin: What plans he has to increase the number of rail freight interchange facilities. [179613]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): The provision of rail freight interchanges is primarily a matter for the private sector rail freight industry and commercial property developers. The Strategic Rail Authority published its strategic rail freight interchange policy in March this year. The document aims to facilitate the development of a network of commercially viable rail freight interchanges by providing guidance for planning authorities and developers.
    Jim Dobbin: My constituency lies midway between the M1 and the M6 and the ports of Hull and Liverpool. A huge industrial development is to take place at junction 21, called the Kingsway industrial development. A tremendous number of heavy goods vehicles run through and around that part of the north-west. Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the points that I have raised and give some guidance to the private sector developers who are developing freight terminals, when the Government come to designate and plan for the future?
    Dr. Howells: I am prepared to talk to anyone who is interested in such developments, because the country needs them. I remind my hon. Friend that the railway is privatised and those developments are driven by the market, as they should be. I am sure that he has made a compelling case to the developers for the kind of facility that he mentions. We are keen to get as much freight as possible off the road and on to the railways.
    John Thurso: The Minister is aware that on average, 80 per cent. less carbon dioxide is emitted by one tonne of freight that travels by rail, rather than by road. Is he also aware that the logistics industry believes that rail freight should be a viable economic alternative to road haulage, but that will depend on the development of rail freight interchanges or rail freight villages? Given that such developments are both environmentally and economically desirable, what can the Government do to help the planning process, particularly in view of the failure of that for the west London freight village?
    Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been conducting a major review of planning law and practice. In conjunction with the Strategic Rail Authority we are looking hard at how it might be possible to push projects forward. The hon. Gentleman knows that many considerations have to be taken into account. Those often entail environmentally sensitive areas, the prospect of noise for local residents and so on. That is always difficult: everyone is in favour of moving freight on to the railways for environmental reasons, but no one wants freight terminals at the bottom of their garden.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) referred to the east and west ports, Hull and Liverpool. One of the problems is the lack of a high-speed rail link between the east and the west. We have the links between north and south. Has my hon. Friend the Minister given any thought to the possibility of developing a high-speed rail link from the east ports to
    1170
    the west ports, which would be of tremendous value to those moving freight across from the west coast to the east coast and into Europe?
    Dr. Howells: We are very much aware of the issue, but the huge sums that are currently being spent to upgrade the west coast main line will enormously increase the capacity for freight trains on that line. Also, we are doing a great deal of work to link the north—west via the west coast main line from the eastern ports, such as Felixstowe, which are major container ports. We will bring that traffic down, including 9 ft 6 in high boxes, which are essential, via the north London line, across on to the west coast main line and up to the north-west. There is a great deal of work going on, as we are anxious to achieve that. We are keen to see much faster transit of freight by rail from the east coast to the west coast.
    Mr. John Taylor: Is the Minister aware of a project recently considered in Solihull to link the Land Rover plant to the west coast main line? Surely, that would be compatible with the Government's policy of road on to rail. Would he care to give an indication that, if the Ford Motor Company were to revive that plan to connect the Land Rover plant to the west coast main line, the Government would approve and indicate their approval?
    Dr. Howells: I have not seen any sign of that project yet, but we will certainly take a look at it. Of course, when Ford built its Bridgend plant many years ago, it paid part of the costs of rail connection on to the great western main line, which has proved very successful in moving products out of that plant. We would certainly be interested in the project, and we are very interested in what part the private sector can play in helping to fund such projects.

    Railway Costs
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: What steps are being taken to reduce costs within the railway industry. [179614]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): We return to the cheery subject of railway costs.
    As a result of the regulator's review, Network Rail is required to achieve efficiency gains of 31 per cent. over five years. The SRA is also working to reduce costs during the franchising process.
    Mrs. Calton: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will know that considerable costs have been incurred in the some what failed TCS or train control system on the west coast main line. Can he tell me whether the masts erected for the TCS system on the west coast main line are operational now for the purposes that we were led to believe they would fulfil? If they are not operational, when will they be?
    Mr. Darling: The answer is that the masts are being tested at the moment. I shall certainly let the hon. Lady know when they come into operation.
    Lawrie Quinn: Given the immense costs associated with infrastructure investment on the railway and the skill shortages across the industry, can the Secretary of State tell us what recent discussions his Department has had with Network Rail in trying to fill those voids of skill shortages in terms of engineers and the people who will be involved in rebuilding the railway?
    Mr. Darling: We have had discussions with Network Rail about that issue. It is one of the reasons why costs have gone up. After many years of under-investment, considerable sums are now being spent not only on the west coast main line, but on upgrading the power supply for trains south of the River Thames. A whole lot of other work is also being carried out, which has an effect on labour costs. Network Rail is looking to see what it can do to improve the situation. Taking maintenance back in house has saved a substantial sum. Indeed, Network Rail is spending a lot less than it thought it would have to spend to get the same amount of work, simply because of the efficiency that it is driving through, having taken over from Railtrack what was a pretty shambolic situation.
    Mr. John Redwood: Is anybody currently reviewing the optimal size of the network and thinking about closures of any portions of it? If so, will those involved consider conversion to busways or dedicated freight lorryways, rather than wasting those routes?
    Mr. Darling: When I announced the review, I said that one of the things that we should be doing as a matter of course was keeping under review the new markets that were emerging for the railway, as well as the railway services that were not being so well used. The House will recall that, in January last year, when the SRA announced the removal of about 180 Virgin Cross Country services, many people were concerned. In fact, many of those services were not carrying many passengers. As a result of having taken them out, the reliability of Virgin Cross Country in respect of the remaining trains has improved. because the lines are less congested.
    I have also said that passenger transport executives in particular need to ask themselves whether heavy rail is the right option and whether light rail or buses might be better. The cost of running heavy rail, especially if it is not carrying significant numbers of passengers, is substantial. The point that the right hon. Gentleman makes is one that I have dealt with previously. Provided that these matters are looked at sensibly, we might get a better deal for the travelling public in some areas.
    Mr. Clive Betts: I am sure that my right hon. Friend accepts that private investment is one way to reduce costs in the rail industry. Some of us were looking forward to the Central Railway project, which would have provided significant economic benefits to the north of England, not least to Tinsley in my constituency, where a major rail freight terminal was planned. Members of Parliament and local authorities in Manchester, Yorkshire and the east midlands support the scheme, and the company says that it cannot envisage a situation in which the project
    1172
    would require public funds. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the project can go ahead, bearing in mind that the Government say that they cannot support the proposed private Bill?
    Mr. Darling: Unfortunately, I cannot see a way forward for that project, which is a point that my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear earlier in the year. I favour bringing private money into the railways—the Government spend about £77 million a week on the railways, and a similar amount comes in from the private sector—but I was not satisfied that sufficient private money was available to pay for the Central Railway project. I feared that, when the project was half built, the promoters would come to us and say, "We are awfully sorry, can you take it over?" On a number of occasions, I asked the promoters to guarantee that that would not happen, and they could not do so, which is why the Government made it clear that they could not make such a substantial commitment. I am keen to obtain private sector money, but if such private sector projects are to go ahead, we must be sure that they can be delivered.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: In a spirit of helpfulness, which is appropriate at this early stage of my relationship with the Secretary of State, I shall suggest how to dispel the black cloud that hangs in his office on the issue of railway finance. Will he confirm that the dual regulatory system imposed by the Labour Government has substantially increased the costs carried by the rail industry? Does he agree that the burden that those costs place on passengers and taxpayers could be cut at once if the Government admitted their mistakes and rationalised the operations of the Strategic Rail Authority and the Office of the Rail Regulator?
    Mr. Darling: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman wants to have a close and cordial relationship. In that spirit, I point out to him that on 19 January this year, I announced a review of the railway industry, and that review is examining the structures that he complains about. The SRA does not add greatly to the cost of the railways, but the structure set up under privatisation, which includes numerous interfaces between private companies, is undoubtedly costly. We set up the review to control costs and to obtain a better organisation to run the railways. If the hon. Gentleman and I can agree on that point, our relationship will be fruitful, cordial and perhaps even lasting—I look forward to seeing him on the Opposition Front Bench for many years to come.

    Speed Cameras
    Mr. David Rendel: What plans he has to change the number of speed cameras. [179615]
    Bob Russell: How many speed safety cameras have been removed in the past month because they did not comply with the siting criteria. [179620]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Decisions about increasing or decreasing the numbers of speed safety cameras are made locally by the safety camera partnerships, taking account of the handbook of rules and guidelines issued by my Department. At the beginning of the year, safety camera partnerships confirmed that all their camera sites fully met the deployment criteria. However, approximately 5 per cent. of cameras, although meeting the criteria for placement, may not reduce accidents, and we have asked local authorities and the police to examine other measures to reduce casualties.
    Mr. Rendel: The Department for Transport's recent survey into speed camera sites shows welcome reductions in speeding and in the number of people who are killed and injured, including a 43 per cent. reduction in the Thames valley area. Will the Minister accept that he should brave the wrath of the selfish 20 per cent. of drivers who think it more important to avoid fines than to keep people safe on the roads? Will he examine those roads where there are still useful prospects for speed cameras, including, for example, the B4009 in my constituency, where the two fatal accidents in the past two years might well have been avoided if a speed camera had been in use?
    Mr. Jamieson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on speed cameras, the presence of which has meant a substantial reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured. One would hope to hear whether the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has changed his view on the policy. I am sure that he will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, if he can.
    The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) makes an important point. Authorities of all political perspectives, including Tory authorities, have contacted the Department to ask us to relax our rules because they want the cameras put in other places. It is important, however, that such decisions are made locally by local authorities and local police—they understand the local issues best.
    Bob Russell: Following the 95 per cent. success rate to which the Under-Secretary referred, I draw his attention to a true story that was published in the Colchester Evening Gazette last week, which stated:
    "The number of people killed or seriously injured at sites where safety cameras are in use in north Essex has dramatically fallen."
    I want to refer specifically to one of the 17 sites in my constituency. In the three years before safety cameras were installed in Cowdray avenue, there were five serious—some fatal—crashes. In the two subsequent years, there have been none. In the light of that, has the hon. Gentleman received any messages of apology or retraction from politicians who are apparently prepared to envisage death and injury continuing on our roads?
    Mr. Jamieson: I have yet to hear from the hon. Member for Ashford in the House or after the correspondence on 29 January, when I wrote to him to ask whether he could tell us the location of the 4,000 sites at which cameras had been installed unnecessarily. When we opened the post this morning, there was still no response.
    1174
    I acknowledge that there has been a substantial reduction in casualties in the area that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) represents. We all know about the misery that death causes but should reflect on the misery caused by serious injuries that include lacerations, crushed or broken limbs, brain injury and sometimes permanent paralysis. I am sure that the new shadow Secretary of State wants to revoke any policy to remove the cameras that are successfully driving down casualties.
    Jeff Ennis: I am sure that my hon Friend the Under-Secretary knows that the press sometimes reports examples of speed cameras being vandalised, presumably by irate drivers. Are there statistics for the number of cameras that have been vandalised in the past couple of years? What is the Department doing to ensure that such vandalism is kept to a minimum?
    Mr. Jamieson: Those who vandalise cameras put people's lives at risk They must answer a question: if a camera is vandalised and out of operation for a period of time, how many people have consequently been killed or injured? I have not got to hand the figures for the number of cameras that have been vandalised but it has happened to only a few and a minority of people are responsible. I hope that Conservative Members would not support such people—a minority who are determined to continue speeding and put people's lives at risk. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of motorists would reject that idea and such action.
    Jim Sheridan: On the assumption that speed cameras are designed to save lives in all our communities, is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary aware of the perception that there is a far higher proportion of drivers who speed in more affluent than in less affluent areas? Will he assure hon. Members that the cameras are located for genuine reasons, not by postcode?
    Mr. Jamieson: The decisions about where to place the cameras are made locally by local authorities and the police. In the past three years, child casualties have fallen rapidly. In particular, the casualty rate among child pedestrians, who are mainly in the built-up areas of our cities, has fallen by approximately 33 per cent. That must be welcome and is another statistic on which Conservative Members should reflect. I hope that the hon. Member for Ashford will be successful in catching your eye so that he can tell us his current policy on the matter.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Although there is clearly an important role for speed cameras, which anyone of sense and reason would accept, does the Under-Secretary agree that the general public must be persuaded that the siting of the cameras is appropriate? Does he accept that some limitation might be placed on the power of cars that are available to young people to prevent over-powered cars from being in the hands of young, irresponsible drivers?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that his own Front-Bench colleagues have not shown sense and reason on this

    1175
    matter, but I shall leave the House to reflect on that. It is important that the cameras are placed where there have been high numbers of casualties.
    The Department set out those rules very clearly, and the response from the partnerships throughout the country was that the sites met those criteria. In all those areas, the vast majority of cameras are now reducing the number of deaths and injuries on the road.
    We have looked at the type of vehicles driven by younger drivers. Unfortunately, even some of the smaller vehicles are very high-powered and are certainly able to go at well above 30 mph; some can do well above 100 mph. The issue here is proper training for drivers, and proper enforcement of the law.
    Kevin Brennan: Did my hon. Friend see the recent case of the pensioner who was prosecuted for taking his hands off the steering wheel to make a gesture at a speed camera? May I encourage my hon. Friend to make exactly the same gesture at all those who call on him to reduce the number of speed cameras, and who put the rights of people who break the law before the saving of lives?
    Mr. Jamieson: As I understand the case, the person who was prosecuted had both hands off the steering wheel, which I would not commend to anyone. In the light of the independent report on safety cameras, I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Ashford on this issue. After six months of asking him to withdraw his allegation about the 4,000 cameras, I hope that he will now take back what he said then and put safety ahead of opportunism.
    Mr. Damian Green: I am delighted that, this morning, on his own admission, the Minister has withdrawn the absurd claim that he made when he wrote to me in January, that 100 per cent. of the cameras were in the right place. Even he has now admitted that only 95 per cent. are in the right place. He is, however, missing a serious point made in the report that the Government produced last week, which is that there are 384 camera sites at which the number of serious or fatal accidents has increased since the camera went in. If the Minister wants to take the credit for a reduction in accidents at the places where that has happened, he must also take responsibility for the increase in accidents at those 384 sites. Has he told the camera partnerships to take down the cameras that are making our roads more dangerous, and if not, why not?
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is now wriggling. What I asserted back in January was that we had been told by the partnerships—many of which are led by Conservative authorities—that all the cameras were in places that met the Department's criteria. The independent report that we commissioned and published has shown that about 5 per cent. of the cameras—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would be quiet for a moment, he would be able to hear what I am saying. The report has shown that, although the cameras are in the right place and meet the criteria, 5 per cent. of them are not having the effect that we want them to achieve. But does that not mean that 95 per cent. of them are having the effect that we want? The hon. Gentleman should now go back and reconsider his
    1176
    policy of taking cameras away because they are ineffective. It seems that the only person on whom that policy has been imposed is the former shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).

    Kent Rail Franchise
    Jonathan Shaw: What assessment he has made of the Strategic Rail Authority's proposed Integrated Kent Rail Franchise. [179616]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): The Strategic Rail Authority's consultation on service patterns for the Integrated Kent Rail Franchise ended on 23 April. It is assessing responses before finalising the specification of services.
    Jonathan Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that the last time that the Kent rail timetable was reviewed was in 1963? What concerns me is that that coincides with another event of 1963, namely the great train robbery. We in Medway are concerned that the SRA will propose a reduction in commuter services. While we welcome the channel tunnel rail link domestic services stopping in the Medway towns, we have always argued that this should involve additional rail services, particularly given the 5 per cent. growth in the Thames gateway area. Will the Minister confirm that we need additional rail services rather than a reduction in peak commuter services into London, given the predicted growth?
    Dr. Howells: May I remind my hon. Friend that railways in this country are not a free good? They cost a lot of money. We have built the first new railway for a hundred years, through Kent, which will benefit enormously the people of Kent, as it will benefit the rest of the country. His question about those services being entirely additional to those already existing raises a number of issues. Some of the domestic services will have to have pathways cleared in the existing timetable if they are to run and if people are to get into the centre of London more quickly—
    Mr. Eric Forth: Is that a no?
    Dr. Howells: I hear the call from the Tories that they do not want any of this. That is fine. If they are reflecting what their constituents feel, and they do not want channel tunnel rail link domestic services into the centre of London, they should be honest enough to come out and say so. We will try to make sure that there is the maximum capacity in terms of passengers being able to access central London, both on the existing network and on the new network.
    Hugh Robertson: Under the Strategic Rail Authority's proposals, villages such as Hollingbourne, Harrietsham and Lenham in my constituency stand to lose all their rail services in the middle of the day and at weekends. Given that those are exactly the same villages that were decimated by the channel tunnel rail link workings in the mid-1990s, will

    1177
    the Minister undertake today to honour the commitments given at that time to ensure that rail services are improved?
    Dr. Howells: I understand that the SRA has had 4,200 responses to its consultation. It is going through those responses, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman responded on behalf of his constituents. I assume that he would agree that the proper way forward is for the SRA to make the judgment as to how best to ensure that existing capacity is maintained and improved wherever possible, and that people can get from Kent into London more quickly. Those people's jobs depend on it, and many of the services provided in the economy of London depend on people from Kent being able to get easily into London.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that the high-speed link is for the benefit of the whole country? In that case, should it not be top-sliced in respect of its cost, so that the SRA does not take that into account in determining what moneys are available to support the franchise?
    Dr. Howells: I am not quite sure what system of payment my hon. Friend is proposing. All I know is that it must still be paid for, and that in the end, the Government pay for it.
    Mr. Damian Green: The Minister will be aware that the overwhelming majority of those 4,000 responses to the Strategic Rail Authority were hostile—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) seems to get in an awful state when he is not called. I must tell him that those on the Front Bench put in a request, and it is not my fault when that happens. When he does not get called, he should take it in good spirit. That is important.
    Mr. Green: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I will also represent the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who, I understand, feels strongly about this issue. The Minister will know, as he has referred to the 4,000 responses, that the overwhelming hostility to the SRA's proposals for the Kent franchise, which he also hears from his Back Benchers, is precisely because the SRA proposes cutting services to many smaller stations around Kent. Can he assure the House that we will not see a perverse effect from the billions of pounds that he has said have been invested in the channel tunnel rail link? As things stand, overall rail services in Kent will get worse. It seems a colossal waste of taxpayers' money to invest money in a new railway, and to have, as a direct result, worse rail services.
    Dr. Howells: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle because I am sure that he could have put that question a bit better, as we have had this question time and again. I say to the Front-Bench spokesman that the industry is privatised, and that his party privatised it. The days of the Government being able to intervene on the railways,
    1178
    in the way that he describes, are long gone, and he knows that full well. What he is doing is making a cheap political point, and his constituents will understand it.

    Bus Quality Contract Scheme
    Mr. Colin Challen: When he intends to publish the results of the consultation on reducing the 21-month minimum waiting period for implementing a bus quality contract scheme. [179617]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are considering the responses to the consultation, and we will be announcing its outcome shortly.
    Mr. Challen: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, because anything that brings closer the day when we have better bus services will be very welcome. Is he aware that I often receive complaints from my constituents, in unparliamentary language, about the quality of some of our local bus services, particularly in my local villages? Recently, one bus service was removed to improve the service to another village—robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need to investigate how to improve bus services. Will my right hon. Friend be willing to meet me when I have completed my local bus transport survey, to discuss its results?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend and other Members on both sides will agree that bus services are working quite well in some areas, where we have seen an increase in patronage and the services are satisfactory. In other areas, however, there have been difficulties. As I have said before, we are looking at those matters and will come forward with
    proposals in due course. I am firmly of the view that we should try to build on what works, then make adjustments to deal with aspects that do not work, rather than go back to the drawing board.

  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Internet
    Mr. Anthony D Wright: How people who cannot use the internet will be able to benefit from the Directgov approach to service delivery. [179601]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of
    Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Directgov, which was launched earlier this year, is available not just on the internet but to 7 million homes with interactive TV. Cabinet Office officials are looking at other channels, such as mobile telephones, to make sure that Directgov is available to as many people as possible.
    For those who do not have the skills or ready access to these technologies at home or at work, the Government have established 6,000 UK Online centres, which offer

    1179
    free or low-cost access and deliver online learning to help and encourage people to enjoy the benefits of information and communications technology.
    Mr. Wright: I thank the Minister for that response. I have visited the Directgov site and found it extremely useful, and I imagine that many of my constituents will find it useful. The many online centres in my constituency, including at Greenacre school, Breydon middle school and Great Yarmouth high school, have worked extremely well for the community. However, there are still many people, such as the elderly and disabled, who cannot access those online centres and find it difficult to fund digital television or personal computers. What assistance can my hon. Friend offer to my constituents in Great Yarmouth who cannot access those centres but would find it extremely useful to go online to the Directgov site?
    Mr. Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, which raises several important issues. He is right to identify that there are a number of UK Online centres in his constituency—nine in Great Yarmouth and a further 13 within a 15-mile radius. The challenge of getting the United Kingdom online is one that the Government have embraced, although there are some specific barriers, which my hon. Friend identifies. Income continues to affect internet access: 12 per cent. of the lowest income groups have home internet access compared with 86 per cent. of the highest income groups. That is why the Government continue to pursue their anti-poverty strategy. The age gap is also considerable in terms of those who use online services. It is more difficult to get older people to use UK Online centres, so last year we ran the "Get Started" campaign, which specifically targeted the elderly community, among other groups, to make sure that we gave every advice and assistance to people who wanted to become silver surfers. I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend to set out the strategy that the Government are adopting in relation to his constituency.
    Mr. Richard Allan: I congratulate the Government on the clear interface of the new Directgov website, which serves to highlight the inadequacy and complexity of many of the other Government websites to which it leads. Will the new head of e-Government who has recently been appointed have the authority to insist that other Departments use improved web standards to make them as clear as the Directgov site?
    Mr. Alexander: I thank the hon Gentleman for that typically charitable question. We of course take great pride in the Directgov site, which is a significant improvement on its predecessor, UK Online. We are receiving extremely positive customer feedback about the site. On the substantive point that the hon. Gentleman raises, when Ian Watmore takes up his new position in the Cabinet Office in September, one of his tasks will be to work effectively with other people in a range of Departments to ensure that our offering has consistently high standards. We believe that he will take to that task with relish, which is consistent with the whole drive towards e-Government that we have advanced during this Parliament.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of Government interfacing with the public is through services provided by post offices? Does he also agree that we should do everything possible to maintain a comprehensive post office network through which we can have a real interface between the Government, IT services and the public?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend has asked an important question about the future of post offices and I will happily communicate his point to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I would say, however, that if we reflect on the capacity for post offices to use banking services and, in particular, to drive profitability—we should not lose sight of the fact that the Post Office continues to be the largest retail network in the UK—the electronic offering of banking services from a range of post offices is entirely consistent with the good work being undertaken by Post Office management to ensure that the units are commercially viable wherever they exist in the country.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: I welcome the Minister back and congratulate him on the birth of his daughter.
    Recent American research has shown by a huge margin that the public would rather deal with the Government through other methods rather than the web. Low public take-up of e-government in this country seems to confirm that. Why, then, has the Minister ordered that all external public services should be web-based? Has he not seen the misery caused to pensioners by scrapping the pension order book? Is he now going to force them to apply for other services online and, if so, what is the timetable?
    Mr. Alexander: I hardly know where to begin in answering that question. First, pensioners will, of course, continue to be able to receive cash over the counter at their post offices, despite the scaremongering of Opposition politicians. Secondly, it is a characteristically Luddite position of the Conservative party to suggest that the Government should not match other sectors in society in providing web-based offerings of its services. Thirdly, I would point out that considerable progress has been made in getting the UK online under the present Government. On broadband access, for example, considerable progress has been made, and both the public and private sector have worked effectively to drive up the take-up level, so it ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to suggest that his constituents would not want access to those services.

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What action is being taken to open up public appointments to groups who have traditionally been
    under-represented. [179602]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government want boards of public bodies to be both appointed on merit and representative of society as a whole. The 2003 publication "Delivering Diversity in

    1181
    Public Appointments" outlines the action being taken by each Department of Government to increase diversity on the boards of their public bodies, and the targets that have been set for 2006.
    Mr. Savidge: While welcoming the targets for diversity, which my hon. Friend has outlined, will he provide some practical examples of what the Government are doing to achieve them? Would one of my constituents from an under-represented group, for example, receive any practical assistance from the Government?
    Mr. Alexander: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, because it highlights the point that I sought to make in my previous answer. A new website is now available from the Cabinet Office—www.publicappts-vacs.gov.uk—in which available public vacancies are set out. Anyone wanting to access those opportunities to serve on a public body will now be able to do so in the north-east of Scotland and the south-west of England. There are a range of different ways in which those who do not have access to the web can obtain information—a newsletter is also provided—and I want to ensure that my hon. Friend is made aware of those opportunities so that he can, in turn, communicate them to his constituents.
    Mr. Eric Forth: I suppose that we should be modestly grateful that the Minister mentioned merit, but can he give us a guarantee that, in the matter of public appointments, merit will never be undermined or compromised by an obsession with so-called diversity?
    Mr. Alexander: If I recollect correctly, that is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has put that point to me. It is fundamentally the case, as I have set out previously from the Dispatch Box, that there is no inconsistency whatever between appointments on merit and appointments on representational aspirations. I believe that we should aspire to make our public bodies reflect the diverse nature of modern Britain. In that sense, I see no inconsistency between ensuring appointment on the basis of merit and making sure that we have diverse public bodies.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of attempting to achieve that would be to pass the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, which is currently being blocked by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? That measure would ensure proper appointment to the civil service on merit rather than through long-out-of-date rules on nationality. Is it not time that the civil service reflected the society in which we live, rather than the society that the right hon. Gentleman thinks exists, but may never have existed outside his own rather peculiar imagination?
    Mr. Alexander: I am cautious about intruding on a private argument but, like many colleagues, I was disappointed at the failure last week to make progress on that Bill. My hon. Friend makes his point well: we must make sure that the civil service is genuinely updated in terms of its ability to ensure that diversity is achieved.

    Policy Development
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: What guidance he has issued to regulatory offices concerning policy development in their areas of regulation. [179603]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government have recommended that all Departments and regulators follow the Cabinet Office guidance entitled "Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessments". That guidance is available on the Cabinet Office website, and in the Library of the House.
    Dr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is important to maintain the distinction between the policy-making function—that is, the steering function—of the Government and legislature, and the implementing function of regulatory bodies? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that legislation that amends or changes the nature of regulatory bodies maintains that distinction?
    Mr. Alexander: I spoke at the recent conference of independent regulators, at which we addressed the specific challenge involved in recognising the distinctive role of regulators in the area of policy making. I also point out that the Government accepted the 14 recommendations in respect of independent regulators contained in the report from the Better Regulation Task Force entitled "Independent Regulators." I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a full copy of that report, and of the Government's response to it.

    Unpaid Advisers
    Norman Baker: If he will take steps to increase the accountability of unpaid advisers working (a) within his Department and (b) across Government. [179604]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of
    Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): In its response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government agreed to amend the ministerial code to make it clear that Ministers are accountable for the management and discipline of their unpaid advisers. This amendment will be incorporated into the next version of the ministerial code.
    Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that, although the model contract for special advisers provides some tenuous accountability for them, paragraph 51 of the ministerial codes states that there is no contractual relationship between unpaid advisers and the Department involved? Does that not mean that there is therefore no accountability in respect of people such as Lord Birt and Lord Levy?
    Mr. Alexander: I simply do not accept that characterisation, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to my initial answer. We have accepted that the ministerial code needs to be amended, and the relevant precedent suggests that that should happen at the beginning of a

    1183
    new Parliament. The ninth report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life was published in April 2003, and the Government's response to it was published in September of that year. It may be of assistance if I share with the House the substance of that response. As I have said, the Government accepted the case for amending the next version of the ministerial code to make it clear that Ministers are personally accountable for the management and discipline of their unpaid advisers. Further, the code will make it clear that Ministers must provide a level of information about unpaid advisers
    1184
    similar to that provided for special advisers. That information will include numbers, names and details of particular expertise, if appropriate. Finally, the letter of appointment for unpaid advisers will be amended so that it includes the requirement to uphold the political impartiality of civil servants, and the requirement not to use official resources for party political activity.
    I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), but the Government have already gone a long way towards addressing it.

Bichard Inquiry Report
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Bichard inquiry report.
Last December, following Ian Huntley's conviction, I asked Sir Michael Bichard to conduct an inquiry into the events leading up to the murder of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells. I am publishing his report in full today. The families have shown great courage and dignity. We extend again today our most heartfelt sympathy to them.
I am grateful to Sir Michael for the speed and thoroughness of his inquiry. We have accepted his critique. In doing so, we must not forget that, as he states,
"Huntley alone was responsible for these most awful murders. None of the actions or failures of any of the witnesses or the institutions they represented led to the deaths of the girls."
Sir Michael's report uncovers serious failures in recording and managing information. These failures include local systems for recording, retaining and accessing data. They include national frameworks for inspection and information exchange, and the systems that underpin them.
As a consequence, the report is wide ranging in its recommendations. These apply to a range of public services and Government Departments. I am therefore responding on behalf of the Government as a whole.
We are, in principle, accepting Sir Michael's main recommendations and will act on them immediately.
It is the Government's task to ensure clear national standards as well as providing strong leadership. But other national bodies and local agencies also have a key role in strengthening the system.
Let me turn to the specific recommendations. Sir Michael recommends the introduction of a national intelligence system. Information collected should be shared and acted upon before an individual is employed in a sensitive post. Let me describe how this will operate. The police national computer is the cornerstone of police information systems, but its task is to register recorded crime. It holds basic information—for example, names and addresses of offenders. We are working with forces to improve the quality and timeliness of data. It is necessary for it to keep up with the growing and changing demands on the police service.
But the police national computer does not hold intelligence information—for example, where someone has been questioned in relation to repeated allegations of sexual assault. Until now, all 43 forces in England and Wales have operated individual systems for handling this kind of information. This should no longer be the case. As Sir Michael puts it, we cannot have a situation in which—and I quote—
"local accountability will be used to defend ineffective local systems when a national system would be more appropriate".
This report marks a watershed in how police forces and authorities will work together to procure the intelligence and information systems needed to do the job properly. No longer can the historical justification of
1186
operational independence take precedence over the imperative of being able to track and deal with offenders effectively.
We are therefore now introducing the first national police intelligence computer system—entitled "Impact". "Impact" will ensure that all forces use the same system to manage and share intelligence information. As an interim measure, we are bringing forward the nationwide introduction of the police local exchange—PLX. It will begin this autumn and be complete by next spring. It will provide an easily searchable index of all those on whom any police force holds information. Sir Michael commends this.
But systems are only as good as the information that they hold. In this case, because records were handled so badly and deleted, a national intelligence system could not have identified the concerns. Sir Michael therefore concludes that the police need clearer, more soundly based rules, for recording, retaining and reviewing, as well as deleting information.
Before the inquiry was established, the Data Protection Act 1998 was criticised as a contributory factor. While it is no doubt complex, it. embodies important principles. Sir Michael concludes that the loss of intelligence cannot be blamed on the Act. He does not believe that radical revisions are necessary. It is crucial that rules on managing information are clearly understood. I am therefore introducing, by the end of this year, a statutory code of practice on police information handling. All 43 forces will deal with intelligence information in the same way. This will be backed up by detailed operational guidance. Effective training, management and inspection will ensure that it is fully understood and consistently applied.
The code of practice will link closely to the police national intelligence model. This sets out how forces should collect and handle intelligence. It is already providing a more consistent structure. The code will ensure that all forces are required to make the most effective use of this structure. Those few forces still not operating this model must do so now.
But those recommendations apply substantially beyond policing. The report recommends that social services should routinely notify the police when a crime against a child is committed or suspected. Sir Michael concludes that that is not always the case. The social services database needs to hold details of all alleged sexual offenders involved with named children, and should be easily searchable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is working urgently on that. The Department will shortly receive a serious case review report from Sir Christopher Kelly on other specific lessons for social services.
Sir Michael has highlighted the importance of robust selection and recruitment. He has recommended that those recruiting staff in schools must be properly trained in safeguarding children. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Children have agreed that selection panels should contain at least one panel member properly trained in that work. Sir Michael also calls for stronger, more consistent vetting and a new system for registering those working with children and vulnerable adults. We will therefore urgently consider his recommendation that a register be created to bring together all the relevant information

1187
held on individuals in a way that is easily accessible. We need to consider how that fits with and enhances the service already provided by the Criminal Records Bureau. We will also need to make the link to proposals for identity cards.
Let me now turn to concerns about the two forces involved in this tragic incident. Sir Michael highlights deficiencies by Cambridgeshire on the checks into Ian Huntley's suitability. Sir Ronnie Flanagan's parallel report for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary into the investigation, which is being published today, also highlights concerns about processes and the actions of individuals. However, Ian Huntley is behind bars. Cambridgeshire acted effectively to achieve that. It also asked the Metropolitan police to review its procedures at the time of the investigation. Failings were neither systemic nor corporate. I should also add that mistakes have been fully acknowledged and actions have been taken to ensure they do not recur.
But much graver concerns are raised about the senior management of Humberside. There were, to quote the report, "very serious failings", some of which the chief constable only became aware of when hearing evidence to the inquiry. Sir Michael finds the lack of awareness of the scale of those failings over such a long period of time to be "deeply shocking". It is Sir Michael's view that the
"final responsibility for these serious failures rests with Chief Constable David Westwood".
It is difficult to disagree with that. Paragraph 2.94 could not be clearer. It says of Mr Westwood that
"he was chief constable from March 1999 and, as such, became ultimately responsible for information management and IT systems. The wide-ranging and systemic failures … existed in March 1999 and therefore predated him becoming Chief Constable. However, they were not identified and continued for a considerable period thereafter. Chief Constable Westwood must take personal responsibility for the continuation of those failures. From 1 September 1997, he had been Deputy Chief Constable, the second most senior officer on the force".
The role of any chief constable has to be one in which the public have confidence. In the face of serious criticism, it is my responsibility as Home Secretary to question whether people in Humberside can continue to have that confidence. Mindful of our duty of care, I asked Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, Sir Keith Povey, to discuss Sir Michael's findings with the chief constable yesterday. The strength of the report's criticism of him has led me to conclude that, using the powers available to me under the Police Act 1996, as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002, I should require Humberside police authority to suspend Mr. Westwood as chief constable forth with.
I have also invited the police authority to consider what steps it should take, having regard to its statutory duty under section 6 of the 1996 Act to maintain an efficient and effective force. I have asked it to report to me by 6 July. I also asked Sir Keith to ensure that the professional judgment of Her Majesty's inspectorate is available to the police authority. When I receive the authority's report I will decide whether to initiate the process that could lead to the retirement or resignation of the chief constable.
Finally, let me repeat my thanks to Sir Michael for his work. I believe he is right to suggest the discipline of reconvening his inquiry in six months.
1188
Mr. Speaker, we know that this must, once again, be a terrible time for the families of Jessica and Holly. We owe it to them to make substantial progress as rapidly as possible in ensuring that these failures are not repeated ever again. I commend Sir Michael's report to the House.
David Davis: I start by thanking the Home Secretary for giving me unusually early sight of the report and the statement. That is not just the normal courtesy we show on such occasions; his action reflects the fact that this is a question of public safety, and that will be recognised in my response.
I wholeheartedly endorse the Home Secretary's remarks about the dignity shown by the families of Holly and Jessica. I am sure that that is true for everybody in the House.
I welcome almost everything that the Home Secretary said today and I also welcome the report of Sir Michael Bichard. It is exhaustive and I agree with most of it. I consider his decision to reconvene in six months' time to review progress not just a good idea but something that should become standard practice for reports such as this in future.
The report makes it clear that Cambridgeshire criminal records bureau was so focused on the introduction of new systems that it failed to carry out crucial checks into Ian Huntley's background. We must ensure that such failures never happen again, and much that the Home Secretary said about that will do just that. However, Sir Michael says that even if Cambridgeshire had got it right, Ian Huntley's record would still have been missed because of other failures in the system, most notably in Humberside police.
In my view, there were two failures in Humberside policing. One relates to information technology, but the other relates to the handling of the Huntley case. Even before any weeding took place, Ian Huntley's record of behaviour should have led police to act. Consider the following: there was an allegation of unlawful sex with a 15-year-old in August 1995; there was an allegation of unlawful sex with another 15-year-old in May 1996; and there was an allegation of unlawful sex with a 13-year-old, also in May 1996. That was not an IT failure; it was a failure of policing.
Those offences were known at exactly the same time, before there was any opportunity for them to be weeded by Humberside police, so it is no wonder that PC Harding in his report, which is reproduced on page 52, in section 1.229 of the Bichard report, said:
"It is quite clear that Huntley is a serial sex attacker and is at liberty to continue his activities."
Sir Michael says that no one thing could have prevented what happened. In fact, if the police had acted on that sequence of events, Ian Huntley would presumably have been locked up. Incidentally, that failure preceded the current chief constable's arrival in post. His failures relate to the failures of the IT system and the consequences that flow from that. In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has, in effect, today initiated a quasi-judicial process under the Police Reform Act 2002 in respect of David Westwood, which I do not wish to prejudice, I shall say no more today about his direct role.

1189
The report states that social services should report incidents of sex with minors to the police. I agree. However, the report also says that there are "exceptional circumstances" when the police should not be notified. What exactly are those exceptional circumstances? When an adult is engaged in a sexual relationship with a child, I believe that there are no circumstances where the police should not be informed. We now know that, in 1995, social services knew of an allegation that Huntley was having sex with a 15-year-old girl, but apparently—it is not entirely clear—chose not to inform the police. That was at exactly the same time as the cases that I cited a moment ago. The social services were not, and could not be, in possession of all the facts relating to public safety. Therefore, they should not make that decision. So will the Home Secretary review that specific aspect and consider the option of making the requirement to notify the police of such offences absolute?
Much of the report focuses properly on the failure of information handling, primarily by Humberside police but also by the Cambridge criminal records bureau, and generic failures by the Police Information Technology Organisation, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and the Home Office. The report properly criticises Humberside police's IT practices, and it criticises the lack of a national police IT system. It calls for the introduction of such a system as soon as possible. It does not say whether the problems of Humberside are replicated in other forces, although I suspect that they may be. Neither does the report deal with a problem that we all know about: Whitehall in general and the Home Office in particular have a very poor track record of implementing computer systems.
I welcome the Home Secretary's comments on the police local exchange system—the PLX system. I also welcome his announcement about the police national computer system—the so-called Impact system—but
may I make two suggestions? First, will he commission Sir Michael Bichard in the next six months to review all the IT systems in the 43 forces, to establish the extent of the problem? Secondly, to minimise the risk of another computer disaster, will the forces use either the best practice that he identifies, or the already operational Scottish system, as the basis for the new national system?
The failure to implement a system should have been identified much sooner. Sir Michael Bichard states in his report:
"HMIC could and should have been more proactive. Information systems are of obvious importance to policing, and they could have been inspected effectively with relative ease."
Has the Home Secretary any proposal to reform or improve the capability of Her Majesty's inspectorate in that respect?
Sir Michael recommends a registration system for all those working with children. Will the Home Secretary tell us whether such a system would apply to people who work in charities and voluntary groups—volunteers, rather than employees—because they often add great value and enjoyment to children's lives? Although child protection is clearly paramount, there is a balance of justice to be established. A series of false allegations can
1190
effectively destroy a career, as was recently the case with a teacher, ironically, in Humberside—the Jonathan Dunning-Davies case that I have discussed privately with the Home Secretary before.
Sir Michael envisages an
"appeal process for applicants who were refused registration."
Sir Michael is absolutely right, but how does the Home Secretary believe that the appeals system would work? Would people know who is making the allegation against them, and if not, how could it be challenged? Who would decide what information is held on record, and how could that be challenged? Would the process be judicial? I recognise that those are difficult issues, but they need to be addressed. The Home Secretary, I know, recognises the burden that would be placed on the police. Humberside police, to take the example that we are dealing with, will process 50,000 information requests this year. That implies about 2 million for England and Wales How does he intend to progress that issue?
I also welcome tho Home Secretary's proposals for a code on the Data Protection Act 1998. Of course, the Bichard report properly dismissed the Humberside policy authority's excuses in that respect, but this is not the only case of serious misunderstandings with that Act, so I welcome his review and the writing of a statutory code.
It is not just Humberside and Cambridgeshire police who should read the report today. Every police force and social services department in the country should read and learn the lessons of the report because, if we fail, it will be a catastrophe measured in human tragedies.
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the shadow Home Secretary's measured tones and approach, which are appropriate on this occasion, and in reciprocation, I wish to share with him and the Liberal Democrats the opportunity to get such aspects right in the months ahead. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that it was not simply that an information system went wrong, but that a recording did not take place so a record was not available. It was inevitable that such a failure would lead to critical information being missed. I take the point entirely in relation to the information that the right hon. Gentleman gave me earlier today about a local case, which I shall come to in a minute.
Regrettably, the system of "weeding out", as it is described in Sir Michael's report, is almost a bizarre experience in Humberside. I draw hon. Members'
attention—if they are prepared to look through the report—to paragraph 2.58, which describes a system in Humberside that was so dysfunctional that there was no clarity whatsoever in what was meant by the words "delete", "weed" or eliminate", or in the way in which officers were to go about their business of deciding what should be held or deleted from the system.
Of course, that led to the situation, which the right hon. Gentleman described, whereby incidents in which Ian Huntley was involved with young girls before those tragic events were missed time after time. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the examples that he gave predated David Westwood's appointment as either deputy or subsequently chief constable. Regrettably,

1191
there were 11 incidents in total. Nine of them were of a sexual nature and all of them related to incidents—some in a very short time, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—that should clearly have been picked up by those involved, as well as by the systems, which were clearly inadequate or not in place.
Obviously, it is absolutely crucial that we learn the lessons. The right hon. Gentleman asked me what was meant by the phrase "exceptional cases", where automatic referral by social services or other agencies to the police would not take place. Clearly, those incidents would not have been exceptional, so the kind of incident that Huntley was involved in while in Humberside should have been, and must be in any future circumstance, referred to the police and the information held properly, not deleted.
The exceptions that Michael Bichard was referring to take us back to the sex offenders and sex offences legislation, when we had a delicate debate about how to deal with those around the age of 15 and 16 who are experimenting with their sexuality and, as we retained the law as it was, how to implement it sensitively and not be run ragged by those organisations that wanted us to change it dramatically. So we are back to the use of common sense.
Regrettably—I think the right hon. Gentleman referred to this, and we are mindful of it—if common sense had prevailed, of course, we would not be here this afternoon discussing the report. Common sense would have led people to understand the relationship between one act and another, and to put two and two together. So those incidents were not exceptions and there can be no absolute guarantee of anything. but we can pick up the lessons in the report and use them effectively.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the new systems. He is right to say that the Government do not have a good record on the implementation of national information technology. That is partly why there was such a reluctance to get engaged at an earlier stage and to implement the national intelligence model before putting the national computer in place. That decision was taken by a board consisting of the three partners—the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and the Gevernment—back in 2000.
At the time of the White paper in 2001, I allocated £11 million to the initial establishment of such a system, again under the old tripartite
approach, operated and led not by the Home Office, but by the services themselves. We have now taken responsibility, which, as I said, we need to do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who was in the Home Office, will recall the necessity of sometimes knocking heads together. When 43 forces operate entirely different information technology systems, in a world that demands something very different, there must be a national system.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me two specific questions, one of which was on the follow-through and whether Sir Michael Bichard should be engaged to do that job. I have spoken to Sir Michael. Other than reviewing what he has done, he is not keen to get engaged in being the arbiter on, or even the arm for, implementation. The right hon. Gentleman also asked the sensible question about what will happen if Sir
1192
Michael does not want that job. It will, of course, be the job of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, and we need to work with Sir Keith Povey to ensure that it can draw on and use outside expertise in the assessment and review of information technology systems at a local level, where the inspectors—understandably in terms of their histories—might not have access to that expertise themselves. We also need to learn from Scotland, which, with two very large police forces and six very small ones, managed to get its act together simultaneously with the introduction of the national intelligence model. There is much to learn from that, which we should do.
Registration systems are a difficult matter. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Minister for Children will look at the recommendation of enhanced disclosure for all staff working in schools and similar educational establishments. We are extremely sympathetic to achieving that. There is, however, a danger, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, of wrongdoings as a result of accusations that are made against people.
Although we will examine a non-bureaucratic light-touch way of providing an appeal, we must also exercise judgment on how people are dealt with in those circumstances. I am reluctant to have a system in which people have to register in advance of any thought of taking a job in order simply to work with children. When they do work with children, whether they are employed or volunteers in the voluntary and community sector, they have to be checked out through the Criminal Records Bureau. The question that arises again is whether it should be a normal or enhanced disclosure.
Let me confirm the right hon. Gentleman's sensible conclusion to his contribution. The report is not for Humberside and Cambridgeshire forces alone; it goes right across the board for services dealing with children at local and national levels, for the Government and local government, and for the police and social services. Above all, it is to be taken seriously and implemented by all of us who care about ensuring that never again will we have to stand here dealing with the tragic death of a Jessica or a Holly.
Mr. Mark Oaten: I am sure that the whole House will feel let down by the series of mistakes involved in the case. Although the report does not blame any individual for what happened, there will remain for ever a doubt that perhaps something could have been done to avoid the tragic death of those two young girls.
I thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement and warmly welcome his speedy response to the Bichard recommendations. However, he needs to explain in more detail why the Government abandoned plans to create a national database, which was, after all, recommended 10 years ago. He now plans to establish that database. Will he set out the time scale involved in putting in place the Impact system? Will he also explain what role he sees for the Criminal Records Bureau in the future? Does he share my concern that, with improved police data, the Criminal Records Bureau could become the weak link in the system? Does he have plans to review the Criminal Records Bureau or, indeed, replace it with a new system?
Sir Michael talks about new systems for registering those working with children—perhaps making them carry a card with biometric details on it. Does the Home

1193
Secretary support that? If so, how would it work? Does he share my concern that that would mean schools, scout clubs and church groups having to buy expensive equipment to read those cards? Finally, will he confirm whether he or the police authority has the final decision on the future of the chief constable for Humberside?
Mr. Blunkett: I was not entirely sure from the hon. Gentleman's opening gambit whether he accepts, as we have, the overall thrust of the Bichard inquiry. However, I accept the tone in which he delivered his questions.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the initial proposal for the national intelligence system was abandoned. Plans were considered by the board, which was part of the tripartite approach that I described, in 2000. The decision was taken in relation to implementation of the national intelligence model, to be followed by the technology and the development of the system to ensure that once that was in place, it could be implemented. As I said, the decision was taken in Scotland to do the two things simultaneously. That is much easier in Scotland, with a population of 5 million, than in England and Wales, but nevertheless doing the two things together must have been a fine decision.
I have been careful not to open up any party political issues in the statement, and I shall continue to take that line. However, people must reflect on the pressure that Governments of all persuasions have been under, and central Governments have not—although Oppositions tend to take a contrary view of this—interfered with, or changed the balance of, the tripartite approach and, therefore, the decentralised autonomy and operational responsibility of police services across the country. At the time, the decisions lay with a non-professional ACPO leadership, which now has a full-time presidency. As a result of the decisions on local autonomy, the mechanisms did not exist for ACPO or the Home Office to go ahead.
I am spelling this out as gently as I can. In terms of what has been demanded of me since I have been Home Secretary, I have not got into—although I could easily do so—the issue of leaving the police service alone to develop the sharing of information and their IT capacity. I have spelt out that we accept that there will have to be a sea change in terms of leading that change, while working with ACPO, police authorities and local forces.
On Impact, we think that it may well take two years to get the system up and running. We intend to build on the police local exchange system, which will be in place by next spring, to do that. It will provide access to information held across the forces. We do not believe, and nor does Sir Michael, either in his report or in his press conference at 12 noon today, that the Criminal Records Bureau is at fault. He believes that with enhanced disclosures and the disclosure of information currently not available to the Criminal Records Bureau, the system will work better.
In my response to the shadow Home Secretary, I referred to disclosure—namely, what is it about someone's behaviour that constitutes that information being held and exposed to other people? We need to
1194
reflect on that, in terms not of rejecting the proposal, but of getting the balance right. I am often criticised for doing the opposite. so today I am being cautious about protecting individuals from wrongful accusation or from information being exchanged which has no basis in fact. Four million disclosures have been dealt with by the Criminal Records Bureau, which is now working effectively. I want to ensure that we do not disrupt it and make matters worse. Of course, it did not exist at the time, and even if it had it could not have helped, given that the information was not held and was so badly handled—that includes the issue of whether Cambridgeshire made the appropriate approaches to Humberside—that it would have made no difference.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the card, which we are going to investigate. We share the concern that there should not be a massive bureaucracy. It will obviously be easier to deal with the matter if biometric ID cards are introduced and a database is available, but we want to discuss how that would work in the House and in Committee when we introduce substantive legislation. Again, people will want to test our proposals and make sure that action is proportionate. Overall, I hope that we can all work together to make sure that the sensible suggestions that have been made can be implemented as speedily as possible.
Shona Mclsaac: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the sense of disbelief in Ian Huntley's former hunting grounds of Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Immingham, when his past was revealed after his
conviction? I am sorry to say that that has left public confidence in Humberside police at rock bottom. Given that the record that described Ian Huntley as a serial sex attacker was deleted, does my right hon. Friend share Chief Constable Westwood's view, as expressed on 17 December, that that had to be done for data protection purposes, or does he believe that it was because of the wide-ranging and systemic failures detailed in this shocking report?
Mr. Blunkett: I am sure that my hon. Friend and other Members representing the area covered by the Humberside force, including the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), will share my determination to restore and enhance the force's credibility and people's confidence in its efficiency and effectiveness. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I will be cautious in what I say because of the process agreed by the House, which was affirmed in a protocol of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and because of the national negotiating machinery that came into force on 1 June this year to deal with these cases fairly. All that I can say is that Sir Michael's report—we share his view—demonstrates absolutely that the Data Protection Act 1998 was not responsible for the deletion or for the failures. It was unfortunate, to say the least, that six months ago. the chief constable sought to demonstrate that it was.
Mr. James Paice: May I thank the Home Secretary very much indeed for allowing me to see the report a day early, thus enabling me to read it carefully? I add my thanks to Sir Michael Bichard for his robust report, which details, as the Home Secretary said, a catalogue of shortcomings

1195
by many individuals, forces and agencies involved in the case. The report will obviously be read in my constituency with great concern and care, and there will be close examination of the proposals is for change.
In particular, the report lists the failures of the IT systems used by the police and the failure to develop and integrate them. I therefore strongly welcome the Home Secretary's commitment to a PLX system, the code of practice and the future development of the Impact system. For my constituents in Soham, nothing can undo the tragedy that befell us While there will undoubtedly be demands for calls for retribution or scapegoats, the overriding desire is to know how that evil man could walk the streets of Soham, and to ensure that such things never happen again. Although there were a few failings by the school and by Cambridgeshire police, it is clear that when Huntley applied for the job at the school, the die was already cast. His records had gone and, most staggering of all he had not been prosecuted, despite, as we have heard, being described by the police as a serial sex attacker. Pages 89 to 92 of the report describe an astonishing sequence of events from which Huntley appeared to escape unscathed. My constituents and, I believe, the whole country will be horrified to learn that so many offences could take place almost simultaneously without the police and social services being able to co-ordinate their activities and protect the public from such a man.
What action is the Home Secretary taking to look not just at those specific failings, but at the way in which sex offences are prosecuted? In particular, Sir Michael makes some trenchant comments about prosecutions where there is an admission of under-age sex by the perpetrator, even if the victim does not wish to pursue the matter in court. Can the Home Secretary say something more about Sir Ronnie Flanagan's review of the investigation of the offence by Cambridgeshire police? He said that the report has been published, but is that the whole report? Does he accept that unless my constituents are fully informed, sadly, the speculation about the conduct of the investigation will continue? When does he expect the Kelly report into social services to be published, and will the relevant Secretary of State make a statement?
As the Member of Parliament for Soham, I very much hope that this is the last occasion when this dreadful crime not only comes before this House but is the subject of more media coverage. While the names of Holly and Jessica will live on in Soham's history, my constituents, including, I believe, the families, never want to hear the names of Huntley and Carr again. May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your personal concern and interest in my constituents' welfare during this awful case?
Mr. Blunkett: I think that everyone in the House shares entirely the sentiments and emotions that the hon. Gentleman just described, and I thank him for the way in which he has liaised with the families, making it possible for us to work with them and keep them informed to ensure that they knew what was happening and when. While that did not bring comfort, at least it ensured that they had confidence that we were acting properly.
Sir Christopher Kelly has been encouraged to publish his report as quickly as possible. It is important in my view, and that of the Secretary of State for Health and
1196
the Minister for Children, that we have that report so that we can act on its recommendations in tandem with our work on the Bichard report. The hon. Gentleman asked about Ronnie Flanagan's report, which I am publishing today. It deals with the way in which the initial days were handled, including whether the force should have presumed immediately that it was dealing with an abduction and potential murder rather than missing children, but it also commends the force, when it recognised the enormity of events, on the speed and effectiveness of its action. Again, I concur entirely with the hon. Gentleman in accepting that people in the locality will want to know that Sir Ronnie's recommendations or observations are introduced urgently and implemented.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: May I welcome the speedy action by my right hon. Friend, particularly the measures that he announced today, which will reassure many people? I emphasise the importance of his comments on a statutory code on intelligence, and about the PLX and Impact systems, all of which are most welcome. However, it is not enough just to dump everything on Chief Constable Westwood, because the report highlights failings in my right hon. Friend's Department. It says, first, that Her Majesty's inspectors failed to identify the computer mess in Humberside, make recommendations, or do anything about the problem until 2003. Secondly, the Home Office failed to set rules and conditions, or to provide a national code of practice on intelligence services, including what was to be added, deleted and so on from records, which was partly responsible for the confusion in Humberside. Thirdly, our national computer system was inadequate, so that forces were unable to access records held by other forces, and the system could not even flag up the fact that information was held by other forces. Those, too, are failings. I hope that they will be investigated with the same thoroughness and that my right hon. Friend can tell us why our police are so much less adequate in respect of national computer records than the police in Scotland.
Mr. Blunkett: I do not demur in any way from the view that responsibility for getting matters right rests across the board. I am seeking not to dump on anyone. I am using powers laid out in the Police Act 1996 and the Police Reform Act 2002 commensurate with the protocol that came into force on 1 June and was agreed with chief constables. If ever there were a case, after a thoroughgoing report and given the language used by Sir Michael Bichard, for the implementation of that protocol, it is now. The authority itself and the subsequent representations of Chief Constable Westwood will be part of that process.
I fully accept that there should have been codes of practice and intervention earlier. That is why, as my hon. Friend will remember, the 2002 Act provided for regulation, codes and directions, which were not available previously. It is also why we set up the national centre for policing excellence, and why I indicated today that the tripartite approach and decentralised autonomy are not acceptable in the context of national information exchange. I have already explained why, in Scotland, the chief constables decided to go ahead

1197
simultaneously with their national intelligence model and their computer system, whereas in England those taking part in the decision making chose to do the first, and then to follow with the second.
From 2001, when I allocated the £11 million, and from 2003, when we issued the code, and following the steps that we have taken to develop the PLX and the Impact systems, the new £500 million Airwave communication system and the new national database for DNA, and the investment that we have put into the Criminal Records Bureau over the past three years, we have invested more than ever before. That, complemented by the £600 million that we allocated from 2002 to the whole criminal justice information technology system to join up, as Sir Michael recommends, the courts with the policing and social services systems, is something of which I shall be proud.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I inform the House that I allowed the constituency Member of Parliament to ask several supplementaries for good reason, but from now I expect only one supplementary to be put to the Home Secretary.
Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con): Does the Home Secretary accept that there is a gap in the existing legislation, in that people coming from abroad to work in schools are not subject to CRB checks? Does he agree that it seems unfair that whereas people of many years' standing in this country cannot take up a position in a school until they have been checked by the CRB, someone coming from abroad about whom we know nothing can start on day one? In the interests of child protection, should not the same checking criteria apply to everybody?
Mr. Blunkett: There is a checking system, including through the agencies and bodies from which the recommendation came. It applies primarily to supply teachers and to the recruitment of teachers on a temporary basis from overseas, but it could apply to others. I accept, and Sir Michael makes the point, that we need to be more thorough in carrying out checks. That challenge has been accepted more generally and it will be possible to meet it by means of the ID card database, where we will have to do a check back as part of the process of checking an individual's true identity. We will therefore be more easily able to check with the police forces and authorities in the country of origin.
Ms Debra Shipley (Stourbridge) (Lab): I very much welcome the report, which is extremely important, and my right hon. Friend's response to it. It is ludicrous that the police have not been automatically required to share information across forces. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that they do not want such a failing to occur ever again, but in my view it will happen again. Since my Protection of Children Act 1999, I have repeatedly drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety, who are present, the need for the retrospective checking of people who are in position. Prior to the establishment
1198
of the Criminal Records Bureau, many of them were not required to be checked. They remain in position and some are known paedophiles. There is a vital need for retrospective checking to take place. It needs to be phased in so that it does not overwhelm the system, but it must happen. The responses that I have received so far from Ministers and the Secretary of State suggest to me that it is not in the Government's programme to do so.
Mr. Blunkett: Sir Michael touches on that. I commend my hon. Friend on her tenacity and commitment to that important cause. First, whenever someone changes job, checks are automatically undertaken for the new employer. Secondly—Sir Michael touches on this—we need to consider introducing a review process for those who have not been checked but are working with children. I merely ask—this is not ducking the issue—for time to do that, if we are not to dislocate once again the system for the thoroughgoing checks that are currently being made on anyone who applies for the first time to work with, be with or volunteer to take part in activities alongside children, so that what it is feasible to implement is balanced against the necessity to provide protection through a checking process on a national basis, with the thoroughness that did not exist three years ago.
Mr. Keith Simpson: The Home Secretary outlined and acknowledged the failures in the Cambridgeshire police and the Humberside police relating both to systems and to policing, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) also emphasised. May I pick up on one point that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made? Going back several years, those police forces were inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. Did HMIC at any time flag up those weaknesses to the Home Office? If so, what action was taken, and if not, why not?
Mr. Blunkett: I have already acknowledged that that is a fair and sensible point, and it is one that Sir Michael makes with regard to HMIC's capability and the thoroughness of its activity in this area. The shadow Home Secretary made the point succinctly, and I have accepted that HMIC must raise its game in this area and needs expertise to do the job. It had certainly reported on the Humberside and Cambridgeshire forces, because regrettably we know where those forces have lain in all other national assessments, including, in the case of Humberside, the recent baseline assessment. What was not clearly emphasised and therefore not appreciated was the enormity of the failure of information systems. That is something that I want to put right.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the report from Sir Michael Bichard. This appalling murder case uncovered weaknesses in some parts of the system and in some police forces. I know that Cambridgeshire police will take the recommendations very seriously and will already have considered the implications. Despite the fact that a national database will be in place, will my

1199
right hon. Friend issue a statement to all police forces asking them to review urgently their current procedures for storing and retrieving information?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, the code that we are issuing under the Police Reform Act 2002 will do precisely that. The inspection process will be critical in making sure that it happens.
Mr. Andrew Turner: In the Home Secretary's very welcome statement, he referred to the need for social services databases to hold details of all alleged sexual offenders involved with named children. Does he realise the particular vulnerability of those who work with children on a day-to-day professional basis—I am speaking, of course, of schoolteachers—to unjust and unfounded allegations? In the very delicate balance of risk that he has to strike, will he take care to ensure that teachers in particular are protected from unjustified allegations destroying their careers and, in some cases, their lives?
Mr. Blunkett: I accept entirely that it is a very delicate and sensitive balance, which is why we have not rushed in today and made any bombastic statements or indications of unprecedented action. We need to try to get this right, reflecting on what Sir Michael rightly indicates is a mismatch between the holding of convictions and the holding of information, which, taken together, would have led to a conviction in the case of Ian Huntley. We need to do so precisely for the reasons enunciated—there are people who become vulnerable to unwarranted accusations that can destroy their professional well-being and livelihood. With regard to the teaching profession, my right hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Skills are examining how we can ensure a faster process of dealing with such allegations in order to meet the challenge of investigating them thoroughly, but not destroying the lives of those who are accused of taking the actions.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: For four years before entering this House, I had the great honour of being the chairman of the Humberside police authority. I saw at first hand the great skill and professionalism of the serving officers, who will be devastated by the report, which comes on the back of a recent poor performance assessment. There is no point in denying what is in front of us. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will work as quickly as possible with the Humberside police authority to resolve these management issues and let Humberside police rebuild their reputation as a modern, efficient force, as the people of Humberside will wish and as the actions of a great majority of their serving officers deserve?
Mr. Blunkett: I appreciate my hon. Friend's experience and knowledge. I have made it clear through my officials to the chairman of the police authority, Colin Inglis, that we are prepared, and that the inspectorate and outside services will be drawn on, to give whatever help and support are needed to the deputy who will be acting chief constable for the weeks ahead, and to the police authority. I appeal to them to take up that help. In the end, the service that is provided to the people of Humberside is the sole concern of the police
1200
authority and those who work for the service. Confidence in the effectiveness and efficiency of that service is paramount in all our minds.
Mr. Andrew Miller: In 1997, my right hon. Friend's Department undertook widespread consultation before the introduction of the Data Protection Act 1998, which Sir Michael said does not need radical revision. Will my right hon. Friend consider undertaking the same process in developing the code of practice? I think that there is widespread expertise out there and in the House that will aid in getting that right and in ensuring that improvements occur across the board.
Mr. Blunkett: I am very happy to draw on expertise and experience in terms of the code. It would be right to do so. The difficulty that we have—we should be honest about it—is that we swing like a pendulum from one extreme to the other. A terrible incident occurs and people want to ensure that the maximum information is shared and is available. The next moment, there is real fear of intrusion into people's lives and danger of damaging the privacy of individuals and risking their exposure. Getting this right means having a code of practice that, in the cold of light of day, balances those two opposites.
Vera Baird: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speedy action in appointing Sir Michael and on his firm decision taking on receipt of the report. However, it is no wonder that the conviction rate for serious sexual offences is only 5.7 per cent. of complaints, as is clear when one looks at the catalogue of sexual complaints made by young women against the same person which are not investigated and prosecuted to court by this one police force to which we have been referring. Steps have been taken since the nineties that should make the investigation of sexual offences better, but will my right hon. Friend ask the police inspectorate to look most carefully into and report on the way in which those incidents were investigated, so that we may be sure that we learn the lessons of all the Soham-related failures?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. and learned Friend raises much wider issues. In the case of Ian Huntley, the incidents were reported. As the shadow Home Secretary indicated, they were known about, but they were not collated, no relationships were established and they were not held on the database and therefore not drawn on and acted on. I agree entirely that there needs to be a system, as the report recommends, that joins up not only what is found by social services, but what is referred by other agencies or individuals, and that deals with how that information is collated and held; in which circumstances it is deleted; and, above all, how one incident can be put together with another to build up a case and a picture of behaviour that allows us to intervene to save others from being sexually molested. That is what went so sadly amiss in the Huntley case.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, owing to recent police and criminal evidence legislation, both the Crown Prosecution Service and the police can now, in certain circumstances,

1201
accept hearsay evidence from parents regarding under-age sex? This is playing an important part in my constituency as far as Operation Parsonage is concerned. If the legislation had been in place earlier, it might have helped the police in relation to Huntley.
Mr. Blunkett: The Criminal Justice Act 2003 permits the use of such evidence in circumstances in which the young person themselves, while having given details and evidence, is not prepared to do so in court. That measure will be of assistance if it is sensitively applied, with the checks that Parliament rightly built in on the use of such evidence, including in writing.
Helen Jones: I welcome the speedy action that my right hon. Friend has taken following the publication of the report, and especially what he has said about the need for someone on each interviewing panel to be trained in the protection of children, since there would be no use in having the best system in the world if those on the ground were not trained to operate it. From his discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, can he tell the House how quickly he thinks such a system of training can be put in place? Does he envisage joint training for those in education, social services and the police so that everyone is working to the same agenda and on the same priorities?
Mr. Blunkett: The Minister for Children is determined to move as quickly as possible, but we have to bear it in mind that in preparing lead governors in 24,000 schools, with the necessary consultation with all the elements of the education service and training providers, will take a little while. We need to find a way of identifying those at a local level who are available and will be in a position to provide such light-touch training very quickly, so that we can draw on the expertise that exists. My right hon. Friends will be examining that matter. The last thing that we want is to set up some tremendous bureaucratic system that would take years to implement and would probably be out of date by the time people accessed it.

Food in Schools
1.39 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require all schools in England to have a food policy; to provide support for schools in drawing up, implementing and developing food policies; to make permanent the scheme for free fruit in schools and to extend it; to extend entitlement to free school meals, including to breakfasts; to amend the law relating to the nutritional values of school meals; and for connected purposes.
I expect that, before the mass production of motor cars and television sets, most people took regular exercise, and those who could afford to do so enjoyed a balanced diet. Today, cars and TV, whatever their benefits, play their part in stoking up obesity on a scale that has not been seen before. According to news reports, the Health Committee, the Consumers Association and the chief medical officer, we are witnessing a mass outbreak of obesity.
Populating our streets with overweight individuals is not only an aesthetic disaster; obesity is a major risk factor for serious, life-threatening conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. Individuals will die younger and society will pay more for the extra demands on our national health service. The antidote to that threat, which the CMO has described as a "health time bomb", remains the same prescription as before—regular exercise and a balanced diet.
My Bill focuses on diet. If we can instil healthy eating habits in young people while they are young, there is a good chance that those good habits will stay with them for life. Better still, if schools involve their students' parents in the enterprise, schools and parents in partnership will mutually reinforce the same messages on diet.
Many positive initiatives have been taken in schools in recent years. Labour has reintroduced compulsory nutritional standards for school lunches—a previous Government abolished such standards in 1980. All pupils aged five, six and seven now get free fruit in school, a wonderful development that makes fruit a popular choice among children. The Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health have worked together on trialling a new national healthy schools standard. I want to go further, not towards a nanny state where the Government know best and tell people what they can and cannot eat, but towards empowering people to make the right choices for themselves. For that, we all need relevant information and the understanding to make our own judgments.
My Bill has five components. First, every school should have a food policy. For example, I want schools to decide the extent of formal teaching about balanced diets and safe levels of salt, fat and sugar. I should like students to learn from their experiences that a healthy diet can be fun. Food consumed in schools includes school lunches, the contents of lunchboxes brought from home and commercial products purchased from vending machines—schools should examine the contents of those vending machines. Some products are fine, but others are junk food and fizzy drinks. School governors should decide whether the extra income for the school is worth the possible harm to our children's

1203
health. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) is taking on the related issue of food and drink advertising that aims a hard sell at our children.
Children should be equipped with basic food skills, so that they can prepare healthy, safe meals, know how food is produced and marketed, and understand what labels mean. I saw a good example of a whole-school approach to learning about food at Silkmore primary school in Stafford, which held a week of lessons and activities on the theme of food. Students themselves think that those matters are important. When I met the members of the school council at Stafford's Weston Road high school last Friday, they told me, unprompted, of their plan to reduce sales outlets for fizzy drinks and increase access to drinking water.
Of course, school communities including unpaid school governors, are already very busy, and I do not want to add new burdens. My second provision is that the Government and local education authorities must support schools in developing food policies and making them effective. I discussed that point with Melanie Swanwick, the head of Staffordshire's successful school meals service. She has sufficient confidence in the quality of meals in Staffordshire's schools to suggest that Ofsted inspections should extend to schools food policies. That is why I asked at the last Education Question Time for Ofsted to be involved in policing minimum nutritional standards set by the Government.
My third proposal concerns the entitlement to free school meals. According to the Local Authority Caterers Association, school meals are big business. In England alone, 3.25 million meals are served to pupils every day, 100,000 people are employed in the industry, and total expenditure by parents and LEAs is nearly £1 billion a year. In secondary schools in England, one in seven pupils is eligible for free school meals, but one quarter of those pupils do not receive their entitlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) made constructive suggestions to improve that situation in her Adjournment debate on 4 February 2004.
My suggestion in this Bill is to extend the eligibility for free school lunches to include free school breakfasts. Just less than half of secondary schools now offer school breakfasts, and I argue that it is equitable that the existing free school meals scheme should cover school breakfasts in the same way in which it covers school lunches. In Hull, the LEA plans to pilot a scheme to offer all primary school pupils free school lunches in an effort to link education and health. That experiment is interesting, and the future evaluation of its effects on health and learning should be studied closely.
My fourth idea highlights the success of the free fruit scheme for all five, six and seven-year-old pupils, which is already popular in primary schools. Last Friday, I visited St. Patrick's Roman Catholic primary school in Stafford, where the school meals staff told me that the scheme is changing attitudes, because pupils
1204
increasingly choose fresh fruit and raw vegetables with their school lunches. The current scheme excludes LEAs' stand-alone nurseries, and I would rectify that omission.
My fifth and final proposal is to raise the nutritional standards of school meals. The Government have restored minimum nutritional standards, but many children's meals still read like fast food menus and include few fruits and vegetables. Children should have a choice of healthy meals in an environment that makes healthy choices enjoyable. We should adopt the nutrient-based standards, which experts still recommend, in the 1999 Education and Employment Committee report. I also hope that a greater emphasis on fresh foods will benefit local farmers, who can best supply freshness while keeping food miles low.
My Bill is well timed. Last month, the Government closed their consultation, "Choosing Health?", on action to improve people's health. As part of that consultation, the public were asked what key actions are needed to help people maintain a healthy weight. What better place to start than in schools? Let us educate young people about food quality, a balanced diet and health consequences. We must act to get young people into the habit of eating a balanced diet and finding out that it is enjoyable. Through schools, we can also engage pupils' parents in that aspect of their children's education. By doing so, we may encourage more families to reinforce at home the positive messages given in school.
Shakespeare scholars may recall Julius Caesar's line:
"Let me have men about me that are fat".
Today, I call for the opposite: with apologies to the Bard's fans for my poor imitation of his prose, let me have people about me whose bellies hang not over their waistbands; exercise and balanced diet will keep them more years from grim reaper's hands. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kidney, Mrs. Janet Dean, Ms Julia Drown, Dr. Ian Gibson, Helen Jones, Mr. Stephen McCabe, Laura Moffatt, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Linda Perham, Bob Russell, Ms Joan Walley and David Wright.

FOOD IN SCHOOLS
Mr. Kidney accordingly presented a Bill to require all schools in England to have a food policy; to provide support for schools in drawing up, implementing and developing food policies; to make permanent the scheme for free fruit in schools and to extend it; to extend entitlement to free school meals, including to breakfasts; to amend the law relating to the nutritional values of school meals; and for connected purpose: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 July, and to be printed [Bill 122].
Opposition Day
[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Electoral System
  [Relevant document: The Seventh Report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 400-I, on Postal Voting.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the first debate on an Opposition motion. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. There will be a 12-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers.
  1.49 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the constitutional importance of the forthcoming referendums on the Government's proposed regional assemblies; expresses grave concern at the threat to the integrity of the British electoral system through the Government's ill-conceived widespread extension of exclusively all-postal voting in the recent elections against the advice of the Electoral Commission and in the face of opposition from across the political spectrum; notes the public concern over reported instances of fraud, corruption and electoral malpractice; believes that the fragmentation of voting systems and methods under this Government is confusing and off-putting to the electorate; expresses concern that the integrity of the electoral roll is becoming undermined; and calls on the Government to restore a person's right to vote in a secret ballot at a polling station should they so choose.
  All hon. Members have confidence in the process whereby we have arrived here. I hope that we all appreciate and believe that faith in any system of election is essential for the proper working of democracy. Conservative Members feel ever more strongly that the process whereby representatives in this country are being chosen is becoming contaminated by excessive upheaval, irresponsible experimentation and tinkering for its own sake.
  Government by upheaval is the hallmark of new Labour's approach to almost every aspect of constitutional change. The Government invariably end up making a mess of things, wishing they had never started but not being prepared to admit that they have made a complete Horlicks of it. A system that, until recently, enjoyed the unquestioning trust of all its participants, be they voters or candidates, has become open to abuse and unfathomably complicated and has lost the universal trust of those that it serves. The debate that we must hold is neither party political nor trivial. It addresses a fundamental challenge to the legitimacy on which the structure of government at all levels relies.
  In the election 12 days ago, all-postal voting, which was forced on people, attracted widespread disdain and derision. Far from being a long-term solution to democratic participation, it has sown additional seeds of political disaffection among the electorate.
  David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the depth of
  1206
  disdain and derision was so shallow in the east midlands that turnout in the European elections doubled relative to those in 1999? How does he account for that?
  Mr. Duncan: Thy hon. Gentleman should go back to school and study statistics because there is no point in comparisons unless one compares like with like. The experiment in all-postal voting has become a thoroughly counter-productive exercise, which, in the long-term, will be a cause of political alienation, not a solution to it.
  I am well aware of the Government's opinion of the merits of increased turnout, but turnout is the altar at which they worship to the apparent exclusion of any other standard of measuring a voting system's effectiveness. Falling turnout is but one factor in a more deeply rooted trend away from mainstream political involvement, but the Government have resorted to a simplistic approach to a complicated issue.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does my hon. Friend know that more than 1 million people in this country claim to have two addresses and that the Government showed in a written answer to me that they have no idea of the number of people who are registered in more than one place? I suspect that almost all Members of Parliament are registered in London and in their constituencies. Postal voting greatly exacerbates a small problem. What am I to do with the two extra ballot papers that I am holding? I got postal votes in London and the east midlands and I could easily have voted in both places because there was no mechanism to show that I had cast my European vote in London, where I was voting in the mayoral elections.
  Mr. Duncan: I saw the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend's question and my hon. Friend has a valid point, which I shall tackle in more detail shortly. It is becoming increasingly clear to anyone who stops to think about it that the disadvantages of malpractice and disaffection more than offset any marginal increase in turnout in all-postal-voting areas.
  Joyce Quin: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said that we should compare like with like. In my local authority area, we have had three successive years of all-postal voting without any problems. The only difficulties arose with delays and the introduction of unhelpful obstacles, such as the witness requirement, which was introduced this time and led to reduced turnout. When comparing like with like, it surely effrontery for the hon. Gentleman to castigate the Government when the cynical delaying tactics in the House and in the other place and the introduction of bureaucratic obstacles that had not been in place previously in my area caused the problems.
  Mr. Duncan: Gateshead experimented with all-postal votes early. Subsequent experiments show that turnout has decreased comparatively. The right hon. Lady has experienced no end of problems in her seat and I shall deal with them shortly. I want to tackle all such matters because the disillusion and confusion that now attaches to voting methods systems and rules and the composition of the electoral roll are becoming a serious cancer in the body politic. They are switching people off.

  1207
  The Minister's previous complacency should be replaced by a sense of contrition and an admission of concern. It will not do for him to intone his earlier answers to questions put to him before the elections. He simply assured us then that everything was running smoothly and that all-postal voting was a triumph for democracy. Clearly, in the eyes of most voters, it was not. To be satisfied that all is well in the voting world, the Minister must establish the extent to which voter participation has permanently increased, ensure that there is no extra scope for corruption or cause for discontent and that the foundation of the entire edifice—the electoral roll—is a pure and perfect construct. He cannot do that.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to two disadvantages but there is another. People have to vote early in a postal ballot and therefore might not be affected by events during the campaign. Let us consider the Spanish election. Although one might regret the action of the Spanish electorate, the fact that they could take action as a result of something that happened during the campaign is surely part Of democracy.
  Mr. Duncan: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. One of the problems of all-postal voting is that it destroys the process of any genuine election campaign and puts an end to polling day as judgment day in our British democracy.
  Andrew Bennett: It is a mistake to make a fuss about all-postal voting. The hon. Gentleman should examine postal voting in principle. Perhaps he could remind hon. Members that the Conservative Government extended postal voting to holidays and that neither the Conservative party nor the Liberal party objected when the House extended postal voting on demand to other groups. If there is a problem, it is not all-postal voting but postal voting generally.
  Mr. Duncan: There is a clear distinction between postal votes that are specifically requested and those that are scattered willy-nilly, as if from the skies, over the entire country. An enforced system of all-postal voting entails a massive conceptual shift in the manner that we manage our elections. Instead of saying that a voter must go to a polling station in person and, from a setting of secrecy, immediately put the ballot paper into a secure box, which goes straight to be counted, or specifically requesting, as the hon. Gentleman described, a postal vote, the whole country now receives a confetti shower of charged, loaded, undetonated ballot papers that are designed to provoke higher returns but are open to all manner of maldistribution and malpractice on the way to being counted. [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to sneer, he should apply some basic common sense to the way in which a ballot paper goes from A to B to C to D and back to being counted.
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: I should love to.
  Mr. Raynsford: Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Electoral Commission recommended, in its
  1208
  evaluation of the 2003 pilots, that we should move towards a presumption in favour of all-postal voting in all local government elections?
  Mr. Duncan: Again, I shall deal with that point shortly. Frankly, I do not care what the Electoral Commission said. I disagree and believe that experience is showing that the system is open to fraud and that the recent all-postal voting experiment is a dangerous backward step for democracy. Voters can more easily be impersonated and ballot papers can be intercepted or even bought and sold more easily under the new system. There is no similar scope for illegal practice when one votes in person at a polling station.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Duncan: I shall give way shortly. The Minister uttered one piece of good sense on 27 May when he said:
  "No unexpected issues have been reported to my Department in those parts of the country where voting will occur through conventional means."—[Official Report, 27 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 1735.]
  Indeed. Voting through conventional means works.
  Mr. Clive Betts: My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) asked what specific issues of fraud or lack of security applied to an all-postal ballot as opposed to postal voting in general in an ordinary election. The hon. Gentleman replied with a general diatribe. Will he revert to the question and state what specific problem of fraud or lack of security applies to an all-postal ballot but would not apply to postal voting in a normal election?
  Mr. Duncan: In a nutshell, when a postal vote is specifically requested, it goes directly to an individual person who wishes to participate in the ballot. That is not the case in all-postal ballots. Indeed, scattering ballot papers all over the place is a process that is almost impossible to police. One person found that their vote was up for auction on the eBay website—[Interruption] It may be illegal, but that is just the visible malpractice. There has been talk of children selling ballot papers in return for a packet of cigarettes, and of people selling a whole batch of ballot papers for a fiver. At this rate, we will soon have a futures market in ballot papers, or a swaps market. Move over, stock exchange; soon, we will have a vote exchange. David Dimbleby's election reports will have to take on a new guise. He will be telling us: "Voting prices have collapsed today in a Blair market." Or perhaps the Prime Minister will only be happy when they are selling short.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The hon. Gentleman is making some very strong comments. He has made these allegations, but has he reported this information to the police?
  Mr. Duncan: The whole point is that these practices are almost undetectable, but they destroy confidence. Let us consider the basic administrative problems—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I want to hear less shouting from a sedentary position. One or two hon. Members should know from their own experience of chairing that they should not be engaging in that practice.
  Mr. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Shouting abuse is the only argument that they have.
  Even before there was any suggestion of illegitimate practice, the simple administrative problems were enormous. Printing and distribution was a nightmare. Many ballot papers were delivered late and not printed properly. Barcodes did not work. Ballot papers arrived behind schedule. Emergency polling booths had to be opened in Bolton, for instance, after 6,000 ballot papers were never delivered, which I suppose gives another meaning to the name "Bolton Wanderers". In Gateshead, the constituency of the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), they had to put collection boxes in the town's 18 libraries because ballot papers were delivered late. More than 1,000 voters in Wigan had to go to the town hall after another distribution blunder. I suppose those ballot papers just went over the end of the pier.
  Instructions were not clear, and there was massive confusion about which bits to put into which envelope. To split or not to split: that was the question. It was a sort of nationwide test in origami. Some packs were missing either envelopes or ballot papers. Some people received two EU ballot papers and no local one, while others received two local ones, and none for the European election. Some ballot papers got ripped in half during the count, or on opening, and the system was totally bemusing to blind people.
  Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
  Mr. Duncan: The Minister shakes his head, but the Royal National Institute for the Blind has cautioned, in a mood of some justified indignation, that many blind and partially-sighted voters were offered no provision whatever to assist their impairment. That was entirely the fault of the Government, and nothing whatever to do with the returning officer.
  There was also a widespread problem involving the duplication of mailing lists, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has pointed out. New all-postal and existing postal lists were in some cases not scanned for duplicate distribution, so both sets were sent out. Some people were simply caught in a downpour of ballot papers, all addressed to them. In one case that has come to my attention, someone received four, which I have here. Here is one; here is another; here is a third; and, rather like on "Blue Peter", here is one I prepared earlier. With a bit more sticky-backed plastic, we could pretty well take over the whole country.
  Returning officers up and down the country despaired at the process. Frankly, in the circumstances, they have all done remarkably well. They are to be congratulated for making the best of a bad job, but let us not pretend for a moment that they would ever embark on the same exercise again with any enthusiasm. They would not. Let us be absolutely clear whose fault this was. The Select Committee that looked into this issue just as the
  1210
  Government were bulldozing everything through Parliament, against the wishes of the upper House and the Electoral Commission, said that it was
  "concerned by the Government's poor management of the arrangements for the pilots".
  It had good cause to be so.
  David Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the litany of problems that he is describing was not at all evident in any part of the region that he and I partially represent, the east midlands, not least because there were few local elections? Is not the main problem the shortness of time that was available because of his colleagues in the other place delaying the legislation?
  Mr. Duncan: That is not the reason at all. If the hon. Gentleman is in touch with his constituents, as I know that he is, he will have come across the widespread discontent of people being forced to vote by post.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It really is nonsense for the Government—or even their Back Benchers—to blame the lateness of the determination of the Commons and the Lords on the Bill in question. We have known since before Christmas that the Government were going to combine the two elections. They had plenty of time in the parliamentary timetable to allow these things to be arranged. It was the Government leaving the legislation late because they could not make up their mind that led to this problem; it was nothing to do with the Lords and the Commons.
  Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government also refused to accept the clear advice of the Electoral Commission on this matter, and proceeded in defiance of it.
  Another aspect of the current voting system that is becoming a massive turn-off for anyone contemplating doing their bit at the polls is that, quite simply, it is all becoming too complicated, and people are getting fed up with the way it works. They almost need a PhD in political science to get to grips with all the different systems of voting, counting, and casting their vote. Voters cannot be expected to know their STV from their SV from their FPTP, and they are becoming increasingly confused about their preferences.
  One of merits of the traditional British electoral system has been its simplicity and transparency, yet the proliferation of voting systems and voting methods under this Government has become a voter's nightmare. It risks hindering, not helping, democratic participation. Let us take the London elections. The public faced the confusing prospect of casting five different votes under three different voting systems: one vote for a regional party list in the European elections; two votes for the Assembly via the additional member system; and two preferences for Mayor via the supplementary vote, an electoral system so obscure that it is only otherwise used in Sri Lanka. It is no wonder that, in the Assembly elections, a worrying 6 per cent. of all constituency votes were rejected, as were 3 per cent. of all list votes.

  1211
  In the vote for the Mayor, 60,000 voters had their first preference rejected, and while some people admittedly would have chosen not to express a second preference, 330,000 second preference votes were still labelled as rejected. Yet, to and behold, here is another fiddle: those rejected votes were all counted towards the overall level of turnout. This creative counting gives a profoundly misleading impression about the real levels of democratic participation, and is yet another sign of the spin behind the arguments.
  Claire Ward: surely it is part of anyone's democratic right to go a long to the polling station and to participate by spoiling their ballot paper, if they wish. That is democracy, and those votes should be counted towards the turnout level because those people have participated. They may not have voted for the hon. Gentleman's party or for mine, but they have still participated.
  Mr. Duncan: One of the problems is that many people could not go along to a polling station, although they could in London. No doubt, if people scribbled "I hate Claire Ward" all over their ballot paper, they would know that they were registering a protest and that their vote would be rejected. However, it is clear from the process that we saw 12 days ago that many people simply did not understand the system and did not register a proper vote.
  One of the main advantages of the first-past-the-post system is that it is clean and simple. People understand it, they trust it and they accept it. Perhaps that is why it is the world's most widely used system. But now, with all this variety, people often do not understand the system, and do not trust it. We seriously risk them eventually not accepting its results.
  Mr. Betts: I actually agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about first past the post, but would he accept that one of the biggest causes of confusion in the all-postal ballots, certainly in my constituency, was the requirement for a witness statement that was imposed on the process by the Tories and the Liberals in the House of Lords at the last minute, against the advice of the Electoral Commission, which said that it would add nothing to voting security?
  Mr. Duncan: When there is so much scope for fraud already, removing the requirement to have a witness statement would merely compound that problem and lead to an even greater lack of confidence in the system that the Government have forced on the British people.
  The greatest problem with all-postal ballots lies in the loss of confidence caused by the massive scope that exists for electoral malpractice. Under the traditional system, there was perhaps a minor chance that someone would be able to impersonate someone else, and exercise another person's right to vote. Under all-postal voting, there is massive scope for fraud and undue influence. It is, at every turn, open to fiddles. So much can go amiss between the ballot paper being sent out by the returning officer and it coming back to him. Votes can be gathered up when lying on the doorstep or in flats. They can be pinched, transferred, chucked over a hedge or fished out of dustbins.
  Andrew Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the postal vote issue, what recommendations will he give to Tory candidates in the next general election? Will he recommend that they should encourage people to have postal votes, or, given his concern about possible fraud, will he recommend that they have nothing to do with encouraging the electorate to have postal votes?
  Mr. Duncan: It is a matter of choice. People should be able to ask for a postal vote, but it should not be universally forced on them and sent to them out of the sky.
  Mr. Robathan: While my hon. Friend is talking about choice, one thing that seems to be ignored, particularly on the Labour Benches, is that many couples do not vote in the same way. We hear a lot about domestic violence, and many women do not wish their husbands to know which way they vote. When it comes to a postal vote, however, they are of necessity likely to cast their vote in the presence of their husband. That is something about which many women feel strongly, and which they do not wish to do.
  Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, there have been fairly widespread reports of household intimidation. There can be intimidation in households and in the workplace, as was reported in Bradford. The Minister may want to speak to someone on his Benches who has often been brave on this matter. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) has argued that voters can be subjected to what she calls, delicately and politely, "community pressure". I suggest that he looks behind him instead of barracking the Opposition about the dangers that can be involved in the system.
  Then there is the so-called harvesting of votes, with party activists pressuring people on the doorstep to hand over their vote—a practice recklessly encouraged by the Labour party in its official postal voting guide and document, the Labour party postal vote handbook 2004, with its sinister advice to
  "have a ballot box for people to put their votes in which you can then deliver … if your volunteers are wearing Labour stickers or rosettes it is unlikely that supporters of other parties will give you their votes."
  If there is many a slip twixt cup and lip, it takes only the Labour party to turn it into an art form. In the face of that, our position is clear—no one should be forced to vote by post.
  No doubt, in response to all this, the Minister will simply say that we should await the inquiry due to be undertaken by the Electoral Commission. I can just see the Minister sitting there satisfied already that he will be able to stand up in a couple of months and assert to the House that there have been few if any proven cases of malpractice. The Minister seems to share that view. That, if I may say so, is exactly the problem.
  The whole point about the malpractice that can so obviously take place in an all-postal ballot is that it is almost impossible to detect, and even more so to prove. People are not stupid. They can see it, and they do not like what they see. They suspect that many elements of the process are like a series of unreported crimes—we know that they are happening, but there is no chance of

  1213
  prosecution, so why bother reporting them. But it undermines their confidence. People will be utterly incredulous about the Government's absurd assertion in their amendment to today's motion that
  "there is currently no evidence to show that all-postal ballots are more susceptible to fraud than traditional elections".
  The Minister says that that is correct. Even someone with limited common sense, or a five-year-old, can work out that they are most definitely susceptible. There are probably a few five-year-olds who have doubled their pocket money proving it. All that matters for the system to be undermined, and for people to lose confidence in it, is that all these abuses are able to take place. One would think that a Government who bang on about perception would have worked that out.
  If the Minister announces to the House in the autumn that the Electoral Commission has found no systematic evidence of malpractice, that is no defence whatever of a system that is so obviously open to it. It is not even as if the Electoral Commission has been at all in evidence walking the streets of Britain over the last few weeks to see things for itself. It is not in any way equipped to conduct such an inquiry.
  The Government cannot get away with just bleating on about turnout. Even the headline figure is not what it seems to be. In the past, the number of rejected ballot papers has been so insignificant that it has hardly mattered. But when it reaches the level of say, 1 per cent. or 2 per cent., it begins to matter. That is not just because it might be thought to have an effect on the result of marginal contests, but because when subtracted from apparent total turnout, it shows that increased participation is not quite what is claimed. [Interruption.] The Minister says that that is nonsense, but it is basic arithmetic. No one is therefore surprised that the Government have insisted on including rejected ballot papers in the turnout figure. It makes the increase in all-postal areas look bigger than it really is.
  We cannot concur with the rosy ministerial statement issued yesterday proclaiming that what the Government call the "multichannel approach" is a "positive result" for "electoral modernisation". The fact that all-postal voting leads to more votes in the ballot box is not in dispute. The key test is whether the integrity of the electoral system is compromised as a result. The Government's claims of doubling turnout, as one Member mentioned, are a statistical sleight of hand. Turnout in the pilot regions was a mere 5 per cent. higher than in non-pilot regions. Turnout rose because the European and local elections occurred on the same day; contests in which all councillors were up for re-election due to boundary changes increased campaign activity; people wanted to protest against the Government's plans for a European superstate; and paradoxically, the controversy about all-postal voting itself gave front-page coverage to what was being dubbed "Super Thursday".
  The Government use the base year of June 1999 to make comparisons, which saw a turnout of just 20 per cent. in the pilot regions. They omit to make comparisons with the last set of local elections, which always have a higher turnout than European ones. Indeed, in areas that have had all-postal local elections
  1214
  for many years, turnout fell. It was down 3 per cent. in Newcastle, 7 per cent. in Sunderland and Gateshead, and 7 per cent. in Trafford.
  The Government point to the anti-fraud measure of witness statements as the cause—some Labour Members even want to abolish it. Yet this fall is a continuation of a long-term trend. As the Electoral Commission reported last year, in its review of 2003 pilots, examining areas that also had all-postal voting in 2002, the novelty value had worn off, and turnout was beginning to decline again. That pattern has continued, it would appear, in the elections that we have just had.
  Let us just imagine the scope that there would be for even greater fraud were there no requirement for some sort of witness statement. Is that really what Ministers would now like to see? Do they wish to abolish the witness statement? I offer them the chance to say so now, at the beginning of the debate.
  Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Electoral Commission has recommended that. Does he agree with the Electoral Commission's proposal?
  Mr. Duncan: I do not agree with the abolition of the witness statement, because there would then be far too much scope for increased malpractice.
  Mr. Graham Brady: It is important that my hon. Friend should recognise that the Electoral Commission, in accepting that the witness statement could go, also made it clear that the postal ballot should not have been extended as widely as it was without individual voter registration. If Ministers are going to pray in aid the Electoral Commission, they should be honest and straightforward and promise that individual registration will be in place before we ever have another such experiment.
  Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend is right, and that is exactly the point that I want to come to. Another ingredient that severely contaminates the dubious process of all-postal ballots is the composition of the electoral roll on which it is based. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe) has become the commander, if I may say so, of that issue. As she pointed out in her debate on 5 May, there are thousands upon thousands of names on the electoral roll of people who are not entitled to vote. In Portsmouth, where the registration process was cleaned up, more than 11,000 ineligible names had to be removed—a
  whopping 15 per cent. of those on the list. Should my hon. Friend catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she will be able to elaborate on that. It has severe implications not just for voting but for the setting of constituency boundaries and hence the very composition of this House.
  With all-postal voting, we start with a highly questionable list, especially for those student flats and homes of multiple occupancy in which the risk of malpractice is at its worst, and we compound that situation by bombarding all those electors—and, it would seem, non-electors—with ballot papers. Unless all that is addressed, perhaps by the individual registration for which my hon. Friend the Member for

  1215
  Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) called, and unless that happens quickly, people will feel that the entire process has become rotten.
  The Government's reckless fiddling with the electoral system has raised widespread public concern about the integrity of the country's electoral process. The electoral practices of the 18th and early 19th centuries, such as intimidation and fraud, risk becoming the hallmarks of the 21st. The system that we have allowed to emerge needs tightening up, not loosening up.
  We will lead a cross-party campaign in both Houses to challenge the Government's plans to hold the forthcoming regional assembly referendums by a compulsory all-postal ballot system. We will also resist plans to use such ballots in any European referendum or across all local elections. This Government have a clear agenda to throw away the ballot box and force all-postal voting on the British public, irrespective of their wishes. We will protect people's right to vote in person and in secret. They should be able to choose the ballot box over the letter box. We are the defenders of democracy; this Government most clearly are not.
  2.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): I beg to move, leave out from "House" to and and add
  "recognises that the all-postal pilots in June 2004 were part of a process of testing alternative voting mechanisms for the benefit of making voting easier and more convenient for electors; further recognises that turnout in European elections had fallen to its lowest ever level in 1999 and that all-postal pilots assisted in making the 2004 European election turnout the UK's highest ever; welcomes the fact that voter participation for the European elections in the pilot regions more than doubled in 2004 compared with 1999; believes that allegations of fraud have been reported disproportionately and that there is currently no evidence to show that all-postal ballots are more susceptible to fraud than traditional elections; recognises that further reforms will be necessary to widen participation and engagement in the electoral system; and further believes that the integrity of elections and referendums, including the proposed referendums on elected regional assemblies, is adversely affected by declining turnout which puts in jeopardy the democratic mandate."
  What a pity that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) took such a completely over-the-top attitude. How sad the official Opposition have become that they now resort to this. In its desperation to attack the Government, the Conservative party will try to seize on any story or rumour and, by extrapolating from those anecdotes, spin a yarn that the totality of our institutions and the world is crumbling and being brought to its knees, and that everything is a failure—that everything is wrong and a disaster. That is the myth that they are trying to peddle.
  Both the Tories and, to a certain extent, the Liberal Democrats have systematically and persistently tried to undermine the elections and their outcomes throughout the process. They throw dust in the air to cloud the true picture, and they want to focus on the negative at the expense of anything positive. They deliberately seek to present matters out of perspective.
  Thankfully, the reality is quite different from the Opposition's myths. We have every reason to be proud of our system of governance in this country. Our institutions are strong and improving, and are being reformed. Despite difficulties that occur from time to
  1216
  time, we have a democracy that is successful and leads the world. That is the reality, whatever the Opposition say to undermine it. Yes, there are real issues that need to be addressed, but our electoral administrators and returning officers have done a fantastic job in seeing through a challenging combined European and local election, with new systems in some areas designed to make voting easier and more convenient. That is why we put them in place.
  The European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Act 2004 was passed with the explicit intention of testing out whether different forms of voting could engage a larger number of electors who had not voted in previous elections. It did that. More people took part this time than last time, especially where all-postal voting was tried out.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman says that the system engaged more electors than before. The question that people are concerned about, however, is whether the people who cast the votes were indeed the electors to whom the voting papers were addressed.
  Mr. Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that those who cast the votes were not those people, he should deal with that and pass the information to the relevant authorities. If he is seriously suggesting that the increase in turnout of millions more people was somehow fraudulently arrived at, he is living in a different world and does not have anything to substantiate the comment that he has dreamed up.
  David Hamilton: Is the Minister as puzzled as I by the Conservative party's conversion to opposing the present system? Was it not that party that made the proposals for trade union ballots to take place by postal voting systems? I come from a union that had 80 to 90 per cent. of members voting through the ballot box but now has 60 per cent. voting through the postal voting system, with no checks being done. Is that not a U-turn?
  Mr. Leslie: Absolutely. The fact is that the Conservative party itself has encouraged people to vote by post, for example on its website, which has various literature about encouraging people to vote. Interestingly, the Association of Electoral Administrators was quite critical of the Conservative party process for garnering postal votes, because it said that they were not returned in time to returning officers. However, we should look at that on another occasion.
  We have been trying to make it easier and more convenient for people to vote—that is the sin of which the Opposition accuse us. Millions more people found postal voting more convenient. Millions who would not go to conventional polling stations preferred to cast their vote by post. That is the truth about the recent elections.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: On the specific point that the Minister has just raised, my village is approximately 18 miles from the assistance and delivery point—the only one in my local registration district. If there were a blind person in the village who had difficulty using or accessing a template at home, would

  1217
  they have to go to the local delivery point to receive assistance, and could that be seen in any possible way as more convenient than the system that has been replaced?
  Mr. Leslie: There was a fail-safe arrangement in place whereby returning officers went to visit anyone who requested assistance, whether because of visual impairment or other disability. The reports that we have received show that that worked for large numbers of people. If the hon. Gentleman's local authority—I think
  that it is Conservative—had chosen to have more assistance and delivery points than the one that the legislation required, it would have been perfectly free to do so.
  Joyce Quin: Was my hon. Friend puzzled, as I was, by the repeated reference of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to people's being forced to vote by postal ballot? Certainly in my area, in the three years for which we had successful experiments, it was still possible to put a vote in at the civic centre or at a designated location. People were not forced to vote by postal ballot, although most of them welcomed the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Leslie: That is absolutely correct, and my right hon. Friend rightly gets rid of the myth that the ballot box has somehow been abolished. People had the choice to go and use the polling booth in the conventional way at those assistance and delivery points if they so chose. We provided for there to be at least one in every local authority, and most local authorities decided to provide more than that.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: If that really is just a myth got up by the Opposition parties, why did the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) describe the Minister's statement issued yesterday as ludicrous and claim that all-postal pilots led to a "cash-and-carry democracy" in his constituency? Why has the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) described the statement as nonsense and called for a root-and-branch reform of the system? Why have Labour council leaders up and down the land been voicing concern about the system? Why have 12 of the Minister's colleagues signed early-day motion 1338, which draws attention to the allegations of cheating and stealing votes and calls on the Government to review the system? Are those people all Tory stooges?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman will have to talk to whichever hon. Member he sees fit to talk to, but if he has specific evidence—I hope that we conduct our debates in the Chamber on the basis of fact and hard evidence rather than rumour and supposition—he should produce it. He should produce it, furthermore, not just for the House, but for the relevant authorities so that they can investigate it; otherwise, I cannot see the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point.
  The fact remains that, in recent years, people have been less inclined to participate in local elections and if anything damages the integrity of our democracy—partly the long title of today's debate—it is the problem of dwindling involvement, minority participation, and
  1218
  the consequent weakening of the mandates of those elected supposedly to "represent" the public in taking decisions. How, then, should we respond to that particular problem? Should we simply ignore it and hope that it goes away—that seems to be the approach of Conservative Members—or should we try to look for ideas and solutions to see whether we can re-engage people in a way that removes barriers and obstacles to their participation? That is exactly what we have tried to do.
  The Government and this Parliament have been keen to try out new ideas, to test new ways of raising interest and involvement in democracy and elections. Not everything is the fault of the mechanisms of the electoral system, but it would surely be foolish not to look to see whether improvements might make some difference.
  Mr. Hogg: It is obviously a legitimate aspiration of the Government to crive up voting. That is correct and I agree with it. At the same time, however, it is important that people perceive the result of an election to be fair. There is a widespread view, held in most parts of the country, that the possibilities for fraud are so great as to undermine the outcome of many of the ballots.
  Mr. Leslie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about a percept on, which has been perpetuated by his Front-Bench colleagues, but I believe that it is indeed a perception rather than a true depiction of the reality of the position. I am glad that he accepts that it is right to explore different voting methods and technologies. We should be looking into whether it is possible to give electors the choice and convenience in voting that they would expect from other activities such as shopping or banking.
  Claire Ward: I believe that my hon. Friend is right to pursue as many alternatives as possible to encourage voter participation. Four years ago in Watford, there was a pilot scheme whereby people voted for a whole weekend. Our elections were held over three days with postal and ballot boxes being placed in supermarkets. Our turnout actually fell as a result, but it has not discouraged me from looking to find other ways of increasing participation. It is clear that postal ballots help to achieve that, so I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to pursue the option of all-postal ballots.
  Mr. Leslie: It is most gratifying to see that my hon. Friend has an open mind to try to find new ways of engaging with her constituents and to make voting easier and more convenient. The fact that some Conservative Members are circling to pounce at any opportunity on a pilot scheme whose outcome they do not like is most disappointing. It is right to test these options out; they were pilots, after all, and we learn lessons from them. We must also ensure that the pilots are as secure as possible and that we put extra security safeguards into pilots and trials, as we have every time that we have tested these initiatives out.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: My hon. Friend will be aware that in Scotland we would have been delighted to have an all-postal vote in the European elections. Does he share my concern that the allegations made that huge swaths of the population are

  1219
  dishonest when it comes to voting are a serious matter? If the Opposition could substantiate those allegations, I would like to hear that substantiation.
  Mr. Leslie: Quite right. The question of fraud and malpractice has not only excited the Opposition, but garnered many column inches in the press. However, I do not believe that the allegations have been fully scrutinised to assess whether they stand up, so I welcome the opportunity once and for all to deal with this important issue. The various media reports of a small number of voters being bullied on put under duress to cast their ballot continued throughout the last week of the election. It is vital for elections both to be secure and to be seen to be secure, and for any evidence of malpractice to be reported to the police straight away.
  As I said earlier, if the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has any evidence of wrong doing, I hope that he will produce that information and ensure that it is taken to the relevant authorities immediately. However, I have to say that, contrary to many of the reports that he and the media have perpetuated. the regional returning officers—the true experts in the field—to whom I have spoken have not reported any greater incidence of fraud or malpractice than that which typically occurs in every election campaign. They reported negligible local difficulties, and they doubted very much that any substantial problems were sufficient to jeopardise the elections.
  The only reports that I have of actual arrests are of three individuals in Oldham, with no arrests reported by regional returning officers elsewhere in the north-west, in Yorkshire and the Humber, in the east midlands, or in the north-east. It is regrettable that hearsay and rumour created misconceptions about the all-postal pilots, when the reality is that they do not appear to have generated anything other than the normal level of charges or prosecutions typical to all elections. To quote a joint statement by the north-west regional returning officer, Sir Howard Bernstein, and the Greater Manchester Police:
  "Our research shows that in Greater Manchester, the scale of allegations of fraud and malpractice is broadly similar to previous years. While the nature of allegations has changed this year, the scale has not increased—if anything, it has lessened."
  Much has been made of technical difficulties experienced within some pilot
  local authorities.
  Mr. Brady: Before the Minister moves on, I am pleased to hear that he accepts that it is essential to make improvements to ensure security, so will he give an undertaking now that individual voter registration will be put in place, as recommended both by the Electoral Commission and the Select Committee in its May report, before any further all- postal votes take place?
  Mr. Leslie: Unlike the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, I do care what the Electoral Commission says and I believe that it is important for us to listen to it. Ultimately, it advises and we take the decisions. The hon. Gentleman also has the right not to listen to its advice. Currently, the Electoral Commission advises that it prefers individual registration and we are certainly minded to continue to reflect on that advice. Bringing that about would require a change in the law. The Electoral Commission also recommends that, on
  1220
  the next occasion, it wants all-postal referendums and we will be in discussion over the coming months about that.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I am pleased that my hon. Friend picked up on the comments of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Did he note that the hon. Gentleman said that he did not care what the Electoral Commission said, but then, on at least three occasions, he prayed in aid what he alleged the Commission did say?
  Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is looking for consistency from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, but his expectations are set a little too high in that respect.
  I made it clear when I gave a statement to the House on 27 May that, although problems and delays were encountered in some of the technical preparation for the ballot process, proper contingency measures were put in place and the elections continued to run successfully. Despite some of the more lurid headlines that were printed, of the 14.1 million ballot packs, more than 99 per cent. were issued by returning officers by the deadline of midnight on 1 June. The few remaining packs were issued by 5.10 the following morning. Royal Mail treated them as if they had been received at midnight. It provided an outstanding service in supporting the administrators and suppliers and ensuring that their role in the process was delivered effectively. That is a tribute to the hard work of returning officers, suppliers and the Royal Mail, each of whom showed dedication and adaptability in overcoming the difficulties that were experienced. It also shows that the allegations of "chaos" and "shambles" levelled at the returning officers were severely overblown.
  Mr. Jenkin: May I return the hon. Gentleman to the possibility of all-postal referendums? We know of the Government's intentions for the regional referendums in the autumn, but will the Minister give an assurance that there is no question of holding the referendum on the European constitution by all-postal ballots? Will that be conducted through the ballot box, not the letterbox?
  Mr. Leslie: Any decisions about future referendums must be taken on a case-by-case basis. I am certainly not going to box in at this stage how such referendums should take place.
  I turn now to the accusations that there was complexity in the voting system. It was alleged that both the all-postal pilots and the combination ballots involved a degree of extra complexity. The evidence of a significant increase in turnout shows that we must keep that in perspective.
  In the pilots, local authorities ran helplines as well as assistance and delivery points to cater for those who needed help. People who wanted to cast their vote in the tradition way at a polling booth were able to do so at one of the ADPs. Returning officers were also able to provide assistance in the home for people with disabilities or visual impairment.

  1221
  A great deal of advertising aimed at explaining the elections was also produced, and the Electoral Commission provided assistance on its website and by means of its own helpline. It is clear that support was available for those people who required it.
  Mr. Mark Francois: In 1999, the turnout in the European elections was higher both in the regions where there was all-postal voting, and where the more traditional system was in operation. That happened not because of the method of voting but because electors had strong views about European matters and therefore wanted to cast a ballot. That was the real driver behind higher turnout under both systems. Following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) about the referendum on the European constitution, will the Minister accept that the opinion polls are more than two to one against the Government on this matter? If there is any suggestion that the Government are trying to use an electoral device to fiddle the outcome of that referendum, there will be tremendous anger throughout the UK.
  Mr. Leslie: I have already answered the latter point. The hon. Gentleman compares the European elections of 1999 and 2004. I know that Opposition Members are devoid of facts, so I shall give them some. In the pilot regions, the 1999 turnout was 20.2 per cent., and in 2004 it was 42.6 per cent. In the non-pilot regions, turnout was 25.9 per cent. in 1999, and 37.2 per cent. in 2004. The figures are clearly higher for both categories, but the rise is lower in the non-pilot regions. The rise is considerably greater in the pilot regions, where there was an appreciable and significant uplift in turnout.
  In the pilot regions, many electors expressed concerns about the witness signature requirement on the declaration of identity form. Both the Government and the Electoral Commission had reservations about that requirement, and I am afraid to say that it was almost certainly a factor in limiting turnout even more. In order to limit the number of votes rejected as a result of incorrectly completed declarations, the pilot schemes required returning officers, where possible, to return wrongly filled out forms to allow them to be corrected. Early indications are that that operation was successful, but of course we await the Electoral Commission's evaluation.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister point out the legislative authority for that operation?
  Mr. Leslie: I shall certainly do that. As I understand it, the matter is clearly covered by regulation. If the hon. Gentleman does not have a copy of the relevant regulations, I shall ensure that a copy of them is sent to his office. The proposal always was that returning officers should be able to help make sure that declarations of identity could be returned if they had been completed incorrectly. The same option was included in the guidance that we issued.
  Mr. Hogg: The Minister is making it clear that he has doubts about the witness attestation procedure. Does he accept that almost every important document that
  1222
  people have to complete requires a witness attestation? That is true for passport applications, for example, as it is for wills and most credit agreements. The point is that, when a person signs an important document, it is rather important that that person is able to prove his or her identity.
  Mr. Leslie: The Electoral Commission has said that better security arrangements can be developed. Opposition Front-Bench Members may not care for what the commission has to say, but the Government intend to follow its advice.
  Claire Ward: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Leslie: I will, but I have just recalled the provision about which the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) inquired. The authority for the action taken by returning officers is given by article 45(1) of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (All-Postal) Pilot Order 2004. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward).
  Claire Ward: No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that, even in the non-pilot postal areas, people who applied for a postal vote were required to get that witnessed. In Watford, various allegations were made to the effect that, when the envelopes were opened before election day, a number of Liberal Democrat activists were seen to note the details of witnesses' names and addresses. We sought clarification on that matter from the returning officer, who did not seem sure whether that was a breach of the law. Will the Minister ask the Electoral Commission whether it is acceptable for observers to take down details of who has witnessed a person's vote? Surely that cannot be right.
  Mr. Leslie: The occurrence reported by my hon. Friend happened in a non-pilot region, but it is important that we look into any worries about the declaration of identity Those worries have caused the Electoral Commission to be uncertain about continuing with the declaration. The system has been in place since 1918, but the commission believes that better security arrangements are possible.
  The Electoral Commission is due to report on the pilots in September. I have no doubt that its evaluation will be both thorough and balanced, and we look forward to studying it in depth. Lessons learned will be incorporated into the Government's wider plans for electoral modernisation. Those plans include both traditional methods of voting and alternatives such as postal balloting and electronic voting.
  We will continue to find ways of increasing convenience and choice for electors in the future. The next staging post for our electoral system is due this autumn with the referendums on the establishment of elected regional assemblies in the three northern regions of England. Those referendums are clearly different from elections in that there are no candidates, but even so it must be easy and convenient for electors to express their opinion. It remains the intention to hold the referendums on an all-postal basis—something that has previously been welcomed by the Electoral Commission, which for the first time is due to run the administration of these referendums. However, some of

  1223
  the parliamentary regulations and orders relating to the referendums will need to be taken through Parliament in advance of the Electoral Commission's evaluation of all-postal voting. We understand that that may not be available until mid-September.
  We cannot leave the regulations and orders until after that time for the following reasons. First, we gave commitments that there would be a 10-week campaigning period in advance of the referendums. Secondly, before that campaign period, public information literature explaining the referendum process would have to be sent to every household. In practice, that means distributing leaflets over the summer.
  Moreover, delaying the referendum regulation orders until after the commission has reported would prevent us from honouring the commitment to that timetable. It could mean putting the referendums back into the winter months, when campaigning would be more difficult, voters would be less inclined to participate and there could be a clash with the Christmas post, for instance. We will therefore bring the orders before Parliament over the next few weeks, so as to keep to the original timetable. However, given that for the first time the referendums will be run by the Electoral Commission, the orders will rest on the proviso that, if the commission's September evaluation were to conclude that it was unsafe to proceed as planned, we would be prepared to recommend to Parliament amending the approach for these referendums, even though that would almost certainly delay the referendum date.
  I trust that this commitment demonstrates the seriousness with which we take the Electoral Commission's evaluation, but also our hope to keep to the commitments that we gave Parliament during the passage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003.
  After the referendums, there will be other local and national elections and
  by-elections at which we will need to consider employing new voting mechanisms. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which oversees local elections in England and Wales, will continue its policy of innovation to test innovative voting techniques, including telephone voting and electronic voting. The ODPM will work in co-operation with the Electoral Commission.
  Mr. Jenkin: The Minister has made a significant announcement. He has acknowledged, implicitly, that there are potential problems with all-postal ballots. It remains to be seen whether the Electoral Commission can be the independent arbiter of those problems, given that it has already succumbed to Government pressure over which regions took part in the pilot. In addition, the Minister has also put in question the whole future of the regional referendums. A large number of Labour Members would like those referendums to be abandoned. What does the Minister have to say to them?
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman should not get his hopes up too much. We do not see any reason why the elections should be regarded as unsafe, but it would be unreasonable were we to disregard the evaluation by the
  1224
  Electoral Commission. We have to pay respect to the timetable. The commission will report in mid-September. I have given the reasons why we need to proceed with some of the paving regulations and orders at this stage. I have set out our approach in the unlikely eventuality that the Electoral Commission will conclude that it would be unsafe to proceed on an all-postal basis. We do not anticipate that, but I felt that it would be useful to set out our approach to the House.
  For the time being, we can be satisfied that all-postal ballots boosted participation. In the regions where all-postal voting was held—the north-east, east midlands, Yorkshire and the north-west—more than twice as many people voted in the European elections as did in 1999. That was an increase of almost 3 million voters. The non-pilot regions also saw increases in turnout, albeit to a lesser degree. The combined effect meant that more voters participated in the elections to the European Parliament in this country than ever before. While just 24 per cent. of people participated in 1999, this year that figure rose to 38 per cent. That equates to about 6.5 million additional votes.
  So, judged by our goal of raising participation and turnout, we have now proved that all-postal voting on a wider basis is clearly one way of successfully engaging more of the public in our electoral system. With the Electoral Commission advising that all future elections should take place on an all-postal basis, it was surely right to increase the scale on which we tested out the system, and the initiative has proved its worth.
  Tackling low voter turnout is neither easy nor straightforward. The reasons for not voting are complex and varied. I believe that the course that we have struck is the right one. Pilots generate evidence and teach us lessons for the future. Steps are taken to minimise any risks and this year, as previously, things overall have gone well.
  Mr. David Clelland: My hon. Friend will have heard the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman rubbish the Electoral Commission on the question of extending all-postal votes to local government elections. He derided the Electoral Commission on the question of witness statements. Yet the Opposition motion invites the House to criticise the Government for acting against the advice of the Electoral Commission. Does that not demonstrate the nonsense of the motion and the usual doublespeak of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)?
  Mr. Leslie: I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman directly of hypocrisy, but he has had difficulty with consistency in his arguments. I think that he tripped up about 10 minutes into his speech and fell into saying that he did not really care what the Electoral Commission said. I have a feeling that that quotation will be around his neck for some time.
  Mr. Alan Duncan rose—
  Mr. Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman would like to elaborate or perhaps dig himself out of that one, I will give him the chance.
  Mr. Duncan: May I invite the Minister, for the sake of honesty in this debate, to desist from the comparison

  1225
  between absolute turnout this year and absolute turnout four or five years ago? The only statistical comparison that is valid is the differential turnout between areas that were all-postal and those that were not.
  Mr. Leslie: Turnout did increase in the non-pilot regions by about 50 per cent; in the pilot regions it rose by more than 100 per cent. That is pretty convincing. All democrats should welcome the improvement in turnout. A derisory turnout, which gives politicians a questionable mandate and means that the views of only a small minority are represented, is surely the greater threat to our electoral system.
  For our part, we will continue to try and find better ways of making it easier for people to vote. That is evidently in contrast to the Opposition parties, who seem devoid of ideas. They offer no solutions or reforms, but they constantly and opportunistically chip away at public confidence in the efforts of others to make improvements. As I said earlier, it is a great pity that, rather than addressing the real issues of reform, they choose to carp and criticise, using abuse of new ideas as a proxy for political attack. The real threat to our electoral system is the constant undermining that comes from the Opposition parties. They are perpetuating the cynicism and corrosiveness within our democracy, and will themselves be the worse for it in the long run.
  2.54 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: First, I agree with the Minister that the whole House should pay tribute to the returning officers and all those who administered the electoral process for heroically dealing with the most difficult circumstances. That applies not only to the areas where the pilots took place but to all areas.
  I agree with the Minister on another point. There is an urgent need to re-establish the authority and independence of the Electoral Commission. I regret very much the comments made by the Conservative spokesman. We have been consistent in our support of the Electoral Commission and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to say that they, too, regret the extent to which they have undermined the authority of that independent commission.
  My notes say that I should refer to the written statement from the PUSS at DCAF—I think that that is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Constitutional Affairs—but first and foremost I should say that I regret the extent to which he has overblown his case. A more moderate response in his statement yesterday would have been helpful. His claims were ridiculous and overblown.
  Of course we are all interested in increasing the turnout, and that is not just on party political grounds. When the Bill was being debated, my party was attacked for being against the extension of the pilot to four regions because it was said that the Liberal Democrats thought that it would damage our chances. In those four regions, we did exceptionally well in the local government elections. We achieved spectacular results on 10 June in Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Gateshead,
  1226
  Bolton, Sheffield, Rochdale and Newcastle. We also got two additional MEPs. So our opposition was not partisan. My criticisms and comments are on principle.
  I agree with the Minister that worthwhile and important reassessment has to take place of the effect on turnout. I look to the Electoral Commission to analyse the elections carefully. But anyone who pretends that the increase in turnout was solely down to the all-postal pilots is dangerously disingenuous. There were other factors, and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has referred to them.
  The Minister spoils his case by referring to the turnout in the terms that he
  did in his statement. He said that in all four postal regions overall turnout in the European parliamentary elections was more than double that in 1999. That sounds dramatic, but the figure in the pilot regions was 42.6 per tent. and in the non-pilot regions was 37.2 per cent.—a very small margin. It is important that the Minister does not overstate his case before the Electoral Commission has done a proper analysis. We should recognise that those figures are not a ringing endorsement of all-postal voting and that such voting is not a magic wand to reverse the decline in turnout.
  Moreover, the turnout came up from a lower base in the pilot regions presumably because those parts of the country were previously fiefdoms of one-party rule—especially Labour party rule. In safe seats, voters often consider that there is no point in voting. Turnout in those four regions was behind the others in 1999 because there were so many rock solid Labour majorities. That situation has changed. I gave the example of the Liberal Democrat advances. That demonstrates how the situation has changed Clearly, the persuasive factor is not the method of voting but the impact of voting.
  In the meantime, it is plainly arrogant and ignorant for the Government to ignore the evidence of confusion and potential corruption
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the variation between the turnout in the all-postal areas and the non-all postal areas was not that great, but he has failed to assess correctly the impact of the increased availability of postal votes even in areas where their use was not compulsory. The hon. Gentleman will see that, partly as a result of the publicity given to the experiment and partly due to the increased awareness of the all-party machine, turnout was higher due to an increase in postal voting even in areas where it was not compulsory. So my hon. Friend the Minister's underlying argument about the impact of postal voting still holds firm in spite of the points that the hon. Gentleman made.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman has almost made his speech, which may be a good way to get in on this debate. I do not want to encourage other hon. Members to make interventions of that length, but it may be the only way. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the Minister's statement referred to "all-postal pilots" That is the perception. The insistence on compulsory postal voting, the removal of choice and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) reminded me—the extent to which it has undermined the secrecy of the ballot are important disadvantages that must be set against the advantage.

  1227
  If people think that no serious corruption took place, I draw the House's attention to the comments made by Sir Albert Bore, the Labour leader of Birmingham city council, who warned that the law was not specific enough to tackle postal vote fraud. Of course, Birmingham was not one of the pilot areas, but the Minister will acknowledge that making compulsory a faulty system, which at present applies only to the minority, will make things worse. Sir Albert said:
  "At present, in relation to the handling of postal ballot papers, the law is so general that almost anything is legal."
  The Birmingham Evening Mail reported, on 10 June:
  "City Labour leader Sir Albert Bore today called for a national rethink on postal voting after a candidate was found with a bag of completed ballot papers in a late-night police swoop."
  That followed a high profile incident when a number of Labour candidates and activists in Birmingham were witnessed taking voters' ballot papers out of the party office to a deserted cul-de-sac in an industrial estate near spaghetti junction to "sort them out". If that can happen when postal votes are a minority imagine what could happen when they are compulsory and 100 per cent. of the votes cast.
  Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman remind us what happened when his party and the Conservatives voted on the extension of postal Votes on demand? Did they vote against that?
  Mr. Tyler: No, we did not. However, we have insisted over recent months that the intention to defraud should be more carefully pinned down. That is why the witness statement has been introduced. I know that the Electoral Commission has some misgivings about it and we must look at the evidence in due course to see how we may improve the integrity of the system.
  A flood of complaints has come in about possible fraud and electoral malpractice from the four regions involved. Of course the Electoral Commission and the police should examine those. It is outrageous to attempt to prejudge their conclusions as both previous contributors seemed to do, because we should wait and see the facts. However, it would be just as dangerous for the Minister to ignore those allegations as it would for him to accept that they are all likely to be true.
  The Government do not seem to understand the reluctance of many electors to give up completely their right to vote in person, in secrecy and in the polling booth, with only the non-partisan presiding officer in attendance.
  Mr. Betts: I return the hon. Gentleman to the criticisms he made of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for not accepting the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Electoral Commission said to the Select Committee that it had no more concerns about the security of voting in an all-postal ballot than it did about postal voting on demand. That is the opposite of what he sad a few moments ago. Does he agree with the Electoral Commission on that issue or not?
  Mr. Tyler: I have just said—the hon. Gentleman could not have been listening—that I am prepared to
  1228
  wait to hear what the Electoral Commission says in response to the pilot. The whole point of a pilot is to take advantage of the opportunity to learn the lessons from it. I am prepared to wait for that.
  This is a timely debate, because the threats to the integrity of the electoral system do not solely occur in relation to all-postal ballots. There is also the interesting issue of the publication of opinion polls during the much longer period—in all-postal ballots—in which people are voting. It can be anything up to 15 days, instead of just one. In that time, greater emphasis can be given to the so-called evidence of the polls, and the way in which they are reported. Their value and validity is under scrutiny again, not least because they seem to have been more misleading or more influential than in recent elections.
  In Business questions last week, I mentioned YouGov, but all the pollsters have a responsibility to consider how their results are reported. All the pollsters are undermined by the way in which the media present their findings at the moment. For example, one newspaper reported that YouGov's reputation for accuracy rested in part on its forecast of the outcome of last year's Conservative party leadership contest. Since none took place, I was not persuaded by that argument.
  More seriously, the Evening Standard headlined the Livingstone-Norris contest as being "Neck-and-Neck", when the first round vote showed them to be on 35.7 per cent. and 28.2 per cent. respectively. That is hardly neckand-neck. It may be that the prominence of that front-page report, from a uniquely well-read paper in London, caused more people to vote to keep the Conservative candidate out. It may well have squeezed the vote of the Liberal Democrat candidate, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). The evidence of that is that the party vote for the Assembly was rather higher than his vote. Either way, it would be ironic if Mr. Livingstone owed his margin of success to a Conservative newspaper. It was equally ironic that Conservative campaigners used the "Neck-and-Neck" headlines in leaflets, and that may have frightened voters to go the other way.
  Similarly, the substantial haemorrhage of Conservative voters to UKIP could be the direct result of huge coverage of the alleged rise in support for the party, almost certainly over-emphasised by a rogue YouGov poll— in of all papers—The Daily Telegraph. By focusing almost exclusively on the "certain to vote" figures, it forecast on 24 May an 18 per cent. UKIP vote, and then on 29 May an increase to 20 per cent. The actual result, after those misleading boosts to its chances, was of course some 16.1 per cent. I suspect that that will not make The Daily Telegraph very popular with the Conservative leadership.
  Nor will the Standard be top of the Tory pops. Its eve-of-poll report of the YouGov poll put UKIP equal with the Conservatives on 22 per cent. The UKIP press release read:
  "UKIP level with the Tories in last minute poll".
  That very day the Conservatives secured 26.7 per cent., more than 10 per cent. more than UKIP. They were not level at all. Even its exit poll seems to have been wrong.
  In its defence, YouGov has said that the problem is how its reports are reported and that other polls are just as bad. Two wrongs do not make a right. The whole

  1229
  industry must now acknowledge that it is under the spotlight, especially from commercial clients. If YouGov's accuracy on political questions is at fault, commercial clients may also doubt its accuracy.
  Mr. Jenkin: Am I really listening to a Liberal Democrat? The hon. Gentleman's party are the past masters at issuing false polls in the run-up to an election in every one I have ever seen them contest. The last-minute leaflet always has a graph showing the Liberal Democrat just about to catch up. Has he changed his mind? Does he agree with me that such leaflets can be unethical?
  Mr. Tyler: All I am saying—[Laughter.] Well, it is a good crack. However, there is a difference between a so-called reputable public opinion poll and—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Wait a minute for the punch line. There is a difference if such a poll is published in an allegedly reputable newspaper and that is then repeated in a leaflet, as happened in London. That is a legitimate way to provide information to the public. However, the pollsters have a responsibility for the reporting of their results.
  I shall give another example. The Times is being investigated for having published an opinion poll, purporting to show how people had voted in the all-postal vote regions, before the polls closed. Apparently that is illegal. We must examine how such polls are presented, because they do have an impact. It is important that we consider that issue.
  The pollsters are as much victims as villains in this situation. The main culprits are those in the media who often have their own agenda and choose how to interpret and report poll findings. I am sure that representatives of the Conservative party will have a quiet discussion with The Daily Telegraph on that issue, after the haemorrhage of its vote to UKIP. It is significant that the newspapers that gave most prominence to those misleading figures of support for UKIP were those with a bitterly anti-European, obsessive agenda.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On integrity, why did the Liberal Democrat party put out advertisements in the Evening Standard stating that the London mayoral election was neck and neck between Ken Livingstone on 51 per cent. and Simon Hughes on 49 per cent? What was the basis for that information?
  Mr. Tyler: I have it here—in the Evening Standard report of a poll. I shall give it to the hon. Gentleman later if he wants to see it. If there had been a run-off, that would have been the result—[Interruption.] It was true. Indeed, the results showed that the Conservative candidate could not beat Ken Livingstone but that the Liberal Democrat could. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the report immediately after the debate.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: I want to try to make progress, as I am conscious that there will be only limited time for Back Benchers.
  1230
  I regret the fact that the Prime Minister indicated last week that he thought these were entirely matters for the parties. I do not think they are matters for the parties and I have said that to the chairman of my party. I do not believe that political parties can deal impartially with such issues. The Electoral Commission should be asked to examine the reliability and influence of reported opinion polls and their potential to undermine the integrity of the electoral process.
  The Electoral Commission is extremely important to the whole subject of the debate. As I said earlier, I regret the attack made on it by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton. It would be folly to ignore the damage to the reputation of the Electoral Commission that the Government's unilateral decision to extend the postal votes pilot has created. I had hoped to hear an unequivocal statement from the Minister that that will not be repeated, and that the Commission's authority will be reinforced.
  It is clearly desirable for the Commission to be permitted to experiment with other pilot projects to increase turnout. If the convenience of the electorate is the sole or main criterion, why not switch one year's poll to a weekend—Saturday or Sunday, or both? As we heard from the hon Member for Watford (Claire Ward), it may not be ideal but it should at least be considered. It is helpful to hold different elections on the same day and we supported the Government on that. It is also helpful to hold elections in June rather than in May, due to the interruption in campaigning at Easter and, indeed, the weather earlier in the year. We should look into that.
  It is apparent, however, that the principal motivation for improving turnout is for people to have the perception that their vote will "make a difference". There is a close correlation between what seems to be a foregone conclusion and low turnout.
  Average figures can be misleading. The worst experience in the 2001 general election was in seats that were thought to be so safe that it would not be worth bothering to go to the poll—Liverpool, Riverside being the worst example, with only 34 per cent. voting. On the very same day, however, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) managed to achieve a turnout of 72 per cent., because the result at the previous general election had been very close—the majority was only two—and it was perceived that it might be close again.
  I can offer a personal example. When I was first elected to the House in 1974, my very clever electors in Bodmin knew that the result would be absurdly close and that I would have a majority of only nine, so 83 per cent. of them voted. By 2001, however, in my present seat, the equally clever electorate realised that it would not be quite such a close thing—the majority was well over 9,000—so I am afraid that turnout dropped to 63 per cent.
  First past the post undoubtedly depresses the extent to which most voters in most seats perceive that their vote counts. It does not "make the difference" in most seats. In 2001, only 18 per cent. of those entitled to vote actually affected the outcome. Forty-one per cent. did not vote—in the
  circumstances, who can blame them?—and another 41 per cent. voted either for losing

  1231
  candidates or for those who had excess votes already and did not need those votes. Only 18 per cent. actually affected the outcome.
  Before anyone tells me that regional lists do not work, I acknowledge immediately that closed regional lists are equally depressing for turnout. They are not the answer, and we are against them, but at least under the closed regional list system for the European Parliament every vote can be of reasonably equal value.
  On the other hand, the single transferable vote system is much more effective on all counts. The Electoral Commission will need to examine carefully the experience of STV in local council elections in Scotland to see whether it would assist in dealing with the turnout problems in other parts of the country. I understand that at least one London council—Lewisham—wanted to run an STV pilot to see if there would be an improvement. Such a pilot would be extremely helpful. Where every vote is seen to count it makes a difference to people's motivation to turn out, as we saw in the several northern cities to which I referred earlier.
  If the Electoral Commission is to regain its authority, based on a reputation for impartiality and integrity, it must be empowered to examine the defects of the whole electoral system. The Government are about to embark on an internal examination of the various voting systems currently in place—in Scotland and Wales, in London, in Northern Ireland and for the European Parliament. They are also honour-bound to revisit the conclusions and recommendations of the Jenkins commission—a firm manifesto commitment at the last general election.
  It would be an unmitigated disaster if the same partisan approach displayed by the Deputy Prime Minister before the recent elections were allowed to dominate the Government's review. The review must be open and transparent; it must bring in all parties and be completely independent of the Government, avoiding any suggestion of yet more gerrymandering.
  My colleagues and I acknowledge that the Government are in a dilemma in relation to the coming referendums on regional assemblies, although it is a dilemma somewhat of their own making. If they wait for the Electoral Commission to report in September, it may be too late to complete the necessary legislation. Perhaps the commission could be asked to produce preliminary recommendations specifically on the regional assembly referendums. In the absence of such a report, my colleagues and believe that, at least compared to local government polls, there may be a better, although not a perfect, case for compulsory all-postal voting in those referendums for the following reasons.
  There would be less opportunity and less motivation for fraud, as there would be no individual candidates or over-enthusiastic supporters. The logistics would be more straightforward, with none of the printing, distribution or completion problems of complicated and confusing ballot papers that we experienced on 10 June. As long as we can still provide choice by insisting on enough locations in each area for the delivery of completed ballot papers, there may be a case for the system. I hope that the Minister can reassure us about that at the end of the debate.
  1232
  Although it sounds like a maternity unit, the so-called assisted delivery point is extremely important. To have only one in Greenwich is fine, but in North Cornwall, where people might have to travel 40 miles to it, it is impossible. I noted from the evidence of the Electoral Commission and others to the Select Committee report, referred to on the Order Paper, that Government funding for those delivery points may be an important issue.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: I am about to conclude my speech.
  From all I have said, it follows that we believe that the Electoral Commission must play a critical role—the leading role—in bringing together the factual evidence on which the House and the country will take a decision on these important matters. Only then can Ministers repair the damage that they have done over the last few months.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches starts to operate from now.
  3.18 pm
  Mr. Roger Godsiff: As has been said, the integrity of the electoral system is an extremely serious issue. I regret the fact that some of the debate has been partisan in tone, because very serious lessons need to be learned from what happened in the last local and European elections. I listened to the Minister's opening remarks, but I should like to share with right hon. and hon. Members the reality of what happened during the recent elections in Birmingham. I suspect that what happened there was replicated in other multicultural inner-city areas.
  I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not talking all-postal ballots— Birmingham did not have an all-postal ballot—and that I support the Government's efforts to increase turnout and participation in elections. Although turnout increased in the area of inner-city Birmingham that I represent and in surrounding areas, in reality that had very little to do with an increased interest in the local or European elections. I deeply regret to say that the increase occurred because postal voting was turned into a political currency in those areas.
  To give hon. Members an indication of what I am about to say, I shall quote the opening remarks of the front-page editorial in The Birmingham Post, to which my colleague, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), referred. It was written the day after the election and headed, "Bribes, bullies and ballots". It reads:
  "Those Brummies who could be bothered to participate in yesterday's city council elections should ask themselves a sobering question today.
  Whatever happened to a polling system once praised as the cleanest in the world?
  There is no point in being anything other than blunt: the 2004 Birmingham City Council elections were besmirched by a postal vote feeding frenzy.

  1233
  Fights in the streets, postmen offered bribes for sacks of ballot forms, a post box torched, car chases, threats, bullying and intimidation and the unforgettable image of a … councillor `sorting out' ballot papers in the shadows of a back street car park at midnight."
  Sadly, the article is true. The reason why it is true is that, as I have said, postal votes became a currency, whereby a place on Birmingham city council, with a minimum salary of £9,000 and all the associated privileges, was the reward.
  The Minister has said that the overall result of postal voting proves that it was a success. It may have been a success in all-postal areas, but I would strongly advise him to talk to John Owens, Birmingham city council's elections officer—together with his team, he did a magnificent job in difficult circumstances during the elections—and to West Midlands police to find out whether they thought postal voting was such a great success.
  Let me tell hon. Members what happened in the reality of inner-city Birmingham. Birmingham has 40 wards, with electorates that range from approximately 17,000 to 20,000 people. Before the local and European election campaign, the highest numbers of registered postal votes were in wards such as Harborne, Quinton, Edgbaston and Sheldon—the Tory wards, traditionally, in the leafy suburbs. The highest number of postal votes registered was 1,616 in Quinton ward. However, by the end of the six-week campaign, the postal votes registered in some wards had increased. The number in Springfield went up from 812 to 3,796; the number in Lozells and East Handsworth went up from 529 to 3,998; in Sparkbrook, it went up from 1,067 to 4,483; in Aston, from 578 to 5,241; and in Washwood Heath, from 693 to 5,583.
  All those wards are in the central area of the city and all are multicultural, with very large communities that originate from the Indian subcontinent, but what happened in them is as nothing compared with what happened in the Bordsley Green ward. That newly created ward has 19,715 electors, about 50 to 60 per cent. of whom are from a single cultural group. When the election began, 691 people in that ward were registered for postal votes. In fact, that ward had one of the lowest numbers of postal votes in the city—it was 12th out of 40—but, in week 1, the number increased to 768. In week 2, it went up to 1,750; in week 3, it went up to 2,495; in week 4, it went up to 5,124; and in week 5, it went up to 7,195. When a halt was called on 2 June at the close of postal vote applications, the figure had reached 8,488. I hesitate to think what would have happened had the election campaign gone on for another three weeks.
  One would like to think that the dynamics of the campaign had galvanised more than 40 per cent. of the electorate in that ward to obtain their postal votes, but hon. Members can draw their own conclusions on why that happened. During campaigning in the ward, regular phone calls were made to the police by people complaining about the pressure that they were being put under. There was a fight between rival candidates' teams involving 200 people, which meant that a huge number of police from west midlands stations had to be brought into the area. A postman complained to his superiors
  1234
  that the brother of one of the candidates had offered him £500 for his sack of postal votes. That is the reality of what happened in an inner-city multicultural area.
  You might think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that what I have described is at least highly suspicious, if not downright illegal. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. The West Midlands police carried out a survey by a special team, which concluded that, as the law is deficient, no one did anything wrong. Indeed, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, Councillor Albert Bore had something to say about that. According to The Birmingham Post:
  "Albert Bore, the leader of Birmingham City Council, maintains he is allowed to apply for postal votes on electors' behalf, he can have forms delivered to his house, he can fill the forms in for other people and deliver them to the elections office."
  The Birmingham Post then makes the point that that seems slipshod and unusual. It asked the Electoral Commission for its opinion and
  "a spokeswoman was adamant that it is 'unlawful' for a person to complete a postal ballot on behalf of another person unless that person has applied for a proxy vote."
  However, the Electoral Commission then changed its mind. It phoned The Birmingham Post back, insisting that
  "it could not offer advice on the law and suggesting instead that only the returning officer for"
  the city council, the
  "chief executive, could pronounce on such matters."
  So hon. Members will pardon me if my views on the Electoral Commission are somewhat jaundiced.
  Hon. Members will no doubt be appalled by some of what I have said, but I counsel caution against a knee-jerk reaction by Ministers. The reality is that in certain communities, the showing of completed postal votes to the candidate is a way of demonstrating loyalty. It will be difficult to frame a law that makes it illegal for a person voluntarily to show a completed postal vote to a candidate to prove their loyalty to that candidate.
  I regret that time is running out and I cannot share with hon. Members some other comments that I wanted to make. We must revisit the whole issue of postal votes, because we have to ensure that the electoral system is fair and seen to be fair. I have always believed that voting in public elections is a civic duty. I also believe that we would be better going down the road of compulsory voting, as Australia has done. Whatever happens, however, more safeguards need to be put in place. For example, electoral officers in the recent election were not compelled to have a marked register for people who voted by post. Thankfully, the electoral officer in Birmingham had a marked register. When it comes out, I have not the slightest doubt that the cemetery vote will be high and that a large number of people who were not even in the country voted on the day. We are privileged to live in a democracy, the cornerstone of which is the electoral system. Anything that brings it into disrepute undermines our democracy, and we must never allow that to happen.
  3.30 pm
  Dame Marion Roe: I welcome the opportunity to raise again in the House the issue of the integrity of the electoral register, because I continue

  1235
  to be concerned that the system for the registration of voters in England, Scotland and Wales is not sound, and could lead to election fraud.
  When I was appointed as an electoral scrutineer in the Seychelles on behalf of the Commonwealth, and in Angola on behalf of the United Nations, one of our first tasks was to decide who was entitled to vote, followed by a cleansing of the electoral roll. Only by setting down those important criteria could we acknowledge that a basic principle of free and fair elections had been met. I am sure we all accept that an accurate electoral register is a crucial cornerstone of any democracy. If it is corrupted or compromised in any way, the electoral process is undermined and the general public loses confidence in the integrity of the Administration.
  Nine months ago, I became aware that the names of constituents of mine who were foreign nationals were appearing on the electoral register. I remind Members that it is an offence for a householder to fail to give the electoral returning officer information that will enable him to discharge his registration duties or to provide false information. There may be a number of reasons why ineligible voters are registered. First, a family may lack the knowledge, education or expertise to complete the registration form correctly. Children may even be added to the roll because of a misunderstanding of the system. Secondly, foreign nationals may have little grasp of the English language. When the registration form comes through their letter-box, the householder, who is under a duty to complete the form, may not understand the rules and add the name of everyone living in the accommodation.
  Thirdly, foreign nationals know that they are not eligible to vote, and have no intention of doing so, but add their names to the register because it is extremely useful for obtaining credit cards, parking permits, loans, benefits and so on. Members will know that the electoral register is used as a database by many organisations to verify someone's residence. Fourthly, criminals may register false names to legitimise false identities and provide a cover for illegal activities such as benefit fraud. Fifthly, there may be an unfortunate and deliberate registering of people ineligible to vote, or of false names to corrupt the vote and enhance the chances of a particular candidate in local and general elections in marginal wards. Ballot rigging then becomes very easy indeed. Confusion is further increased by the fact that every electoral returning officer produces a different electoral register—they do not look alike, and there is no uniform presentation. In some parts of the country, they are in different languages to assist voters but, in all cases, many people find them complicated.
  I had serious anxieties about the whole business when I discovered that, in general, comprehensive checks were not made on people who added their names on to the register. Even worse, I was told that, to investigate people whose names looked foreign could be deemed racist, and that there was no need to worry because the system was self-regulatory. When I made inquiries with the Electoral Commission, I was informed:
  "If legislation required checks to be made by Electoral Registration Officers, it would be difficult to decide on what criteria these should be instigated and made … if such checks were done on the basis of the appearance or sound of names, such action could well be deemed to be racist and in breach of the law."
  1236
  Furthermore, the electoral returning officer is unlikely to make inquiries unless there is an objection to the inclusion of a particular name. The creation of the rolling register system has made it harder for political parties to use the claims and objections procedure, as the Electoral Commission acknowledged in its report, "The Electoral Registration Process", noting that
  "it is questionable whether the objection process really does have deterrent value … a more effective objection process is likely to be valuable in the prevention of fraud."
  In answer to a written question to the Department for Constitutional Affairs on 9 March 2004, the House was given a list of 20 constituencies in which the highest number of registered electors have been lost from the parliamentary register between 2001 and 2003. I draw attention to the constituency at the top of that list, Brentford and Isleworth, where there was a decrease of 15,486 or 18.6 per cent., which the Minister acknowledged
  "may be due to 'cleaning' of the registers rather than actual falls in the number of electors."—[Official Report, 9 March 2004; Vol. 418, c. 1417W.]
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said, Portsmouth, South showed a decrease of 11,210 or 14.5 per cent. Edinburgh, South showed a decrease of 7,163 or 11.1 per cent.; Brent, East showed a decrease of 6,968 or 12 per cent.; Bolton, South-East showed a decrease of 6,882 or 10.1 per cent.; and Dulwich and West Norwood showed a decrease of 6,812 or 9.7 per cent. There are also major implications for the boundary commissioners' work, which have yet to be acknowledged and addressed when assessing ward and constituency boundaries. This clearly demonstrates the size of the problem that we face.
  There is no doubt in my mind that the electoral register is being abused. The argument that cases of fraudulent registration rarely appear in the courts cannot support the view that there is no problem to solve. The reason that no prosecutions are taking place is that no checks are made and no evidence is exposed. I should like to read an extract from an article that appeared in the Daily Mail on 7 February 2004, which stated:
  "The astonishing ease with which fraudsters are corrupting the electoral system is exposed today. As abuse increases, especially by benefit cheats and illegal immigrants, a Daily Mail investigation has highlighted a culture of inefficiency and political correctness within local councils.
  It allowed us to register a fictitious student, called Gus Troobev, an anagram of 'bogus voter', on 31 Electoral Registers, within just a few hours and to obtain 9 further bogus votes in the most marginal seat in Britain. The Mail has no intention of using any of the 40 votes but, theoretically, they could be used by political parties to swing elections.
  Almost all the Councils we contacted were happy to allow our man to register for elections without asking for any proof of identity. Most of the officials we later asked if Gus Troobev had made it onto the Register said they would not dare investigate an applicant just because he or she had a
  foreign-sounding name or had lived overseas. Gus Troobev is now on the Electoral Roll of 31 key constituencies from Scotland to the South West of England."
  So who can vote in elections in the United Kingdom? British citizens can vote in all elections—local, national and European. Citizens of the Irish Republic can do the same, as can all Commonwealth citizens. Finally, citizens of a country that is a member of the European Union can vote in local elections and choose whether to

  1237
  cast their votes in the UK or their country of origin at European parliamentary elections. But under our present system of registration, how can a returning officer know whether John Smith is British and entitled to vote in all elections, or Canadian and entitled to vote in all elections, or American and not entitled to vote in any elections? It is impossible to know unless a thorough identity check is available on each individual.
  In Northern Ireland, the problem of fraudulent voting—"Vote early, vote often"—was confronted and dealt with through the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Now, in Northern Ireland, there is individual registration of each voter. Householders are no longer responsible for completing forms of behalf of all residents in the home. On the new registration form, there are five identifiers: name, address, date of birth, national insurance number and personal signature. Those details can, of course, be checked more easily but, more importantly, the voter must produce photographic identification documents from a list of options at the polling station when they go to vote. There was a reduction of some 120,000 names or 10 per cent. on the first register compiled under the new system of individual registration, compared with its predecessor, compiled under the household registration system. Thus, the electoral register gained credibility, and confidence in the whole procedure of voting at elections is being restored. In December 2003, the Electoral Commission produced a report outlining its analysis on the workings of the new system in Northern Ireland, and made recommendations for further improvement.
  In one corner of the United Kingdom, we have already acknowledged the difficulties of producing an accurate electoral register, and we introduced legislation to correct the flaws. What are the Government doing to ensure that the same approach is adopted for the rest of the country, particularly bearing in mind that, for the first time, everybody was voting by post for the European elections and local elections a few weeks ago in the north-east, the north-west, the east midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside regions?
  I believe that the Government have put the cart before the horse. It is almost an enticement to vote illegally when the ballot papers are put through one's letterbox with every encouragement to use them. It appears that the Government are sending out the message, "We want as many people to vote as possible, even if they are not eligible to do so." In his statement of 15 January 2004 on the Government's electoral modernisation agenda, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said:
  "We are committed to making voting more accessible and straightforward for the electorate and to allow people more flexibility in where and when they vote."—[Official Report, 15 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 43WS.]
  I put it to the Minister that the question of who is eligible to vote should surely be the priority focus, before the introduction of multi-channelled
  e-enabled elections.
  I believe that returning officers need to be given direction on scrutiny of the electoral register, protected from accusations of racism, harassment and so on, and supported with sufficient resources to fulfil their duties. Another knock-on effect is that the percentage figures of those voting are completely distorted because a large number of people on the electoral register are not entitled to vote in the first place.
  1238
  We must ensure that secure procedures are in place for the registration of voters, so that the integrity of the electoral register is constantly maintained. Every loophole to corrupt our electoral process must be removed and any unfairness eliminated.
  3.41 pm
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate and affording me the opportunity to make just a few observations on the crisis into which our
  democracy is now falling.
  Turnout in the 1992 general election was 77.7 per cent. Nine years later in 2001, it had fallen to just 59.4 per cent. That amounts to a loss of 7 million voters in less than a decade—7 million people who had voluntarily chosen to disfranchise themselves, including many millions of women who gave up their vote less than 80 years after Emily Wilding Davison gave up her life to help secure that vote for them. Of course, turnout in other elections is already far lower. The British disengagement with politics is now so extensive that "Monty Python" has become a reality TV show. Joke candidates have been elected as mayors, only the joke is not so funny any more, because when turnout tumbles, along with the football mascots, we get the fascists as well.
  We in this place have to ask ourselves how that has happened, and how we have turned a democracy that was once cherished into one that is so widely derided, disrespected and distrusted. We have to ask ourselves what on earth we are going to do about it as we face the awful prospect of a Government being elected when fewer than half their people have spoken.
  It is my belief that, in many ways, democracy is analogous to a marriage between the people and Parliament, with elections the ritual that joins them. The trouble is that that marriage is now failing. It failed first from neglect, and now it is failing from abuse, and it is often Parliament that is the more abused party. After all, we are a Parliament full of parliamentarians who, as the papers always tell the people, are only in it for themselves, live high off parliamentary freebies and vote like lemmings for fear of the parliamentary Whip.
  The neglect in that marriage first manifested itself in lack of interest, as people sat on their sofas rather than walked to the ballot box. Then came the abuse, which is, in some respects, manifested by the all-postal voting system. As we endeavoured to drive up turnout, what we actually did was give people who did not really want to vote at all even more opportunities to beat us. We generated a huge protest vote—a protest against the Government, the war and Europe, and a protest against the Government's position on Europe and against the Opposition's position on it; a plague, indeed, on all of our House.
  In part, I think that that is the fault of the press, aspects of which operate as a national conspiracy to keep everybody in a sustained sense of outrage. It is a sad reality that parties then use spin doctors to administer the antidote to the bias in the press, and in turn that allows the press to paint the spin doctors as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.
  In part, the situation is the fault of both Government and Opposition Members. Opposition MPs understandably fall in behind the marching bands

  1239
  of the right-wing press, which whip up cynicism and apathy throughout the land. Government Back Benchers are subordinated to the Executive, but that is not our fault. The media always paint a questioning political party as a divided political party, and MPs know that divided political parties rarely win.
  The largest factor is the fundamental failings of our unwritten constitution, to which we cleave as though it were the grand protector of liberty and rights. We celebrate the unwritten constitution's antiquated quaintness, when in truth the unwritten constitution is deeply dysfunctional. The causes of constitutional dysfunction go to the root of our institutions and to the heart of our constitution.
  We have never even begun to resolve the tension between the dual claims to supremacy—parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Institutionally, that tension manifests itself in the uncomfortable position of the Lord Chancellor, who sits in the Cabinet, the legislature and the country's highest court. Doctrinally, it manifests itself in the fine arguments of judicial review, in which courts tiptoe around policy decisions, interpreting statutes but never challenging them. Indeed, the courts intervene only when decisions are perverse.
  We have a confusion of powers, which we claim are separate, and the arguments that we use to justify that constitutional confusion are deeply unpersuasive and no longer carry the confidence of the people. The people instinctively know that our assertion of parliamentary sovereignty is not in truth enough to legitimise all the decisions that we make. That is not only because MPs are sometimes whipped into voting for the Cabinet and against their consciences, or because people know that that even majorities can be wrong, but because the people know that most of their votes do not count for very much.
  Individual votes at elections do not choose the Prime Minister, and they rarely choose MPs. In 1997, my vote for the Labour candidate in Beaconsfield yielded me exactly the same amount of representation as I would have obtained by tearing up my ballot paper up and setting fire to it. None of us has a vote for a member of the second chamber, and, apart from Lesotho, we are the only nation in the world with legislators who are present through an accident of birth. As long ago as 1791, Thomas Paine wrote in "The Rights of Man" that the idea of hereditary legislators is as absurd as the idea of hereditary mathematicians. The people know that when the courts refuse to intervene on their behalf out of respect for parliamentary sovereignty, the decision is not made in Parliament. Such decisions are made either by the Executive or by an executive—a housing officer, someone on an immigration desk or a planning inspector.
  The people are not persuaded by the rule of law, because if the red-top media are cynical about us, what do they say about judges? They say that judges are old; they say that judges are old Etonians, who are completely out of touch with ordinary people and ordinary lives; and, of course, they say that judges are absurdly soft on crime and criminals. That point contains an element of truth, because the people know that judges do not represent them and are not representative of them.
  1240
  If people ever paused to think about the judicial invention of the man on the Clapham omnibus, they would soon notice, first, that that person is a man; secondly, that that person is a white man; thirdly, that that person is a bencher at Lincoln's Inn; and finally that that person has never been on the Clapham omnibus in their life. We therefore end up with a deep distrust of all our institutions. The perception that Parliament is not sovereign but supine means that people do not vote, and when the fools and the fascists get elected as a result, the people do not trust the judges to protect them.
  What did we do about those problems? We introduced compulsory postal voting, which seems inadequate. Compulsory postal voting is also dangerous, and we must learn the lessons. We had an all-postal vote in the east midlands. That meant that my constituents had to entrust their votes to one of the worst postal services in the country, which had not recovered from a fire in one of its depots. In my constituency, 404 votes arrived late, and another 430 papers were completed incorrectly. More than 830 voters raised their voices, but their voices were not heard. That concerns me, because when I was first elected, my majority was 187, which is one fifth of the votes that were not counted. What was the cause of at least some of those spoiled votes? It was the Liberal amendment in the Lords that required people to have their ballot papers countersigned. What an affront to the privacy of the electoral process! For a generation of women, one of the first features of their liberation was that their husbands never knew how they voted. I wonder how many women felt compelled only a few weeks ago either to show their ballot papers to their husbands or not to vote for fear of showing them to their husbands.
  Is not the requirement for a witness the biggest invitation to fraudsters to try to manipulate the vote? What does the returning officer do when he receives 100 votes countersigned by the same person and covered in Tippex? Of course, we need to increase turnout, but compulsory postal voting is too blunt an instrument safely to do the job.
  What should we do? At least at the general election, we must ensure that people have a choice about whether they vote by post or by walking to the polling station.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: In Northern Ireland, the Electoral Commission has managed to get people off the electoral roll. In the European poll, not only did the figure go down in percentage terms but the total number of people on registers decreased. The Electoral Commission will have to get its act together, because it is robbing people of the right to vote.
  Mr. Stinchcombe: Indeed, lessons will be learned throughout the United Kingdom from the turnout in the areas where the various pilots for different systems took place.
  We should expand rather than remove opportunities to vote in person at the ballot box. We should give people more time—a week or a weekend—to vote. We should move towards making all votes count, not by introducing proportional representation for the House of Commons or getting rid of the constituency link but

  1241
  by reforming the House of Lords so that it is indirectly elected by the secondary mandate at the same time as we elect Members of Parliament. Thus we would not pile yet more elections on an election-weary electorate but add weight to the votes that they have already cast.
  My final suggestion may be the constitutional upheaval that Conservative Members fear. If the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is right and only countries have constitutions, why do not we write one for ourselves, together with a Bill of Rights? Both should be drafted by us, for us and according to our values, not written abroad and incorporated by parliamentary transplant. In that way, we can entrust Parliament with developing policies that would progressively realise those rights. We can ask a more legitimate second Chamber to scrutinise the work, and give a watching brief to a more representative, independently appointed constitutional court, empowered to enforce the Bill of Rights and the UK constitution through the respectful dialogue between constitutional courts and elected Parliaments, as happens in other constitutional democracies.
  In South Africa, democracy and human rights genuinely matter. People were executed as they fought for a vote denied them by the colour of their skin, and the apartheid regime was enacted by a sovereign Parliament and upheld by the courts and the rule of law. Parliament there is now populated by many who were imprisoned on Robben island for daring to fight for the right to vote. In South Africa, constitutional democracy is cherished as the protection against such events ever happening again, whether through white supremacists or a one-party democracy. If South Africans perceive the need to enshrine their values in a constitutional democracy, not fearful of undermining the sovereignty of Parliament or the rule of law, perhaps we should be learn a lesson from that.
  The legitimacy not only of our electoral system but of our democracy and our constitution is being called into question by millions who neither vote nor trust the courts. Rather than relying on compulsory postal ballots to rescue us, we need to examine more radical measures, which would truly bring a new legitimacy to our failing democracy and our flawed electoral system.
  3.53 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) crammed a great deal into his speech, some of which I agreed with and much of which I did not. However, when we consider the voting figures for the past few elections, it is right to be concerned. I believe that there is a fairly simple explanation.
  In 1992, when turnout was fairly high, the election was keenly contested. It was possible that the Labour party could win and people came out to vote in great numbers. They were also much influenced by what happened during the campaign. One need only mention the two words, "Sheffield rally". In 1997, we had a Government who were discredited and a party that had imploded and did not deserve the confidence of the people. We were seen off. In 2001, people were beginning to be disillusioned with the Labour
  1242
  Government, but if they had fallen out of love with them, they certainly had not fallen in love with us, so we did not benefit from any decline in support for Labour. Those simple facts explain more clearly than anything else why there was a decline. When people are really and truly interested, they will vote.
  I would like to refer to the excellent, arresting and disturbing speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff). He took today's debate out of the party political arena and made us focus on some real and important facts. What he said about the postal voting in Birmingham should make us all pause and think. Every hon. Member who has fought many general elections—I have fought every one for the last 40 years—has had a slightly disturbing experience with postal votes, whether it involves someone who has influence over his own particular group, or the matron or superintendent of a home, who says, "It will be all right. We'll make sure they do it properly." We all have to acknowledge that the system is open to abuse, and it is more open to abuse than using a polling booth.
  The Minister's speech was far too glib and complacent, and did not recognise the implicit faults that are present in any postal voting system, although they are not always capable of proof, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe) pointed out. This does not mean that I am against postal votes, but I am in favour of choice. It should be the conscious choice of the elector to vote by post; if the elector wishes to do so, he or she should be allowed to do so. There should be some form of verification of identity, but there should not be a requirement to prove that they are going to be on holiday, or that they are ill or incapacitated. They should be able to make a conscious choice.
  In the recent election, many people were very unhappy about being forced to vote by post. I come from Lincolnshire—my home town was Grimsby—and I received a number of letters from friends there who said, "Whenever you get the opportunity, do say that we do not want this choice permanently taken away from us. We treasure the fact that we go consciously to a polling booth to cast our vote." We deprive our electorate of that choice at the peril of our democracy.
  I am fundamentally opposed to compulsory postal voting for two reasons above all others. One is that it effectively abolishes polling day. The other is that it abolishes the influence that a campaign can have. I referred briefly to the Sheffield rally, but we can all remember certain incidents, some of which have been to the advantage of our own party and others that have not. I remember the first general election that I fought, in 1964, in the constituency of Bolsover. Of course, I was never going to have a chance of winning, but I managed to reduce the majority from around 24,000 to 23,000. That was the best I could do. However, I remember that two things happened that could have influenced that campaign if they had happened a day or two earlier. One was the Chinese explosion of an atomic device; the other was the fall of Khrushchev.
  During an election campaign, it is important that people should constantly be listening to the people who are seeking to represent them. I deeply deplore the demise of the public meeting; I hold them every night in my constituency. People should be continually aware of

  1243
  what is going on during the campaign, so that their minds can be influenced right up to the time when they go into the polling booth. With compulsory all-postal voting, we destroy that at a stroke
  We also, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath graphically demonstrated, run the risk of destroying the secret ballot. The secret ballot has been a feature of our democracy for only 140 years—
  before that, we stood on the hustings and proclaimed our allegiance. I could not help but think of that when he was talking about the demonstration of loyalty—a demonstration of loyalty voluntarily given is one thing, but a demonstration of loyalty yielded out of fear or intimidation is very different. I hope that those are factors on which the Government will think carefully.
  If we are truly anxious, regardless of the will of the electorate, to increase participation in elections, there is an alternative, to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath, towards the close of his speech, alluded briefly. That is the system that they have not only in Australia but in Belgium and other places—compulsory voting. If an element of compulsion is to be introduced, it should be that. People can then choose to vote by post or by going to the polling station. They can write. "A plague on both your houses," which was the substance of the hon. Member for Wellingborough's summation of the recent election, they can put more vulgar slogans, or they can return in the post a blank ballot paper. So great are the problems that we face, however—some of those to do with the integrity of the register were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—that we ought to give some thought to compulsory registration, without which people would not be entitled to benefits and other things. If someone registers compulsorily, they have a duty to vote compulsorily, by returning a ballot paper in one form or another. In that way, we do away with most of the opportunities for abuse. we increase the turnout, and we concentrate the minds of the politicians—those of us who sit here or seek to sit here.
  Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman has touched on a crucial point: even were there fraud under such a system, because turnout is much higher, it is much more difficult to influence the result by fraudulent means.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making a point that I was hoping to make a little later. If we have, as I believe that Belgium had on 10 June, a turnout of more than 90 per cent., or as they have in Australia, the incidence of fraud is diminished in its impact.
  What we should all be concerned about is the reputation of our democracy, and what we aspire to do here. I am old-fashioned in my views of this place and of seeking election to this place. I believe that politics is an honourable vocation. Those of us who feel called to public service have a right to place ourselves before the electorate, and they have the right to choose. We have the duty to ensure that they have the means of choice. The way in which the Government are seeking to tackle this is misguided. It is not malevolent. I do not for a moment impugn the integrity of either of the Ministers on the Front Bench—they are both good chaps—but I
  1244
  do not think that they have thought it through sufficiently seriously. They have dismissed the Sparkbrook argument without listening to it, and now that they have heard it, I hope that they will take it on board, because it is a very important argument.
  If Ministers are motivated by turnout, I hope that they will reflect on the logical, perfectly honourable precedent of compulsory voting—as we have said, there are precedents in other countries. If that is the road that they want to take, let us take it together. At the end of the day, however, let them realise that it is not the duty of the Government, by fiat—that is virtually what happened last time, and a Government with a big majority, such as this, behave in that way—to deprive people of choice. By all means, if a man or a woman wants to vote by post, let them do so, but do not deprive them of the opportunity of going to the polling booth.
  It is no answer to suggest that because there is an alternative booth—one in a large area—that solves the problem. It does not. There is no substitute for the local polling station near where people live. Many people, particularly the elderly, rejoice in the fact that they make a real, conscious effort to go to vote. In the last general election, without doubt the most moving experience for me occurred in one polling station quite near a large old people's home. Those people were coming in, and being pushed in in wheelchairs—in one case, a bath chair—and they told me that they wanted to do that. They said that they did not want postal votes because coming out to vote was what they wanted to do.
  If that is what people want to do, it is an arrogant assertion of overbearing power for any Government to deprive them of that. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will recognise the validity of our arguments and show that he wants us to move forward in a way that affords proper choice to all our people.
  4.6 pm
  Andrew Bennett: The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) should look carefully at Australia. It appears that with compulsory voting there, the number of people voting at each successive general election is falling and that the number of prosecutions is small. I do not think that compulsory voting is such a good idea. It would be a much better principle to say that when someone gets elected, any people who did not vote count as part of their majority because they had the chance to vote for someone else if they wanted, but did not.
  The most important thing in this debate is to put firmly on the record our thanks to all those people who made the recent elections a success—all the returning officers, who did an excellent job, and all the election staff. We should also congratulate the Post Office, which turned up trumps in almost every case, throughout the country. I also add my thanks to the party workers who in most cases, particularly in the north of England where this had to be done that little bit earlier, got the election literature out so that people could make an informed choice.
  The debate would have been better if the Tory party had not just had a rant in opening it, and, I am afraid, if we had not seen some amazing hypocrisy from the Liberal party. The Liberals told us that they would wait

  1245
  and see what the Electoral Commission had to say, but their amendment firmly pre-empts the commission by suggesting that the whole system is in chaos.
  We need to recognise that many of the problems occurred because of the ping-pong between this House and the House of Lords. The House of Lords must take some responsibility for the chaos that it caused. We must also recognise that the deal that was done to get the legislation through—the witness statement—was a big mistake. It is quite clear that some people living on their own did not vote because of the problems of going to ask a neighbour or someone else for the witness statement. The witness statement is absolutely pointless. It is probably true that if a voter put down Mickey Mouse, with Disneyland for the address, the returning officer would have disallowed the statement, but if they put down John Smith at some address somewhere in the country, there was no chance of that statement being checked out. The witness statement is a waste of time, and we do not need it.
  It was unfortunate that the Electoral Commission discouraged the political parties from helping people to return their ballot papers, and from signing the witness statements. That was a serious mistake. I must also say to the Tory party that the more that we insist on a witness statement, the lesser the degree of secrecy for the individual voter. If we do not have a witness statement, a voter can take their paper away, sign it and send it off without being influenced at all by other people.
  We should firmly congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government on going ahead with the experiment, because we learned a great deal. That does not mean to say that I necessarily want us to carry on having experiments, but we should recognise just how important this experiment was.
  First, we had a much higher turnout, which was worthwhile. Secondly, we had to look into the matter of size. There is some question as to whether there are enough security printers to extend the arrangements so that all local elections could be done through an all-postal ballot. I think that that is questionable. One suggestion is to solve the problem by providing more time between the nominations and sending the ballot papers out, but we should remember that we have been fantastically lucky in this country in that we have not had to conduct a by-election in the middle of a general election since 1955, when a parliamentary candidate died and an election had to be put off. The longer the period between nominations and voting, the greater the likelihood of having to re-run an election when a candidate dies.
  We must also recognise that the experiment showed that many people were not volunteering for it. Almost all the experiments up to this point were conducted by volunteers—in other words, by the dynamic returning
  officers who were keen to prove that they could conduct an experiment. This time, however, we had one or two people who, to put it kindly, were not particularly up to the job. We have to recognise that if we moved to an all-postal vote system, there could be problems there.
  1246
  There is also the problem of expense. We have to weigh up whether all-postal voting provides value for money. We also have to acknowledge that a half-and-half system, towards which we might be moving, may be even more expensive with half the people opting for a postal vote and the other half going to the polling station. If we were interested solely in increasing turnout, it might be better simply to say to all the electors that they could have £5 off their council tax if they voted. That might well get more people to vote, without incurring all the expenses of the system.
  We must now evaluate the experiments properly, but not to place blame, as all the political parties have pressed for extra postal voting. We now need to ask ourselves how best to move forward. It has to be through the Electoral Commission, but if so, we should also have a few people representing the political parties sitting on it. That might give the Electoral Commission a little more experience of the realities of electioneering.
  I promised that I would conclude my speech in six minutes and I am sorry that I have overrun. I congratulate all those people who made the system just work this time and I congratulate the Government on carrying it all out, but we now need a full evaluation.
  4.12 pm
  Angela Watkinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate, because it is essential that we preserve the hitherto high reputation of our voting system, which has been brought into question by the problems that have arisen with all-postal voting.
  The essential ingredients of our voting system are confidentiality, privacy and security. All those three elements have been put into question by various recent problems and they have been undermined by recent innovations to increase the turnout in elections. I would question the practice of describing all-postal voting as "turnout", because that is the one thing that people do not have to bother to do. The traditional method, on which our reputation has been built, centres on trust and the confidence of the electorate. It is a private matter. People do not want others to know how they voted.
  Theoretically, under the traditional system, someone could wade through hundreds of thousands of used randomly sorted ballot papers to look for one particular number, but it is unlikely that that would ever be attempted and even less likely that it would be successful. People like to see their vote being put into a sealed ballot box and they enjoy the ritual of going to their polling station and voting in person. With an all-postal ballot system, they are not allowed to do that. It is important that they reserve the right to make a choice as to whether to vote by post or in person. When someone applies for a postal vote in person, it shows an indication of the intent to vote, which is quite different from issuing a postal ballot paper to everyone, especially when many people have no intention of voting in the first place.
  In the 2002 local elections, Havering was one of the pilots for postal voting. As I have noted before, there was a problem with the one-envelope system, under which people put their declaration of identity and their ballot paper into the same envelope. The voter's ward could be identified from the outside of those envelopes,

  1247
  which meant that people could know where that voter lived and his or her likely voting intentions. When the ballot paper and the declaration of identity were returned to the town hall, they had to be separated. At that stage, too, it could have been possible to discover how voters had voted. That did not happen, but people resented the fact that the opportunity had been created.
  I know that the percentage of people voting rose in the recent elections, but that happened at a price. The price was the number of irregularities in the election process, and the fact that voters were deprived of choice. The hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) is no longer in her place, but I was concerned about her report of what happened in Watford. I had the thought that the one-envelope system had been discontinued, but it sounded to me as though it might have remained in operation there.
  I want to challenge the received wisdom that it should be made easier for people to vote. That should not be confused with increasing the percentage of people who use their vote. It is already easy and convenient for people to vote, and to get a postal vote. They have only to ask for one: they do not have to give any justification or explanation. However, even doing that much requires a little effort by voters. It is not great, but people have to take the trouble to ask for a postal vote.
  At election time, some people do not even notice that an election is going on. Despite what they read in the newspapers, hear on the radio or see on the television, and despite the contents of the posters hung in windows or the leaflets pushed through their letter boxes, some people claim not to know that an election is being held. It takes quite a lot of effort to ignore all that. I suggest that those people are unlikely to have bothered to give the election any thought at all. They will not have considered the issues involved, or compared the attributes of the various candidates. They disfranchise themselves by neglect and treat their privileged vote with disdain—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We must not have continued chuntering from a sedentary position.
  Angela Watkinson: I challenge whether the Government have the right to make it easy for people to vote, when that is already so very easy to do. Some people choose not to use that privilege.
  Another problem is the unreliability of the post. I have been inundated with complaints from people who did not receive their ballot papers. Many complaints came from people who happened to be on holiday on election day. They had informed the town hall of the date when their holiday was due to begin, and had been assured that their ballot papers would arrive in time. When that did not happen, they lost the opportunity to vote, even though had made the effort to make inquiries.
  I hope that the Minister will clarify one point. He will correct me if I am wrong, but in a television interview I thought that I heard him say that people who did not receive their ballot papers in time cousld go to their town hall's electoral registration department and ask for one. When people did that in Havering, the town hall refused
  1248
  to give them another ballot paper. Did the town halls have different instructions, or did I misunderstand what the Minister said?
  Mr. Leslie: I shall try and clarify that. In the all-postal regions, the failsafe in the unlikely eventuality that people did not receive their ballot papers was that they could go and get a replacement. The bar codes used on the documents meant that the original ballot paper would be cancelled automatically. Those arrangements did not exist outside the pilot regions. The experience described by the hon. Lady was not related to the pilot on all-postal voting.
  Angela Watkinson: The Minister is right to say that there was no all-postal voting in Havering on this occasion, but the incident throws up one of the problems associated with postal voting. The people who suffered had made the effort to ask for a postal ballot paper. They explained when they needed it and were assured that they would receive it. I have received many letters on this matter. My constituents Mr. and Mrs. Lewis recounted how they boarded a coach one day and found that it contained 25 other people who had also not received the postal ballot papers that they had requested.
  In contrast, a member of staff in my constituency office received four ballot papers, in separate envelopes, on the same day. She destroyed the three spare papers, but how many other people had the same experience, and what did they do with the extra papers?
  Many elderly people did not understand the multiple elections that were held on the same day. I had to ask for help from the presiding officer at the polling station, as the matter was so very complicated. So I would like the Minister to look into the issue of multiple elections on the same day, especially when the voting methods are different for the component parts. It is confusing, particularly for elderly people, who have voted all their lives but are used to one particular way of doing it. Please may we retain choice for people who do not want to vote by post and want to see their ballot paper going into the ballot box?
  4.20 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: The issue that exercises hon. Members on both sides of the House is that of low turnout. Low turnout undermines the validity of the whole democratic process and the authority of elected representatives. That is why it is right that, with all-party support, we looked into running pilots for different sorts of voting in local elections. The obvious conclusion was that only all-postal ballots increased turnout substantially. It was therefore surely right in turn that we looked at a wider pilot, which we have just conducted, to see whether the lessons from the smaller pilots could be applied on a larger basis. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) turned the matter into a party political issue, because I agreed with some of the other points that he made.
  I was concerned, as all hon. Members will have been, by the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) about what happened in Birmingham. In

  1249
  Sheffield there have been no allegations of widespread fraud. I am certainly not aware of any such allegations; I am not aware of any allegations in my constituency. There were no real problems with postal delivery.
  The real problems, if there were any, were around the witness statement, which confused many people, not just elderly people, and the wording of the instructions that came with the ballot papers. If I had not understood the process, I would have been pretty confused by the wording. It varied from region to region; the instructions that I saw in London were far clearer than those in Yorkshire. So there are lessons to be learned by the Electoral Commission and the Government.
  The problems with security and fraud in postal voting, as the Electoral Commission said over and over again at the Select Committee inquiry, are general problems with postal voting, not problems with all-postal voting. We should get back to that and get away from the party political points.
  I want to put forward four basic principles for a way forward. We should be concerned about ease of voting. I disagree with the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). We should make it as easy as possible for people to vote—of course legitimately. We should be concerned about the security of the vote, about the consistency of the electoral process, and about choice.
  To take consistency first, we have had the pilot projects and it is right that we should learn from them, share experiences and look at what went right and what went wrong. Clearly, many more people voted than would have done with the traditional system. That is a good thing. We should not get into small arguments about how much the percentage turnout went up. It was clearly higher, and I believe that it was higher because of all-postal voting. It is clear that in any system of voting, people have to have the right to vote by post whether because they are ill, or on holiday, or working away. So postal voting has to be part of the voting system. However, I have some sympathy with the points made by some Opposition Members and with people in my constituency who have said, "We vote in every election as a matter of principle, but we do not feel that we have voted properly this time because we have not been able to go to the polling station." So we ought to take account as well of the wishes of the people who vote every time.
  Let us have consistency. Let us decide what is the best form of voting. Having had the pilot projects, it is right that we devise a form of voting that applies at all elections so that people know what to expect every time and do not have to rethink how they will vote at each election. Within that, we should have different types of voting. People should have the right to vote by post and the right to vote at a ballot station. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) that that will mean extra cost, but it is a cost worth paying to enhance our democratic process. Eventually, we may get on to e-voting as another option.
  People may say that we already have that system of voting, but we can make a postal vote easier to obtain. In Sheffield, people can now tick a box on the electoral registration form to apply for a form to fill in to get a postal vote. Why not make it easier? Why not have
  1250
  boxes that people can tick to indicate whether they want to vote at a ballot station or by post? People should get their postal vote automatically if they tick the box, with no need for an extra form. That would simplify the process.
  In terms of security, I agree that individual voter registration must be introduced. For example, we need checks on signatures to ensure that the voting system is secure. We should also implement a limit on the number of ballot papers that can be sent to an address for people who are not registered there, in the same way as we limit the number of proxy votes that one individual can exercise.
  I am concerned about the registration process, probably for slightly different reasons from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe). There is a real problem with people not sending registration forms back and being disfranchised as a result. Perhaps the Government could work with local authorities and provide a little more money for the canvassing process, because that is not being done properly in many areas. Registration officers say that in some areas up to 98 per cent. of forms are returned, but in other areas it is only 50 per cent. Resources should be put into that issue, because individual registration will make the process more complicated and difficult. In practice, no one is ever prosecuted for failing to return the form, so we could consider giving a bonus for doing so—perhaps a rebate on the council tax.
  It is difficult for me to say so, but I commend the system of Westminster council, which sends out a card to everyone after the register has been drawn up, saying who is registered in their house. That is good practice, which should be replicated throughout the country.
  Finally, I would just say to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that if the looks on the faces of the Liberal Democrats at the count in Sheffield on 11 June were those of people who had just scored a spectacular success at the ballot box, I would hate to see the looks on the faces of those who had just lost an election that they clearly expected to win.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): If this debate has one result, it will be that we all take the electoral system and its integrity more seriously, and I welcome that. In the interests of time I will confine my remarks primarily to my experience in the all-postal pilot region of the east midlands, where I live. What took place shook my own and my constituents' faith in the integrity of the process—so much so that even though I had probably voted more often by post than in person in the past 40 years, I went to the assistance and delivery point and put my ballot in the box, along with some 7 per cent. of those who voted in my area.
  I do not like getting letters from constituents enclosing spoiled ballot papers with their protest about what they have been asked to do. There are three main reasons for the situation. First, the pilots were overambitious and, the therefore, under-explained to the electorate. Secondly, the traditional and still generally preferred default option of going to vote in person was withdrawn. Thirdly, when I first voted by post 40 years ago, there were perhaps 500,000 postal votes in the general election. This time, there were 14 million in the pilot areas alone, with probably some 17 million overall. It is a simple issue of scale.

  1251
  I first became aware of problems with ballot papers when my agent alerted me to them of about half past 11 on Wednesday 26 May. By fluke, I had the chance of a long-odds question to the Prime Minister and I was able to raise the issue with him that morning. It was clear that he had already been briefed about the problems that had developed; the alarm bells had obviously started to ring. For various reasons—I shall not go into them now, although I have a full report to share with the Minister—none of the ballots in South Northamptonshire, which is one or the districts in my constituency, the other being Daventry, was delivered until 2 June. The bulk of the ballots appeared on 3 June, and a limited number trickled in up to the weekend. It was an appalling start to the process, although it was not necessarily wholly the responsibility of Ministers. It was redeemed by sterling work by the two local returning officers and their staff in Daventry and South Northamptonshire, who worked long hours, not only on election night but over an extended period to put matters right.
  Several issues for Ministers arise. First, they have to face the costs of the system. I have had a helpful response to a written question from the Minister, saying that the Government will meet any reasonable exceptional costs. If we are to do this again in future, we will have to have more assistance and delivery points, and the budget will have to be extended to cover them. When I looked at the figures, almost all the costs allocated to my district council were for the printing of ballots and the postal contract. After staff were taken into account, no exceptional costs were included.
  Secondly, Ministers must understand that time is critical in the process. The delay of a week reduced the number of days for turning round ballot papers to five, which made things extremely difficult for people who were on holiday. I am slightly worried about the Post Office itself—the Minister was rather complacent on that point; for example, I understand that its helpline to returning officers was shut over the weekend.
  My impression is that the Electoral Commission was not very active during the election, but it must take into account all the representations and experience that have built up. I am concerned about double registrations. Like many Members, I received two Euro votes and tore one up. I am sure we all did that, but the fact that such an occasion could arise is worrying.
  The whole exercise was an object lesson in not getting things right first time. In a sense, of course, that is what happens in a pilot. However, there are real worries about abuse. According to the Daventry returning officer, turnout rose, although not in all wards and not solely due to all-postal voting—his comment, not mine. That higher turnout came at the price of some public confidence in the system. The ballot turned into a dull administrative exercise instead of having the important element of ritual and performance.
  My electors deserve their right to choose and to be able to go to the polling station on election day—and, when the time comes, to turn out en masse to dismiss this Government of failed initiatives.
  4.31 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We have had a far more interesting debate than the extraordinarily complacent reply delivered by the
  1252
  Minister in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) indicated. Concerns about the pilots were raised on both sides of the House and, despite the Minister's complacency about our electoral system, the state of the electoral roll, the state of postal voting and the conduct of his electoral pilots leave much to be desired.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) complained that the debate had been too party political, but I have to tell him that many people are concerned that the Government are using and abusing the electoral system for their political ends, as I shall explain. It pains me to say that; it is a sad state of affairs when things come to that pass.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) raised important points about the additional costs of the pilots and the Government must address those. He was right to point out that the pilots were over-ambitious. We all knew that the pilots were overambitious. Evidence to the Select Committee was that the pilots were over-ambitious. The Electoral Commission, which the Government set up to advise them, told the Government—[Interruption.] Whether we want to keep the commission or not—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Jenkin: Whether we want to keep the Electoral Commission or not, the Minister and his party set it up, presumably so that the Government could take its advice. However, they do not take the commission's advice. The Government ignored its advice about the number of pilots. They ignored the evidence given by the printers to the Select Committee that they would get in a mess. By playing fast and loose with our electoral system, the Government have paid a heavy political price in the perception of their fitness to govern, but the British people, too, have paid a heavy political price in the credibility of our electoral system.
  We have heard of postmen being offered £500 to hand over sacks of uncompleted ballot papers, of a postman in south Liverpool being mugged for the ballot papers he was delivering, of the police launching allegations of malpractice in Bradford, of Burnley police planning to question 60 people about 170 suspect proxy votes, of abandoned sacks of uncompleted ballot papers being found in Blackpool, of dead people suddenly coming to life and voting, and of intimidation in Burnley, Bradford, Derby, Oldham, and Rochdale—to name but a few places.
  The system of all-postal voting allows possibly countless instances of intimidation and breach of secrecy in the home or the community that may never be reported or come to light. If the Minister thinks that the only speeding offences committed on the roads are those caught by the cameras and the police, he is living in another world. [Interruption.] Listen to the Labour leader of Birmingham city council, quoted by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who said—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister wishes to intervene, he ought to stand up in the usual way and intervene properly. Continual chattering from the Front Bench in that way disrupts the debate.
  Mr. Jenkin: My comments must be getting under the Minister's skin, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  1253
  The Labour leader of Birmingham city council said—I quote from memory—that the law is so general that almost anything is allowed. The problems of gathering evidence and prosecuting are very difficult bearing in mind that evidence that will carry a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt is needed. So what is needed is not post-operative care of the electoral system after the elections have taken place, using the courts and criminal prosecutions and investigations, but an electoral system that pre-empts the problems that may arise. That has singularly failed to happen in the postal pilot schemes.
  Andrew Bennett rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I will give way very briefly to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the only time that I shall give way.
  Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what he has just said is nonsense? He talks about postal ballots, but his example from Birmingham has nothing to do with postal ballots. Will he address what the Conservative party said when postal voting was extended? None of the concerns that he is expressing now were expressed in any of those debates.
  Mr. Jenkin: With respect, we expressed very strong concerns about conducting such a widespread so-called pilot that involved a third of the English electorate; but yes, we were open-minded about those postal pilots. We approached them in a thoroughly non-partisan manner. The Government politicised them by forcing up the number of regions. We know why they did so: they wanted to boost the turnout in Labour northern areas of the country in a very difficult election in which they got smashed even then. The problem is that the Government have been gerrymandering the process for their own political ends and even ignoring their own Electoral Commission, which they set up for the purpose of advising them.
  We have heard of plenty examples of people being disfranchised because of the sheer scale and complexity of the task of printing and distributing some 83 million pieces of paper, of ballot papers being delivered late or not at all, of incomprehensible instructions on ballot packs, incomplete ballot packs or ballot packs missing ballot papers or other vital pieces of paper. Despite all that, the Minister felt able to issue a written statement yesterday, and I shall quote from it:
  "The elections were successfully completed."—[Official Report, 21 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 72WS.]
  Well, we have heard about spin, but that is taking spin to new lengths.
  I very much regret that I missed some of the speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff), but from the account of his speech given to me by my colleague, he certainly confirmed that what the Minister described as a myth is, in fact, dangerously true, given the problems in his constituency and, of course, elsewhere. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) described the Minister's statement as "ludicrous" in the Yorkshire Post this morning and said that the all-postal pilots led to "cash and carry democracy" in his constituency. [Interruption.] Yes, just dismiss him; he is just another Tory clone.
  1254
  However much turnout may be increased by all-postal voting, it cannot be justified if the integrity of the voting process is compromised or public confidence is undermined. That is the real lesson that needs to be learned from the pilots. This is a very serious matter because voting in person and in secret is the very essence of democracy. Even the most cynical politicians and voters approach a real ballot box with real reverence. Our voting system should not be made the plaything of a single political party.
  We have heard endlessly that the Minister's statement made great play of the increased turnout, but what evidence is there that all-postal voting is the key factor in the increase? The Government's claim that all-postal voting doubled turnout is, of course, not borne out by the facts; it is based on a completely false comparison. That point has been well made by many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The turnout in the pilot regions was a mere 5 per cent. higher than in the non-pilot regions. The Minister shakes his head, but that is a fact. The experiment could not be better controlled than by running it in some regions and not in others. I acknowledge that, yes, there was a bigger increase in turnout in the postal regions than in the non-postal regions, but not by 100 per cent.—not by any stretch of the imagination. Of course, the increase was in Labour areas where turnout tends to be lower, and we know why the Minister wanted to increase the turnout in those areas more quickly than in others.
  Even a Minister—the Minister for Pensions—said that to raise turnout, initiatives such as postal voting were "simply not good enough". The Secretary of State for Education and Skills admitted:
  "Generally, I don't think the experiments are the answer"
  to voter apathy, and he is a member of the Cabinet, not another Tory myth maker, as suggested by the Minister. The evidence so far suggests that once the novelty of postal voting has worn off, turnout will begin to fall away. That experience has been borne out in other countries. One thing is clear from the all-postal pilot schemes run in the elections: public confidence in the electoral system has been seriously undermined. If the Government had set out to create chaos and confusion, they could not have done a better job.
  The scope for malpractice in the regional referendums threatens to be even higher. Public apathy towards the proposals for regional assemblies means that few will care what happens to their ballot papers. There will be an opportunity for what is becoming known as "vote harvesting". The hon. Member for North Cornwall did not address that in his support for all-postal ballots. Supposing the real interest in the ballots is only, say, 20 per cent. participation, what happens to the 80 per cent. of ballot papers that are sent out willy-nilly? Unscrupulous individuals will go about collecting uncompleted ballot papers from people who are not interested in using them. Once again, the Government will send out live authorised ballot papers across the north of England like confetti. Once again, the front pages of local and national newspapers are likely to be flooded with stories of corruption, intimidation and fraud.
  The only way to avoid that situation is to restore the choice and right to vote in person at the polling station, as my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire

  1255 s
  (Sir Patrick Cormack), for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and for Daventry (Mr Boswell) said. No one should be issued with a ballot paper unless they identify themselves in person at the polling station on the day or request a postal ballot paper on the proper form. The methods and checks on voter registration and postal voting in Northern Ireland have much to commend themselves, and I ask the Minister to consider them carefully, as also recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe). The way in which elections are conducted there makes Labour's all-postal ballots look like a complete shambles organised by some petty dictatorship.
  What possible justification could there now be for conducting referendums on constitutional change, no less, by a flawed method in which people in the three referendum regions can have little, if any, confidence? The ballot box was good enough for referendums on the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, so surely it is good enough for referendums on regional assemblies. But it seems that it is not and the regional referendums must be fixed, like the turnout in the recent elections.
  Labour's proposals for elected regional assemblies have been received with the most astonishing outburst of apathy from the people of the north. The Government favour all-postal voting in the vain hope that they will boost the turnout to disguise that apathy. The Minister admitted that the result of the referendums would have to be ignored in the event of a derisory turnout, although he always refuses to identify the meaning of the word "derisory". Ministers know that they can expect few favours from the Prime Minister if they deliver yet another kicking for the Labour party so close to the general election. The decision to conduct the referendums by all-postal ballot was only announced last October, well over a year after the production of the White Paper on regional government. Why then? Because the results of the "Your Region, Your Say" sounding exercise proved to be truly derisory with just 8,500 responses from a potential population of 40 million people, and that is the basis on which the Government are going ahead with the regional referendums.
  At this point, I had intended to deliver this sentence: "The Government are determined to hold these referendums by all-postal ballot come hell or high water, simply to avoid humiliation at the ballot box", but the Minister changed the story. He generously gave a statement suggesting that the Government would consider calling off the referendums if there was sufficient doubt about the reliability of all-postal voting. That is a serious development because, as I said in an intervention on him, it calls the holding of the referendums into question, and we know that many of his colleagues are dying to bury them before the Government are humiliated again. However, would that effectively transfer the decision about whether the referendums should go ahead to the Electoral Commission? Would it advise the Government whether it is safe to proceed with them? What would happen to the information campaign? Are the Government going to spend all that money on propaganda at the taxpayer's expense only to cancel the referendums, and what will the people of the north and, indeed, the taxpayer say about that?
  Mr. Raynsford: We are providing information.
  Mr. Jenkin: It is propaganda.
  Is the real agenda even more cynical than it is incompetent? First, the Government want to run a propaganda campaign, then test the water with a few opinion polls to find out whether the referendums are winnable, and pull them if they are not. There is a perfectly respectable alternative—hold the referendums and use a conventional ballot box. We do not want them to be cancelled. The people of the north have been promised that choice, so why not hold the referendums on the basis of a reliable system? One of the highest duties of Government is to nurture and protect our democracy, but the Labour Government are guilty of wanton dereliction of that duty. New Labour chooses political advantage at the expense of principle, corruption at the expense of security, and opportunism at the expense of public confidence. Only by restoring the rights of voters to vote in person, in secret, at the ballot box on the day of the poll can we restore confidence in our voting system. That is what the Government should do in the regional referendums in the autumn, and new Labour should stop playing fast and loose with our democracy.
  4.46 pm
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Neither the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) nor the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) helped to promote a proper and mature debate on an important subject because, in both cases, they chose to go over the top with ill-judged and inaccurate scaremongering.
  This has been a revealing debate about the Opposition's inadequacies. A range of issues has been raised and various points of view have been expressed, and I shall start with something that should command consensus. There is a large measure of agreement that the health of our democracy has been threatened—I will not go any further because, unlike the hon. Gentlemen, I do not believe in overstatement. The health of our democracy has been threatened—not undermined—by falling levels of participation and engagement, symbolised by declining turnout at elections, both national and local, which has rightly prompted expressions of concern across the political spectrum. I therefore hope that we all agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
  When we try to identify solutions, I grant that there are bound to be differences of opinion. Some people believe that the system of representative democracy that was entirely fit for the purpose 150 years ago is no longer as effective a means of responding to the electorate's concerns as it was in its Victorian and early 20th-century heyday. In the absence of new ways of engaging the public between elections as well as at elections, we will not succeed in reversing the trend of declining participation. Other people, particularly the Liberal Democrats, have a touching faith in the supposed redemptive powers of proportional representation, despite strong evidence to the contrary that demonstrates that declining trends of participation apply across Europe, irrespective of the electoral system, whether first past the post or proportional

  1257
  representation. Others believe that we need to address the means by which people express their preferences, which obviously means offering alternative voting options. The Government have been exploring such options for four years. In 2000, we ran a series of pilots that included different times and locations for voting as well as the all-postal option. In 2002, we repeated the pilots, with more extensive options for all-postal ballots, and we added electronic options, including voting by mobile phone and via the internet. In 2003 we ran an even more ambitious pilot programme with extensive all-postal and electronic voting options.
  The Electoral Commission monitored and evaluated the 2002 and 2003 pilots. It was not in existence in time to monitor the 2000 pilots. Its conclusion at the end of the process was clear: that all-postal voting had demonstrated the greatest positive impact on increasing turnout. In its report on the 2003 pilots the Electoral Commission not only concluded that all-postal pilots were very successful in substantially increasing turnout, but even more significantly, recommended that in future all-postal ballots should become the norm for local government elections—not, I hasten to add, a case of the Government seeking to impose that, as was suggested in the debate, but a proposal from the Electoral Commission.
  The Electoral Commission's report, "The Shape of Elections to Come", was published less than a year ago. What was the reaction of the official Opposition to the recommendation that all-postal voting should be the norm at all future local government elections? Did they object? Did they complain? Did they express fears about threats to the integrity of the polling process? No, they did not. They said nothing. To be fair to the official Opposition, they may have been a little distracted at the time by their plots to get rid of their then party leader, so perhaps we must allow that they were diverted.
  However, we now have a clear example of an Opposition presented with pilots in 2000, 2002 and 2003 and a recommendation from the Electoral Commission for universal all-postal elections for local authorities who raised no objections at all, but offer the House today a concoction of exaggerated and mostly unsubstantiated claims and scaremongering and an extraordinarily ill-judged attack on the Electoral Commission itself. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton told the House he did not care what the Electoral Commission says. I believe that he will deeply regret that, and I hope he will feel ashamed and embarrassed by that remark. Fortunately, that tone did not continue for much of the debate.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) claimed that we were overstating the improvement in voting—
  Mr. Alan Duncan: I am happy to say again that when the facts are staring us in the face that there is massive scope for electoral fraud, the possibility that there may be an inquiry does not matter. We can see the facts already. That is the point I am making.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman did not show much respect for facts in the farrago of exaggerated
  1258
  claims in his speech, and it is a telling comment about him and his party that he cannot bring himself to express regret for that extraordinarily ill-judged attack on the Electoral Commission.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall expressed the view that we were overstating the extent of improvement in voting in the all-postal pilot areas, and the hon. Member for North Essex made a similar claim, so let me give the figures. In the four pilot regions the average percentage turnout in the 1999 European elections was 20.2 per cent. This year it was 42.6 per cent.—an increase of more then 100 per cent. The increase in the total non-pilot regions—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex, who had a lot to say about this and claimed that we were statistically wrong, should listen, and he will realise that it is he who is wrong.
  In the total non-pilot regions, the percentage in 1999 was 25.9 per cent. This year it was 37.2 per cent., so there was an increase of about 50 per cent. in turnout in the non-pilot regions and an increase of more than 100 per cent. in the pilot regions. That clearly demonstrates that there was a significantly higher turnout in the pilot regions and puts the argument to bed.
  Mr. Tyler: That does not put the argument to bed at all. There was just a 5 per cent. difference in turnout. The reason why the increase in the northern areas was so great was that it was so low last time, because it was a foregone conclusion that Labour would win.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. The turnout in the non-pilot regions last time was 25.9 per cent., also very low indeed, but it did not increase by anywhere near the same proportion as in the pilot regions.
  The hon. Gentleman went on a long diversion about the performance of YouGov. There seems to be a personal vendetta there, which I do not intend to follow. At the end of his speech, however, he said that he felt concerned about the number of assistance and delivery points available at the time of an all-postal referendum or election. That is a valid point and I share that concern. It was echoed by many other Members, including the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), in the debate, and I undertake to consider it further with the Electoral Commission. If there is to be a repeat of all-postal processes, we will need to consider that issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) expressed serious concerns about alleged abuse of postal voting in Birmingham. Of course, Birmingham was not a pilot area, which reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who said that any problems that may exist with postal voting are not unique to electoral pilots, but apply to postal voting wherever it exists. As a country, we have made the option of postal voting available for a very long time, for good reasons. It is important that any allegation such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath raised are reported and investigated. I fully share his concern that proper safeguards against fraud should be in place, but it is also important that we should be careful not to overstate the problem or give any impression, whether intentionally or not, that particular sections of our community are more prone than others to behave in a fraudulent or corrupt way.

  1259
  The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Dame Marion Roe) expressed concerns about the
  election register and its integrity. Over many years, there have been the sort of experiences that she has described in respect of electoral registration officers providing a review of the names on the register and significantly reducing the numbers. That is an obvious and important safeguard against people being incorrectly registered, often because they have been allowed to remain on the register for longer than they should have done. In some cases, that happens for good reasons, such as when there was no evidence that they had moved. In other cases, it can happen through a lack of proper diligence. The hon. Lady raised an important point, and it is right that safeguards on registration should be in place.
  The Electoral Commission has proposed a change in the electoral registration system to individual registration to improve security. There is merit in the principle, but as the contribution from Northern Ireland highlighted, there is a worry that moving to different systems, including individual registration, can mean that a number of people who should genuinely be on the register are left off it, for a variety of other reasons. We need to look at that issue carefully, but there is merit in the proposal. We are also looking with the Electoral Commission and others at means of securing a nationally consistent register, although it will be locally compiled, to ensure that problems such as dual registration can be picked up and that safeguards and checks against them can be put in place.
  In a rather wide-ranging speech covering a lot of issues that I do not have time to deal with, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) raised doubts about the all-postal ballots, but failed to comment on the fact that the turnout in his region was the highest in percentage of any region in England. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) made some common-sense observations on factors affecting turnout, reminding us that we should not rush for simplistic answers. His concern about people not being able to vote in person was echoed by others, and I have already commented on that issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) made a series of well-informed observations as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government, which has conducted a thorough inquiry. I appreciate his support for pilots, and agree that their purpose is to test what works and what does not. We should not necessarily replicate all the features of previous pilots. As he rightly said, there is a need for a full evaluation. I would like to respond to the other points that have been made, but I do not have time.
  Unlike the official Opposition, this Government are committed to tackling the problem of disengagement and low participation in the democratic process. We have piloted options for new ways of voting, and we have proposed constitutional reforms to bring power closer to the people. This autumn, we are pledged to give the people of the three northern regions the option of a vote in a referendum on whether to establish elected regional assemblies. We have proposed that that should be done by all-postal ballot in order to maximise participation, and that announcement was welcomed by the Electoral Commission.
  1260
  To meet our commitment to hold those referendums, however, we need to move forward with the necessary orders before the House rises for the summer recess. At the same time, we recognise the concerns of those who have questioned whether it is appropriate to approve the orders before the Electoral Commission has reported on this summer's pilots. Of course, there are differences between a referendum and an election. In a referendum, there are no candidates seeking election, and for that reason, the risk of fraud is felt by some to be less. Nevertheless, we take the views of the Electoral Commission very seriously, and we are prepared to give a clear undertaking not to proceed with all-postal referendums as planned if it produces convincing evidence leading to the conclusion that it would be unsafe to do so.
  That is the proper reaction of a Government who are committed to encouraging participation in the democratic process and equally committed to protecting the integrity of the balloting process. By contrast, the Opposition have pursued a crudely opportunistic stance that deserves to be rejected by this House with contempt.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 308.

  Division No. 199]

  [4:59 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Amess, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Curry, rh David

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Bacon, Richard

  Baker, Norman

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Baldry, Tony

  Barker, Gregory

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Doughty, Sue

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Bercow, John

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Nigel

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fabricant, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

  Flight, Howard

  Brady, Graham

  Flook, Adrian

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Breed, Colin

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Francois, Mark

  Burnett, John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Burns, Simon

  Garnier, Edward

  Burnside, David

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Burstow, Paul

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Cameron, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, John

  Chidgey, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Chope, Christopher

  Hague, rh William

  Clappison, James

  Hammond, Philip

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Collins, Tim

  Heald, Oliver

  1261

  Heath, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Hermon, Lady

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Roe, Dame Marion

  Holmes, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Howard, rh Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Selous, Andrew

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jack, rh Michael

  Simmonds, Mark

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Keetch, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Spring, Richard

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Steen, Anthony

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Streeter, Gary

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lamb Norman

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Leigh Edward

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Letwin rh Oliver

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lidington, David

  Teather, Sarah

  Loughton, Tim

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Tredinnick, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Trend, Michael

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Maclean, rh David

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Malins, Humfrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Maude, rh Francis

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Watkinson, Angela

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Moore, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wiggin, Bill

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Willis, Phil

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Pickles, Eric

  Young, rh Sir George

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Mr. David Ruffley and

  Rendel, David

  Mr. John Randall

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Ainger, Nick

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Alexander, Douglas

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Best, Harold

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Betts, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blizzard, Bob

  Bailey, Adrian

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Baird, Vera

  Borrow, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Beard, Nigel

  Brennan, Kevin

  1262

  Browne, Desmond

  Gilroy, Linda

  Bryant, Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Goggins, Paul

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Grogan, John

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Hain, rh Peter

  Cairns, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Casale, Roger

  Hanson, David

  Caton, Martin

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Challen, Colin

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Healey, John

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Heppell, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Clelland, David

  Heyes, David

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Coleman, lain

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Corston, Jean

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hutton, rh John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jamieson, David

  David, Wayne

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Doran, Frank

  Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ewing, Annabelle

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  Flint, Caroline

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Follett, Barbara

  Lammy, David

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  1263

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Picking, Anne

  Love, Andrew

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Pike, Pets (Burnley)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Plaskitt, James

  McCabe, Stephen

  Pollard, Kerry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  McDonnell, John

  Prescott, rh John

  McFall, rh John

  Primarolo rh Dawn

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Purnell, James

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McNulty, Tony

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  MacShane, Denis

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McWalter, Tony

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

  McWilliam, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Rooney, Terry

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Ruane, Chris

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Martlew, Eric

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Merron, Gillian

  Chestsr)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Salter, Martin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Moffatt, Laura

  Sawford Phil

  Mole, Chris

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Moran, Margaret

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Morgan, Julie

  Sheerman, Barry

  Morley, Elliot

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mountford, Kali

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mudie, George

  Short, rh Clare

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Southworth, Helen

  Olner, Bill

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Organ, Diana

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Owen, Albert

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stringer Graham

  Perham, Linda

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  1264

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wills, Michael

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Winnick, David

  Timms, Stephen

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wishart, Pete

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Ward, Claire

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Watts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Weir, Michael

  Ms Bridget Prentice and

  White, Brian

  Vernon Coaker

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.ared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises that the all postal pilots in June 2004 were part of a process of testing alternative voting mechanisms for the benefit of making voting easier and more convenient for electors; further recognises that turnout in European elections had fallen to its lowest ever level in 1999 and that all postal pilots assisted in making the 2004 European election turnout the UK's highest ever; welcomes the fact that voter participation for the European elections in the pilot regions more than doubled in 2004 compared with 1999; believes that allegations of fraud have been reported disproportionately and that there is currently no evidence to show that all postal ballots are more susceptible to fraud than traditional elections; recognises that further reforms will be necessary to widen participation and engagement in the electoral system; and further believes that the integrity of elections and referendums, including the proposed referendums on elected regional assemblies, is adversely affected by declining turnout which puts in jeopardy the democratic mandate.

NHS Recruitment and Retention
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
5.15 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the central role of NHS professionals in delivering high quality healthcare through the NHS; notes the need for substantial increases in NHS staffing to meet future demand for healthcare; further notes that the levels of bureaucracy, red tape and imposed targets within the NHS demoralise NHS staff; regrets the problems in the implementation of the consultant and GP contracts; further regrets the delay in progress on 'Agenda for Change'; expresses its concern over staff shortages in general practice, hospital specialties, nursing, especially community nursing, midwifery, radiography and biomedical sciences; is alarmed at the extent of recruitment of health professionals from developing countries which are unable to sustain the loss of such staff; and urges the Government to give the NHS the freedoms and incentives needed to support a growing workforce.
This week we will have a series of debates—some in this Chamber and some outside—on the national health service and health care in this country. I hope that we can start with a shared perspective, which is that no serious progress would be possible, however much we might wish it, however much we might invest in the national health service, however much we might introduce choice in the national health service, and however much we might introduce competition in the provision of the national health service, without the skill, hard work and commitment of NHS professionals and health care professionals generally.
Today is our chance to show that we value the work of NHS doctors, nurses and health care professionals generally. That matter is not something to which I have turned as part of my current Front-Bench responsibilities. I hope that the House will be aware, and I know that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), is aware, that as a Back Bencher, I secured a debate in Westminster Hall in November 2002 on nursing and nurses' pay and conditions. That was the only debate on those subjects in this Parliament so far—the previous one was in 1999.
As a preface to our discussions, it is a pity that we do not debate more regularly pay and conditions, the prospects for recruitment and retention and the contribution made by NHS professionals to the NHS. One of the things that the Audit Commission's survey of NHS professionals made clear was the importance of the extent to which those professionals feel that they are valued by the Government and the public, and the fact that the lack of understanding that they are valued is one of the reasons why people leave the NHS. It is therefore right that we demonstrate that they are valued, that we do that together, and, although it may not be easy to achieve this afternoon, that we do it in a spirit of consensus.
There are 1.3 million staff in the NHS—they represent one in seven of all public sector employees and about one in 20 of the whole UK work force. It is vital that we discuss that work force. It is not a subject to which the Government have given time, so I hope that it will be
1266
recognised that it is right for the Opposition to give some of our time to understanding and reflecting on that work force.
We will need to discuss a number of issues, and I want to start, as I did
previously, with nurses. The congress of the Royal College of Nursing met in early May—just over a month ago—and some information was presented on how nurses feel about the NHS. It was interesting to note, for example, that only 30 per cent. of nurses believed that the number of permanent nursing staff had increased over the past four years at their hospital. Clearly, something is not happening to make nurses perceive that the front-line resources are getting through. When we asked doctors the same question, two thirds said that they did not perceive that the resources that they heard were going into the NHS were getting to the front line. It is vital that they do see that happening.
Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman said that "we" asked doctors? Is that "we" the Conservative party?
Mr. Lansley: It was we, the Conservative party, who asked doctors. We did it through a reputable research company and published the results, so that seems perfectly reasonable to me.
On the issues relating to nursing, we know that during the past 10 years the average age of nurses has increased from 37 to 41. We know that half the rise in the number of nurses registered in the UK is the result of overseas recruitment, and there are issues about the sustainability—[Interruption] If the Secretary of State has something that he wishes to tell us, no doubt he will intervene.
The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): Yes, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the increase in age. A large number of nurses came back to work in the health service when they got a new Government who were putting in the investment, giving the support needed and increasing the number of nurses.
Mr. Lansley: I welcome the increase in the number of nurses. It is absolutely right that we should attract nurses back into the national health service. If the Secretary of State has read my speech from November 2002, he will know the precise reasons that I presented for that. I made it clear that Addenbrooke's, a major employer of nurses in my constituency, would need "Agenda for Change", that a reflection of the valuation of nurses should be considered by the pay review bodies—which the Government's evidence to the pay review bodies had not sufficiently reflected—and that Addenbrooke's would need to make changes such as improving working lives. Addenbrooke's is a model employer in the ways in which it has addressed the issues in improving working lives, such as non-discrimination, supporting staff, opposing harassment and putting together family-friendly policies and child-care arrangements for nurses. I do not dispute any of that. That is exactly where we want to go, but the Government should not believe that the overseas recruitment of nurses is a sustainable basis on which to undertake the expansion of the nursing work force in the NHS in years to come.
Mr. Peter Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that prior to 1997—in my first 14 years in this House—I continually fought here and in my constituency against hospital closures, the reduction in the number of beds and massive cuts in the national health service, year after year? I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman, in what he is now saying, fails to remember what his party did when in office.
Mr. Lansley: What the hon. Gentleman says is interesting. We are today talking about the work force, and also about what can be achieved in the NHS. We have had an increase in the number of nurses and in the number of doctors. It is interesting to note that under the previous Conservative Government, in the seven years leading up to 1997, the number of consultants in the NHS increased by 30 per cent In the seven years since 1997, it has increased by 34 per cent., so to a large extent the trends in numbers of doctors have been very similar during those periods.
I will accept that matters in relation to nurses are different, but one of the problems with which the Secretary of State and his colleagues have wrestled—The Sunday Times illustrated this by its reporting of leaked documents from inside the Government—is what appears to be a substantial reduction in the productivity of the NHS. The Secretary of State knows that changes in working hours and in NHS structures have meant that although there has been a 14 per cent. increase in the number of nurses, on a whole-time equivalent basis, in recent years, we have had only a 5 per cent. increase in activity in the NHS.
On increase in activity, let us look at finished consultant episodes. The Minister of State has been good enough to respond to a question that I put on finished consultant episodes, which are a measure of inpatient activity in hospitals, and include day cases. Between 1990–91 and 1995–96, a five-year period before the 1997 election, there was an increase in finished consultant episodes from 8.8 million to 11.07 million— about 2.25 million additional finished consultant episodes. In the five years from 1997–98 to 2002–03, the number rose from 11.5 million to 12.76 million, an increase of 1.25 million episodes. So, over a five-year period, whereas there was an increase of 2.25 million under a Conservative Government during the period of the internal market reforms, there was an increase of 1.25 million under the present Government. That has resulted not from a reduction in the number of nurses—the numbers of nurses, consultants and doctors was increasing—but because, simply in order to stand still in the NHS in the light of all the additional impositions, changes in working hours and contractual arrangements, about 10 per cent. of the increase went into adjustment. The level of increased activity was, in fact, very small.
David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman seems to be tip-toeing around the most important figures, which are performance indicators in respect of nursing. At the moment, the number of nurses employed within the NHS is heading rapidly towards 400,000—an increase of almost a quarter since 1 May 1997. Is it not the case that, when the hon. Gentleman was wringing his hands in Westminster Hall at the plight of nursing, the
1268
Government were ringing the advertising agencies to recruit even more of that valuable resource to our prized national health service?
Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a partisan point—[Interruption.] These are the Houses of Parliament and it is our responsibility to promote the interests of the NHS. What I am doing now is promoting the national health service's interest in recruiting and retaining more nurses. It will be good if we can reach 400,000 nurses. Why not? It will be one of the benefits of introducing the changes that I sought to encourage in "Agenda for Change", but we cannot do so simply on the basis of overseas recruitment. The Royal College of Nursing made it clear that 10,000 people from third-world nations registered to work as nurses in the UK over the two years leading up to 2002–03 and that many of them came from the Philippines, South Africa and India, but argued that it was unsustainable for us to deprive developing countries of that number of nurses when they were trying to meet their own health care needs.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Queen Elizabeth hospital in my constituency, which also serves the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), has embarked on a policy of recruiting a large number of Philippino nurses. They make excellent nurses, but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that policy is not sustainable, which is why we need much more focus on retention and far more imagination on the part of the Government in their attempts to retain hard-working nurses who are leaving the NHS.
Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is absolutely right. He and I know—as do Government Members—that when recruitment from the Philippines was first taking place, it was done in conjunction with the Philippines Government on the basis that their nurses were so good. That has been my own experience in hospitals in my constituency. They make extremely good nurses. I was talking the other day to the chief executive of another hospital, who endorsed that view. However, there comes a point at which our recruitment from such countries simply cannot go on.
I want to make some progress and we have only a couple of hours. I want to continue and finish my speech, but I also want other hon. Members to have the opportunity to contribute.
I should say more about "Agenda for Change". I recall talking to hospital nurses who were engaged in the process of preparing for that agenda, and I know the enormous effort that was required. It was a valuable effort, but they were working to a definite timetable. When I spoke to them—in late April, if I remember correctly—they believed that they were aiming for October. I can only endorse what amounts to deep irritation on the part of the RCN, which is putting in so much effort to implement "Agenda for Change" for the nursing profession, that the Secretary of State told its conference that the Government were aiming for October but put the date back to December only a few days later. I hope that we will hear why that was necessary and what can be done to offset the very demoralising effect on nurses.

1269
On consultant contracts, every consultant that I have spoken to believes that the Government operated on the basis that consultants were skiving off in order to go out on to the golf course. I do not believe that that is so. I do not suppose that Ministers believe that it is, but that is what consultants think. They also think that the proposal is being implemented in a way that is completely mad.
Consultants' job plans show that, on average, each does about 12.5 programmed activities a week. Hospitals are supposed to get 10.8 programmed activities, but the primary care trusts are not necessarily passing them through. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House how many PCTs pass through the money that the Department says it has given them for the contract. In any case, consultants are as a result being constrained to 11 programmed activities a week, or even only 10. The contract will mean that consultants will be paid more to do less.
Alternatively, consultants will not sign the contract. Their attitude will be, "If the Government are going to treat me as though I were a production-line worker, that is how I will behave." If consultants have to clock on and clock off, they will behave accordingly. That is not good enough.
In an Opposition day debate a short while ago, I asked the Minister about implementing contracts for staff and associated specialists. Happily, he has made it clear that contracts should now begin to be negotiated, but how soon will that happen? The conclusion reached by the pay review body has demoralised staff and associated specialists. They were linked to the consultants who are not signing up to the new contract, and they are therefore not due to get any substantial increase.
GPs believe that the contract has been designed to reduce their work load. I do not quite see it that way, and it would be interesting to know whether the Minister does. It seemed to me that the aim was to enable GPs to manage their work more effectively and to use a range of specialists to do so, in a framework that delivered better care to people with chronic diseases. I hope that GPs will see the contract in those terms, but communication with them has been too ineffective for that to be the case.
I am seriously worried about the extent to which NHS Direct seems to be gearing up to take over responsibility for out-of-hours services. The result will be that those services will no longer be GP-led, but will be delivered by NHS Direct. The Secretary of State is supposed to be reviewing NHS Direct, among other bodies. However, the advertisements that are now appearing show that it is looking for a chief operating officer and a medical director, as well as directors of finance, service development, nursing, corporate affairs and communications, human resources and of information and communications technology. It is all expansion in NHS Direct at the moment. A reading of the Estates Gazette shows that, across the country, NHS Direct is buying twice the amount of space that it has already in order to accommodate its new size. That shows where growth is taking place in the NHS, although it may be happening nowhere else.
1270
I turn now to some specific specialities. People in the NHS understand that we must know where the constraints are before we can deliver a better service. For example, we need twice as many neurologists as we have at present. Relative to population size, we have a quarter as many neurologists as France has. We need to double the number available here if we are to meet National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on multiple sclerosis, or on the standard of care required for Parkinson's disease.
On radiology, 80 per cent. of hospitals covered by the recent National Audit Office report cited lack of skilled staff as a constraint Vacancy rates for diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers have risen.
Since 1996, the number of midwives has risen by only 186, which severely constrains our ability to provide the necessary choice to people seeking maternity care. For example, some hospitals—one of them is in my constituency—cannot provide a midwife-led unit simply because they cannot recruit the number of midwives needed.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The hon. Gentleman just said that we needed twice as many neurologists in the NHS. I understand from The Independent and other newspapers that the proposals that he is about to announce mean that there would be no national targets for the NHS—including work force targets. Will the hon. Gentleman explain that contradiction?
Mr. Lansley: Yes I will, and I am grateful for the question. Our proposals for the care of people with multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease, for instance, are based on NICE guidelines. The NICE guidelines for multiple sclerosis were published last November. At the moment, NICE produces guidelines, but no one is under a requirement to implement them. We need at the same time to see where the capacity constraints will be. That includes things like diagnosis. But then it will be the responsibility of primary care trusts to commission that care. This is not elective surgery; this is chronic disease management.
Dr. John Reid: So there will be no targets?
Mr. Lansley: No, there will be a responsibility to commission care. If hospitals know that they have commissioners seeking the delivery of a service to a standard, they can put in place the necessary consultant posts.
Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lansley: Just a moment. Under the next Conservative Government, it will be the responsibility of the Department of Health to expand the NHS work force.
I have not read the story in The Independent, but if it has reported our intentions accurately, the story will be that we do not believe in imposing targets on NHS hospitals and general practices. We are in the business of imposing targets on ourselves, not on the NHS—
Mr. Hutton: What targets?
Mr. Lansley: Public health targets, for example. The Minister was not here for yesterday's debate. Pretty much every kind of target that ought to be imposed on the Government for public health and the work force is a target for the Department of Health, and the Department must take responsibility for meeting it. Changing the culture of the NHS means doing away with targets and performance management. Such a system is an attempt to run the NHS from the Secretary of State's desk instead of making responsibility lie where it ought—in hospitals that respond to the needs of patients. That is where performance management should be.
Dr. Reid: Presumably, that includes the targets that have reduced the scandalous two-year waiting times to nine months, and will reduce them to six months next year. That target will go as well, and we shall have unlimited waiting times.
I wish to understand the recruitment figures. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what he is saying is that if there is a shortage of midwives and radiographers nowadays, it is the fault of this Government but it would not be the fault of a future Conservative Government because they would have no targets for the number of midwives or radiographers in the first place?
Mr. Lansley: No, the Secretary of State is wrong about that.
Dr. Reid rose—
Mr. Lansley: I will answer the
question. The Secretary of State cannot intervene before I have answered his point.
Dr. Reid: Will there be any targets is or not?
Mr. Lansley: I shall tell the Secretary of State. I have said it once, and I say it again: we will not impose targets on the NHS, but there are responsibilities for the Department of Health, and they include stimulating the—[Interruption.] I do not know what Labour Members find so difficult to comprehend. The point is that it will be for the Department of Health and the Conservative Government to manage their own responsibilities, and one of our responsibilities will be to create the circumstances in which there is a volume increase in the work force—doctors, dentists and nurses—available to the NHS. That does not mean that we need to impose performance targets on hospitals. The star rating system sets down 44 targets. None of them is a work force expansion target. If we abolish the star rating system, it does not mean that we have abolished the responsibility of the Department of Health to increase the work force of the NHS.
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has just spent the past 10 minutes criticising the Government for not reaching the target for the number of nurses, midwives and radiographers. Is he telling us that he will not have such a target for the number of radiographers and midwives? Or will he have such an objective for the NHS? Is he saying, in other words, that while we are in power, to have such an objective number is to have a target, but
1272
when he is in power, it will be left entirely to the local hospital to decide how many midwives and radiographers it employs?
Mr. Lansley: The Secretary of State has demonstrated three times that he does not understand. It is perfectly clear that—[Interruption.] I shall try once more and then I shall move on. We will have a responsibility as the next Conservative Government to expand the work force available to the NHS.
Dr. Reid: To what level?
Mr. Lansley: As I have just said, in order to supply the diagnostic resources and personnel that NICE guidelines require, we would need substantially to increase the number of neurologists.
Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lansley: The Secretary of State cannot keep intervening.
In order for that to happen, we will have a Department of Health with responsibility to make available additional medical manpower to the NHS. It will then be up to hospitals to decide the extent to which they appoint additional consultants in order to provide that service, but the service will be set up.
Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lansley: No, I have finished now and the Secretary of State can sit down.
Dr. Reid: This is absolutely—
Mr. Lansley: The Secretary of State can sit down because only one person can speak at a time, and I am not giving way.
Dr. Reid rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must resume—
Dr. Reid: He is running from—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must realise the position. He takes a vigorous part in debates and that is in order, but it is not in order to interrupt if the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor does not wish to give way.
Mr. Lansley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a short debate and the Secretary of State is trying to prevent other people from contributing to it. I shall not now have time to talk about the lack of dentists or the further issues relating to overseas recruitment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) will be able to expand on those subjects when he winds up.
The Government have considered several ways to try to increase the NHS work force in the future. They have considered trying to increase overseas recruitment; stimulating the return to work of previous staff by

1273
improving working lives; and increasing the supply of training places. Those are important, but one needs also to consider why people leave the NHS and why they change jobs—staff turnover is high. The Audit Commission considered that and the reasons include bureaucracy, poor resources, a lack of autonomy, a sense of being undervalued by the Government and the public, and unfair pay. We need to address all those issues, and the Government need to understand that bureaucracy and the lack of autonomy are seen as part of the reasons why people do not stay in their jobs in the NHS, why we do not see the return to work that we should among nurses and doctors and why we cannot recruit and retain as we would wish. We can attack those issues. We can cut the levels of bureaucracy and we propose to do so. We can give greater autonomy and freedom to the NHS to provide services and to respond to patients.
NHS professionals are valued by this House, and they should be valued, for the clinical care they give, for the choices they make and for the responsibility they take on—nurses, for example, are taking on greater responsibilities across the NHS—and they should be trusted and given the autonomy they want. We should set the NHS free. It will be our job to do so, and to give people the right to choose.
5.42 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the Government's record extra investment in the National Health Service which has resulted in increases of 19,400 more doctors and 67,500 more nurses since 1997; supports the extra investment in training which has increased the intake of medical school students by 61 per cent. and nurse training students by 53 per cent. since 1997; notes that over one million NHS staff will benefit from improved terms and conditions; recognises that the international recruitment of healthcare professionals has already made a significant impact on the delivery of NHS services; notes the Government's commitment to ethical international recruitment, with its robust Code of Practice, the first of its kind in the world, ensuring that NHS organisations do not recruit staff from developing countries without the agreement of their government; and welcomes the sharing and transfer of experience and ideas that international recruitment brings to the health service."
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on his elevation to the shadow Cabinet. I hope that he will not mind if I say how sorry I am that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) will no longer be joining our debates on health, for the simple reason that he spent most of his time in his job as a shadow public services spokesman dumping the health policies that he inherited from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). We all hoped that the hon. Member for South Suffolk would carry on a little longer. To give him credit, he eventually scrapped the top-up schools voucher, but he had not got round to scrapping the Tories' top-up hospital voucher—the NHS passport—under which a patient's access to treatment would depend not on their clinical need but on the amount of money in their pocket.
Jonathan Shaw: My right hon. Friend will recall that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned several issues that arose from
1274
the conference of the Royal College of Nursing. Does my right hon. Friend recall that more than 90 per cent. of nurses at that conference voted against the passport to pain proposed by the Opposition?
Mr. Hutton: Yes, I intended to mention that shortly. I suspect that the hon. Member for South Suffolk remembers that even more clearly than I do.
The Leader of the Opposition has now confirmed that they intend to keep the policy of top-up patient vouchers, under which people have 50 per cent. of costs met by the NHS and make up the difference from their own resources.
Mr. Lansley: When something wrong is put on the record, it stays there, so to put the Minister right, under our proposals, which we shall announce shortly, no NHS patient will have to pay anything to receive NHS treatment.
Mr. Hutton: I know that, but that policy will provide patients with an exit visa from the national health service. I shall come on to that point in a second. We need to be clear about those vouchers, because they affect the issues that we are discussing. The policy will put ability to pay ahead of clinical need, and it will cost the national health service more than £1 billion to finance.
It should come as a surprise to no one that the only aspiration that lot have—the only objective the Tory top-up voucher is designed to serve—is to persuade people that the only way to get faster treatment is to leave the national health service, to leave the public sector altogether and to go private. It will not provide the same level of choice and opportunity to all NHS patients but will offer more choice to those who can afford it. It concedes that the fastest treatment will be available only to those who can afford it, and only in the private sector.
Under the Tories, it will be money that talks; it will be money that guarantees access to the fastest treatment, not the degree of pain and suffering that a patient might be enduring. What a contemptible policy: fundamentally flawed, fundamentally unfair—a typical Tory policy.
Mr. Bellingham: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider two points? First, if one of my constituents who is waiting for a hip operation decides to use the voucher scheme—to go to the BUPA hospital in Norwich, for example—she will free up an NHS place. It is as simple as that. Secondly, will he comment on the fact that a record number of people are having to go private to get their operations done in time?
Mr. Hutton: No, I very much doubt whether that would be the case. On costs, typically, the hon. Gentleman's constituent would have to find several thousand pounds from their own resources to fund that treatment, taking money directly from the NHS. Furthermore, it is very likely that the surgeon who treated the patient would also be an NHS surgeon.
David Taylor: Under Conservative policies, if people switched from the NHS to a private hospital, would it

1275
not be almost certain that NHS doctors and nurses would have to be sacked? Has my right hon. Friend made any estimate of the numbers that might be involved?
Mr. Hutton: We have estimated the cost of the patients passport as £1 billion. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who is keen to match our spending on the NHS, would clearly have to find that money from somewhere else. The truth about the patients passport is that the policy has not been thought through; it is fundamentally unfair and it will discriminate against ordinary NHS patients.
Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend find it as odd as I do that in a debate in which the official Opposition have said how much they value NHS staff they are still promoting a policy that states that those NHS staff cannot deliver the kind of service they want? In fact, NHS staff have delivered, and are delivering, improvements because we have put in the resources. What would my right hon. Friend say to the students I met recently at the school of nursing and midwifery in Warrington, all of whom are enthusiastically waiting to go into jobs in the NHS, about the value that the Opposition put on them now?
Mr. Hutton: I think those student midwives have already made up their minds about the policy of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and about what a Conservative Government would do to the national health service; they simply have to remember what the Conservatives did to the NHS when they were in office.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer—or rather he answered wrongly—my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham)—[Interruption.] The Minister answered my hon. Friend wrongly because he said that he did not believe that someone who goes private, and thereby ceases to be on the waiting list, was freeing up a space in the national health service. Can he explain how someone who has already had their hip operation privately could use the space?
Mr. Hutton: I want to return to the patients passport in a moment, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to follow the logic of the case that I make.
The main thrust of the attack on the Government made by the hon. Member for
South Cambridgeshire relates to recruitment and retention of NHS staff. I should like to tell him and his hon. Friends some of the facts that he failed to cover. When we came to office six years ago, investment in the NHS was being cut in real terms—it was falling. The NHS did not have enough front-line staff. As a result, waiting times were rising. The number of nurses in training, about which the hon. Gentleman has spoken eloquently, had been falling and was less than it had been in 1992. As a direct result, the NHS was short on both investment and capacity. It had failed to invest properly not only in the buildings, equipment and drugs that it needed, but in its staff as well. In the NHS, our staff are our most precious asset.
In 1997, the starting salary for a newly qualified nurse was £12,000, and NHS porters earned £7,000 a year—pitiful salaries, given the responsibilities of those staff.
1276
Training budgets were falling. There was no coherent or visible strategy for recruiting and retaining front-line NHS staff. Terms and conditions of employment, which the hon. Gentleman has also spoken about today, were antiquated and fragmented. There was only a handful of NHS staff nurseries. Pay awards from the pay review bodies—again, he referred to them—were implemented in stages, further diminishing the value of those pay rises to NHS staff. That was the legacy of the Conservative Administration.
Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend may not know that, when I asked a question before the Conservatives lost office in 1997, they did not know how many GPs were due to retire in each area of the country, so they could not recruit and train enough GPs because they did not have the records in the system.
Mr. Hutton: I am not surprised; and we need to remember the Conservatives' legacy. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has not presented any coherent case today. People are entitled to judge an Opposition not just on what they claim that their policies will do, but on their record in office as well. Undermined by his record in office, as he was today, he made his case with no conviction and no credibility. He has no serious alternative to the policies that we are pursuing.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Minister has now begun to talk about recruitment and retention. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has said that he welcomes the increased number of nurses in the NHS, as indeed we all do. The Minister will accept, of course, that early intervention and public health are among the Government's priorities. Will he explain therefore what policy priority he and the Government put on the recruitment and retention of school nurses? Will also explain why one team in my constituency is working at 42 per cent. of its capacity? The reason cannot be the number of nurses, or recruitment or retention, because both are fine, according to the Minister, so what is it?
Mr. Hutton: I do not dispute for a second that it would be a good idea if more school nurses were working in the NHS and our schools. That is an excellent idea. My only difficulty with the right hon. Lady's suggestion—I have a lot of respect for her views—is that she has not fully understood the policies that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has been outlining today.
Mrs. Shephard: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hutton: I will give way if the right hon. Lady will give me a second. In essence, she is asking to set a target or to quantify the extra number of school nurses that she wants. I am trying to say that we should like to see more school nurses working in the NHS, and the extra investment that we are putting into the NHS will help us to do so.
Mr. Lansley: Perhaps the Minister would care to explain something. If he turns to page 98 of the Department's annual report—I do not have it with me,

1277
but I remember it—he will see the number of episodes of care provided by a range of community services. He will see that the number of health visitor episodes of care was 3.6 million in 1997–98, and that that figure has gone down to 2.9 million in the latest year. The number of district nurse episodes of care has gone down from 2.2 million to 1.9 million. That is a 1 million reduction in the number of episodes of care provided in the community by health visitors and district nurses. The Minister talks about community nursing services, such as school nursing services, but they have declined over the past seven years.
Mr. Hutton: As I keep saying to the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), we are investing significantly more in primary care, and I shall come on to what that means. There has been a slight fall in the number of community district nurses, which is regrettable, but that has to be set alongside a significant increase in the total number of nurses working in primary care. Something like 750,000 more activities have been undertaken in primary care than was the case a few years ago, so we are seeing a shift from secondary to primary.
Mrs. Shephard: The Minister has explained that more nurses are in the work force. My question to him was this, and I hope that he can now answer it: are the falling numbers in the school nursing service a result of a lack of a policy priority placed on their services by his Government?
Mr. Hutton: That is not a reasonable conclusion to reach from the figures suggested by the right hon. Lady. If she is patient, some of the Government's policies and proposals will become clearer.
During the Conservative party's period in office, it is inescapable—this is the only conclusion that the vast majority of the people of this country would recognise—that the NHS was run down and neglected. It had been allowed to fall seriously behind compared with health care systems in Europe and around the world. The idea that the period between 1979 and 1997 somehow represented a high watermark in the history of the national health service is totally risible. That is not how people remember things. It is not how anyone who worked in the national health service during that time would recall those years. People have not forgotten what the Tories did to the NHS. That is why we need to keep the facts clearly in mind when we consider the criticisms that have been made of this Government's record on the NHS.
In short, the NHS had neither the investment it needed nor the political support it required from the previous, Conservative Government to have had any chance whatsoever of meeting the health care needs of the British people. It is for those reasons that this Labour Government have followed a different policy on the NHS. They cut investment in real terms; we are increasing it. They subsidised private health insurance; we put that money back into the NHS. They let waiting times rise; we are ensuring that they come down. They cut the number of nurses in training; we are increasing them at a faster rate
1278
than at any time in the history of the NHS. We are investing in new and improved terms and conditions for NHS staff; they did precisely the opposite.
In the past five years, 16 major new hospitals have been built and a further 10 are in the process of being built. In the last five years of the Conservative Government, they only managed to get two major new hospitals completed. At the same time, we have substantially improved more than 2,000 GP premises, and nearly 300 new primary care centres have been completed. That is because of the investment in the NHS, now rising at its fastest ever rate.
Spending will rise from £33 billion in 1997 to more than £58 billion this year. It will continue rising until 2008, when we will be spending £90 billion on our national health service. Real-terms spending in the NHS is increasing at very nearly three times the rate achieved under the previous Conservative Government. This extra investment has led to a 22 per cent. increase in the number of hospital operations and an 18 per cent. rise in the number of out-patient appointments. New drugs are becoming available more quickly. We have new services in primary care, such as NHS Direct and walk-in centres, treating and advising millions of people every year. The number of MRI scanners has doubled. CT scanners have increased by 60 per cent. We are doing hundreds of thousands more diagnostic tests every year. Most importantly of all, waiting times for an operation have halved. Twice as many people can now see their GP within two days as could in 1997.
Mr. John Baron: The Minister paints a rosy picture, and there is no denying that there have been some good improvements in the NHS, but he mentioned waiting times. Does he accept that despite the massive increase in expenditure, average waiting times during the past four years have risen from something like 90 days to 99 days, and those are the Department of Health's own figures?
Mr. Hutton: That is not the case. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and set him straight on that.
Mr. Baron: I am afraid that it is the case, because those were the Department's own figures. Will the Minister address the issue and explain why average waiting times have risen—a fact admitted by Sir Nigel Crisp?
Mr. Hutton: Let me write to the hon. Gentleman and sort that out.
There is no doubt that waiting times are falling, not rising, as they did under the Conservatives. Death rates from cancer and coronary heart disease are falling more quickly here than in any other country in Europe. The new investment going into the NHS is making a huge difference, which the Opposition refuse to acknowledge for political reasons, as that simply would not happen under a Conservative Government. We are investing for the future as well. The NHS training budget has doubled since 1997, and it is money well spent. It has allowed us to increase the numbers of doctors in training by over 8,000. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a claim about the number of NHS consultants, and compared the increase in their numbers in the past

1279
five years with that in the last five years of the Conservative Government. We need to look at the totality of NHS doctors. In the last five years of the Tory Government there was a 12 per cent. increase in the number of NHS doctors. Since 1997, the number of NHS doctors has increased by 23 per cent.—double the rate under the previous Government.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: I would be grateful to know how the Minister defines a consultant, because the British Orthopaedic Trainees Association, which came to see me this morning, was concerned that his figures included nurse consultants and consultant podiatric surgeons, who are not medically qualified. To what extent do his figures include such practitioners?
Mr. Hutton: We do not include nurse consultants or podiatric surgeons in our definition of consultants because they are not medically qualified doctors.
We have increased the number of doctors in training by over 8,000. Places at medical school have increased by 60 per cent.—the largest increase since the NHS was established. Four new medical schools have opened since 1997. No new medical schools were opened in the entire period of the Conservative Administration. Since the extra places at medical school came on line in 1999, nearly 5,500 more students have entered medical school in England. The extra investment has allowed us to increase the numbers of GPs in training by two thirds. The number of nurses entering training has increased by more than 50 per cent. Training places for therapists have increased by nearly 70 per cent. The numbers entering training as radiographers have doubled since 1997.
David Taylor: Does the Minister share my dismay and astonishment at the attitude of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) towards the difficulty of filling vacancies for midwives and radiographers, as he did not offer any new commitments? Will midwives throughout the land not be disappointed by the delayed delivery of commitment to the NHS, and will not radiographers see right through him?
Mr. Hutton: I do not want to labour the point about midwives, but my hon. Friend has highlighted a fundamental conundrum at the heart of the policies set out by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. I shall return to his policy of no new targets for the NHS when I conclude. The record that I have described on recruitment and retention is one that the Opposition simply cannot match.
Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when talking about NHS staff, in addition to doctors, nurses and associated therapists we should include the vast numbers of support staff, such as cleaners, health care assistants and porters, who offer the NHS a valuable service, whose chances at work have been vastly improved under this Government and whom the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) failed even to mention?
Mr. Hutton: That is a telling point, as 0.25 million more people work for the NHS today than in 1997, and
1280
many of those jobs are in the support roles to which my hon. Friend referred. Not only are there more jobs, but a better training infrastructure is in place to support skills development, with individual learning accounts being properly invested in and supported by central Government for the first time.
We will know one thing for sure after today's debate. The Tories have no plans whatsoever for recruiting more doctors or nurses. We have set out our plans for recruiting more doctors and nurses up to 2008. What are their plans? They either do not have any—I suspect that that is the case—or they will not tell us. Why not? Do they plan to recruit more or fewer than we have set out? If they cannot answer any of these questions today, their attack on the Government's record can only be described as a mixture of pure opportunism and naked hypocrisy. The Opposition complain about staff shortages, but they have no plans whatever to address them. How utterly pathetic.
Despite the record increases in staff numbers and in staff training, it is still true that there are many skills shortages in parts of the NHS. There are several reasons for that. Some of the shortage is due to long-term historic under-investment, some of it is down to the fact that we are trying to expand our services and therefore our capacity as quickly as possible, and there is always a time lag between the investment that is made in training and staff development and that capacity becoming available to the NHS.
That is why we have recruited extra staff, particularly nursing staff, from other countries, but we have done so with a clear view of the importance of protecting the health care systems in developing countries. No other developed country has taken the steps that we have taken to ensure that international recruitment is conducted fairly and ethically. The code of conduct that we introduced in 2001 set out clear principles and priorities.
Only recruitment agencies that sign up to the code can be used by the NHS for international recruitment. More than 170 agencies have so far done so. When there is evidence that the code is not being complied with, we have taken action to remove those agencies from the approved list. The Department monitors compliance through data supplied by the international recruitment co-ordinators based in each strategic health authority. Two agencies have so far been removed from the list for non-compliance. I have arranged for a copy of the code to be placed in the Library.
We have sought Government-to-Government agreements on international recruitment with Indonesia, the Philippines, Spain and India. A separate agreement with South Africa was signed last year. That focused on creating opportunities for health care staff in both countries to undertake limited placements in each other's health care systems. I hope the first staff will begin their placements later this year.
We will recruit internationally only with the agreement of the host country, and we will always respect and act on its wishes. We have a clear view of which countries we will not recruit from. The list is based upon the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development development assistant committee's list of aid recipients and includes the vast majority of sub-Saharan countries.

1281
The World Health Assembly recognised the importance of this issue at its recent meeting in Geneva. There is an increasingly global aspect to the issue. The challenge for us is to manage international recruitment sensibly and in a way that affords health care staff the opportunity to improve their own skills. That is precisely what we want to see. That is why I was particularly pleased that the World Health Organisation expressed its support for the agreement that we reached with South Africa as a model for other countries to follow.
The code of practice has been in place for nearly three years. This is a good time to review its operation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced recently that we were looking at every aspect of the code to see how we could improve its effectiveness. I will keep the House informed of the progress of that review.
Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there have been even more benefits as a result of recruiting people to the NHS from other countries? It is right and proper to protect the health care systems of those nations, but the NHS has benefited from new experiences, new technologies and sharing those experiences. In my local group of hospitals, it has been a massively beneficial event, which we very much welcome.
Mr. Hutton: There is no doubt at all that overseas staff have made an immense contribution to the national health service for many years. I have seen many hospitals throughout the country, as I am sure other hon. Members have, where nurses from the Philippines, India and other countries continue to make a huge contribution. It is right and proper that we pay tribute to the work that they are doing.
Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
Mr. Hutton: I have been generous in giving way and I am conscious that others want to speak. I want to make progress now.
I was speaking about international recruitment. My question to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is: what would he have done instead? What did his party do in office to deal with the same issues? The answer is nothing at all. Here again, his attack on our actions has all the hallmarks of expediency, not principle.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) says that we should direct NHS trusts to comply with the NHS code of practice. That was his view in a letter to The Times. How does that square with the policy of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—that Ministers should stop telling NHS trusts what to do all the time?
Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that targets are a means by which the Government can set out where they intend to take the national health service? If the Opposition are not prepared to set targets, is that not an indication that they do not intend to deliver anything for the NHS except what we have seen in the past?
Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall deal in my concluding remarks, which I hope are not too far away, with the place and role of targets in any sensibly managed public health care system.
1282
I believe that there are some fundamental inconsistencies in what the Opposition have been saying which serve only to highlight once again just how threadbare their arguments are. We are enforcing the code sensibly and with the least possible bureaucracy. I think that that is the right way of proceeding.
Of course, it is one thing to recruit staff—and we have an excellent record to be proud of—but another to retain them. If we are going to succeed, we need to offer attractive terms and conditions for all our staff. We intend to do that. That is what the new contracts for GPs and consultants and "Agenda for Change" are all designed to do. It is what our investment in extra child care and nursery places for NHS staff will help secure, and what new part-time, school-time and flexible working arrangements are designed to support.
The new arrangements for primary care that have been agreed as part of the national negotiations are now being successfully implemented. These new arrangements recognise that delivering primary medical care to patients is not the sole responsibility of a general practitioner, but the responsibility of a group of clinicians working together to cater for what can be the somewhat complex and individual needs of patients. That is why this is a new practice-based contract covering all primary medical care contractors—GPs, nurses, other health professionals and practice managers.
Let me remind the House of the benefits that the new contractual arrangements will bring to our constituents. This is a something-for-something deal in which primary care professionals are rewarded for the outcomes that they achieve, and not just for how many patients they treat, as has been the case in the past, and there are extra rewards for providing a quality service. The new contract provides an unprecedented level of investment in primary care to improve services to patients and revitalise general practice. As a direct result, UK expenditure on primary care will rise from just £6 billion in 2002–03 to £8 billion by next year—an increase of more than 33 per cent.
Some 99.9 per cent. of existing GP contractors signed the new general medical services contracts offered to them by their local primary care trusts in April. All practices have been paid on time, too; again, that is in direct contrast with what happened when the Opposition introduced their changes to the old GP contract in 1990, when GP practices experienced serious delays in receiving accurate payments. Primary care trusts are currently in the process of agreeing new locally enhanced contracts with practices, to deliver additional new services for patients in their area. That is all underpinned by a new minimum guaranteed spending level.
On the consultant contract, we have invested substantial extra resources—some £250 million more by 2005–06—to reward the NHS consultants who do most for the NHS and to secure real changes in the way in which patient care is delivered. The new contract is designed to provide over time a 15 per cent. increase in consultants' lifetime career earnings while improving basic starting salaries and ultimately having a corresponding impact on the value of their pensions. The new contract also provides a stronger, unambiguous framework of new obligations, with more consistent and equitable recognition for on-call duties

1283
and more effective job planning, based on a partnership approach, enabling consultants and employers to prioritise work better and to address excessive workloads.
Following the outcome of the British Medical Association's ballot last year, NHS trusts have been reviewing the job plans of more than 20,000 consultants. That was always going to take time, but by the beginning of this month, four out of every five consultants who expressed an interest in the contract had received their final job plan offers. More than a third have now accepted work under the new contract. Progress to date has been slower than I would have preferred, but I expect the figures to improve significantly over the next few weeks.
We are also making good progress on "Agenda for Change". As of 11 June, more than 70 per cent. of staff in "early implementer" sites have been matched to their new pay bands and, on average, just under half of all staff in those sites have moved on to the new pay system. In some trusts, that figure is as high as 98 per cent. National roll-out will begin on 1 December 2004 with the collective agreement of the NHS trade unions. It was originally envisaged that that would start in October. The delay was made primarily to allow some unions extra time for their second ballots to take place.
We remain fully committed to implementation of "Agenda for Change". We are clear about one thing: all the union members who have already voted for "Agenda for Change" will receive the improved terms and conditions that will go with it from 1 October. That has never been an issue, and those members of staff will be unaffected by implementation, beginning in December.
The Government are investing £1 billion in the first year of the implementation of the new pay system. Under "Agenda for Change", a newly qualified nurse will earn a minimum of £18,114, putting nurses' salaries on a par with teachers' starting salaries for the first time, and a porter will earn at least £10,762—both figures have increased by just less than 50 per cent. compared with 1997. None of that would have happened under a Conservative Government, and we know that the potential service and staff benefits fully justify the investment.
For the first time, "Agenda for Change" will bring fair pay based on the important principle of equal pay for work of equal value, with appropriate rewards for those staff who take on additional duties and responsibilities. We are also working on measures to enable staff to work more flexibly. The NHS childcare strategy has provided central funding of more than £70 million to develop 140 new on-site nursery facilities, which will provide an extra 6,000 new nursery places for NHS staff.
The Health Care Commission will inspect all NHS trusts against progress in those areas, which is something that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire would stop. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire wills the ends, but never the means, and in the process, he panders to the interests of producers rather than championing the interests of patients, which is exactly the same place occupied by the Liberal Democrats—no change there, either.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said today that a Conservative Government would scrap all NHS targets. Maximum waiting times for NHS
1284
patients, which the Tories introduced, would be abolished under a new Conservative Government, who would also provide no guarantees on how long people wait in accident and emergency departments. A new Conservative Government would have no ambition to reduce death rates from cancer and coronary heart disease; they would not provide the right to see a GP within 48 hours; they would not specify minimum numbers of extra nurses and doctors; and they would not require new drugs to comply with National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines. What a total betrayal of the public interest! Conservative plans would provide not only no targets, but no accountability either. It would be the postcode lottery all over again, and the public will not wear it.
We are not claiming today that every problem in the NHS has been solved—it has not—nor do we say that the NHS cannot improve still further, because we know that it can. Our argument today is that the NHS needs a clear strategy of investment and reform. Investment will allow NHS capacity to grow, and reform will allow us to deliver our services more efficiently, with greater responsiveness to the needs of patients, and greater and equal choices for patients over when, where, and how they are treated. Those choices are based on need, and not on ability to pay.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire cannot deliver either of those objectives, because he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the challenges facing the NHS and the changes that are needed in order to respond to them. I invite all my hon. Friends to follow our course, and to treat the Opposition motion with the contempt that it deserves in the Lobby tonight.
6.18 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: This is a useful debate in which to explore staff recruitment and retention. The NHS certainly achieves successes every minute of every day—it saves lives every day, and it changes lives every day. We should place on record our appreciation of the dedication and deep knowledge of the staff, doctors, nurses and other health care professionals and managers, and treat them as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, asset that the NHS possesses. It is therefore right that we are debating the recruitment and retention of staff and the challenges that confront the NHS.
The debate is based on a motion tabled by the Conservative party. I have no particular problems with the motion, which is a statement of the blindingly obvious. It simply lists a series of concerns, many of which have been well rehearsed and are not subject to real debate. Understandably, the Government amendment sets out those aspects of the Government's record that they want to put in the shop window. However, it does not deal with the concerns about recruitment and retention, and I want to consider a few of those.
One of the ways in which we can gauge the state of play in recruitment and retention is by considering the amount that the NHS spends every year on agency staff. According to the latest figures, the NHS spends £4 million every day on agency staff; that is £1.46 billion a year. Every year since the Government came to power,

1285
the cost of agency staff has increased. My criticism of spending on agency staff is, therefore, that it is out of control. That is not only my view, but that of the Audit Commission in its report "Brief Encounters", which was produced a couple of years ago. The Audit Commission found that not only was it rare for trusts to take a strategic overview of their use of temporary staff, but there was significant under-reporting of expenditure on agency staff in the NHS.
Spending is poorly targeted and controlled and lacks strategic direction on questions such as the reason for the use of agency staff. Too often, they are recruited to fill gaps on a firefighting basis rather than as part of a sensible human resources strategy that is designed to provide greater flexibility for permanent staff as an aid to their retention and recruitment.
Sarah Teather rose—
Sandra Gidley rose—
Mr. Burstow: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) first.
Sarah Teather: Great minds think alike. Does my hon. Friend share my anxiety about the all-doctor three-month vacancy rate for the North West London strategic health authority, which is currently 4.6 per cent.—higher than the London average—and about the consequent cost implications for temporary staff cover?
Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I want to develop. There are questions to be asked about the age profile of the work force, which will mean a further increase in the number of people who retire and thus in vacancies that need filling. I want to deal with that point later.
The Government's answer to the question about the way in which the NHS deals with the costs of agency nursing has been the introduction of NHS Professionals.
Sandra Gidley: My hon. Friend rightly raised the problem of agency staff, but I assume that he also knows that, although the Government trumpet the fact that they do not use staff from overseas in parts of the NHS, that does not apply to agency staff. High numbers are recruited from overseas and the purchasing agency appears to have no plans to deal with that. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?
Mr. Burstow: It is interesting that NHS Professionals, which currently provides a service in approximately one in every four NHS hospitals, can currently cover only 65 per cent. of requests for agency staff. Private agencies provide 25 per cent. of agency staff. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm in her winding-up speech whether the ethical recruitment codes apply to private agencies through NHS Direct. Clearly, that is a cause for concern.
It is surprising that, even with only one in four hospitals buying in to NHS Professionals, the body can meet only 65 per cent. of the demand for agency staff.
1286
The specialist press, especially for nursing staff, is regularly filled with concerns and complaints about the time it takes for people to get their payments. I understand that a report was commissioned to consider the establishing of NHS Professionals and the lessons to be learned from that. Will the Minister tell us today whether the report will see the light of day? Written parliamentary questions show that the Government have not been willing to publish their conclusions and findings from the experience of NHS Professionals.
Another measure of staffing pressures in the NHS is the increase in the use of overseas staff, which has already been mentioned. The number of overseas staff has increased from 2,281 in 1996 to 44,442 last year. Nurses constitute the lion's share of the overseas recruits. Currently, 8 per cent. of nurses in England, 28 per cent. of nurses in London and more than half the new entrants to the Nursing and Midwifery Council register are from overseas.
As Ministers know, I have raised concerns about overseas recruitment in Adjournment debates and through written questions for many years. I have expressed anxieties about both the ethics of overseas recruitment and the way in which some of those who come here to work in good faith, especially in the independent sector, are mercilessly exploited by their employers. Those concerns remain, and the Government's code of practice on overseas recruitment, although welcome, offers very little practical protection, particularly for staff outwith the NHS.
My concern is not just this country's reliance on the recruitment of overseas staff for the NHS; it is also the increasing number of home-grown staff who are opting to work overseas. The fact is that the health care work force is becoming increasingly globalised, and competition among industrialised countries for scarce resources is intensifying. We have already seen more than 8,000 nurses leave the UK to work abroad in a single year, and the number opting to work in the United States has more than doubled. Indeed, it has been estimated that the US has a shortfall of more than 1 million nursing staff, and it is coming to the UK and other industrialised countries to recruit nurses to take back to the United States.
My plea to the Government is that they should not rest on their laurels in regard to international recruitment. This matter requires concerted international action, partly of the kind that the Minister described earlier. Surely the Government should take the opportunity provided by their chairmanship of the G8 to propose an international code of good practice for health recruitment, so that we can not only set a good example but ensure that others follow it, especially those industrialised nations with the spending power to recruit not only from each other but from those countries that can least afford to let staff go.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's argument, in which he seems to equate the United Kingdom with a third-world country.
Mr. Burstow: That is pathetic.
Mr. Turner: Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. What is wrong with nursing staff from this country choosing to work in the United States?
Mr. Burstow: I fear that the hon. Gentleman was not really following my argument, which was that we are in a globalised, competitive environment, and we have to take due heed of that when we negotiate with our partners. We need to have arrangements in place to ensure that we are not withdrawing from recruiting overseas while others are still doing it. There needs to be internationalisation of the arrangements, rather than the UK simply doing this on its own. I certainly do not have a problem with people choosing to work elsewhere; that was not my point. However, if we do not address this issue beyond the domestic level, we shall have serious problems.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does the hon. Gentleman have comparative salary figures for nurses and doctors in the United States, the UK and Europe?
Mr. Burstow: No, I do not have those figures immediately to hand, but if the hon. Gentleman would like them, I shall try to find out what they are. However, I am sure that a written question would be able to elicit the information from the Department of Health.
This increasing reliance on agency and overseas staff is likely to increase because of the demographics of much of the UK's health work force. Whether we are talking about nurses, doctors or other key health professional, there is—dare I say it—a demographic time bomb ticking away under the NHS. The fuse for that time bomb was set during the Conservatives' time in government, because they failed to provide the necessary training places and investment in staffing. However, the time bomb is still ticking away today. For example, one in five nurses is over t he age of 50—indeed, the Royal College of Nursing goes so far as to say that it is one in four—and a huge number of nurses are due to be lost through retirement over the next few years. The same applies to general practitioners. According to the Department of Health, at the last count there were 3,435 GP vacancies—an increase of 31 per cent. over the year before.
More telling than that is the fact that the number of applicants applying for each post has fallen in each of the last three years. In 2001, there were 6.9 applicants per vacancy, but that figure had more than halved to 3.3 by 2003. Things appear to be getting worse rather than better in terms of recruiting extra GPs, not least because of lifestyle choices resulting in more of them choosing to work part-time rather than full-time, although the Government record these figures only by head count, rather than by full-time equivalence
Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman must know that he is wrong about that. We publish figures on both head counts and whole-time equivalence, and I am sure that he will want to correct that statement. My question to him on international recruitment is perhaps historical, but I think that it is important. When we had the election in 2001, his party was promising to recruit something like 4,000 more doctors a year than we were planning to. He has just lectured the House, in very polite terms, about the dangers of international recruitment, but can he tell us where those extra doctors would have come from, if not from international recruitment?
Mr. Burstow: I think that the Minister has misconstrued what I was saying about international
1288
recruitment, perhaps to make a political point. The point is surely that, when it comes to recruiting from overseas, there needs to be an ethical framework that is not only pursued by this country in making individual agreements with individual countries. It must be an arrangement that involves other countries as well. That is the context. I do not have a problem with a globalised market in terms of health care. But given that in the last year for which there are figures, 44,000 staff have come from overseas, that demonstrates the extent to which the NHS is reliant on those staff to provide health care in this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Burstow: I am spoilt for choice. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. May I return to the point about general practitioners? I am a little alarmed to be told by long-established practices in my constituency that for the first time for many years, they are not having the opportunity to train new GPs in their practices this year, not because of any deficiencies in the training that they are providing, but because of funding at a higher level. Does he share my concern that at a time when we need new, young GPs, apparently, practices in Somerset that are willing to provide that sort of training in a perfect setting are not allowed to do so?
Mr. Burstow: Certainly, I share my hon. Friend's concern, and I am sure that the Minister will address it.
I want to address the issue of the demographics of the GP work force, because it causes concern to many Members on both sides of the House, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather). The number of GPs who will meet the mandatory retirement age of 70 in the next few years is set to rise rapidly, particularly in London and the west midlands. Looking forward, two thirds of the 4,000 GPs who qualified in south Asian medical schools are due to retire by 2007. A lot of today's work force difficulties, however, must be seen as a legacy of the last Conservative Government. Poor work force planning, a reduction in training places, and cuts in staff left the NHS with chronic staff shortages. In 1983, the Conservatives recruited 37,000 nurses, but by 1995, that had dropped to 6,000. By the time that the Conservatives had left office, the figures that I have seen suggest that at least 51,000 fewer nurses were working in the NHS.
The legacy of staff shortages, however, was made worse by this Government's decision to stick to the Conservative spending plans for the first two years after coming into office in 1997. It was not until the NHS plan that a concerted effort was begun to tackle work force issues. Clearly, there is a long way to go to tackle the shortages that have been outlined so far in today's debate.
That brings me on to the issue of contracts, in relation to GPs, consultants and "Agenda for Change". Clearly, there is concern about slippage in the implementation of "Agenda for Change" among the work force, but the

1289
Minister's comments today are undoubtedly welcome. The implementation of the consultants contract, however, has stretched the capacity of personnel staff in the NHS to the limit. As has been mentioned, the British Medical Association survey earlier this month found that eight months after doctors had voted yes to the new contract, around a quarter of NHS hospital trusts had still not implemented the contract in full. The Minister has told us today that only a third of consultants currently work to the new contract. He has at least indicated some regret that progress has not been as rapid as it should have been. Clearly, it needs to be more rapid if we are to see the improvements that we all want in that respect. But we also need to raise concerns about capacity. One of the consequences of the new consultants contract is often that consultants work fewer sessions, which means less capacity in the NHS.
Taken together those contracts are welcome developments, and over time they should deliver significant improvement to the working lives of the staff and to the quality of care for patients. However, implementing all those changes during the same year, against a background of continuing staff shortages, runs the risk of reducing NHS capacity. When all those changes are combined with the impact of the working time directive, some serious risks are posed to the NHS in terms of its ability to deliver the Government's wider agenda on issues such as choice.
The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), who will respond to this debate, has responsibility for dentistry. I want to pose one quick question to her. When does she expect the work force review in relation to dentistry, which has been long awaited, to be published? It was commissioned back in July 2001, and given to the Government in the autumn last year. We are told that it will be coming shortly. How long is shortly? It would be useful to clarify that, not least because when the Commission for Health Improvement examined dentistry, it found that 26 per cent. of people have not seen an NHS dentist for more than two years, and 8 per cent. have never seen one. Half the population are not registered with a dentist. Staggeringly, there was a 70 per cent. increase in the number of people having to contact NHS Direct on dentistry matters between November 2001 and February 2002. When will that survey be published?
Public health is a very live issue today, and we expect a White Paper in the autumn. In March this year, the Faculty of Public Health Medicine published a report on the specialist public health work force, which made sorry reading. It warned:
"There is strong evidence to suggest that the current numbers of consultants and specialists in public health, health protection and academic public health in the UK are insufficient for the work that is required."
It went on to point out that deficiencies in staff numbers had been known since the national survey of communicable disease function undertaken by the NHS executive in 1997, but that
"important deficiencies have not generally been rectified despite the addition of significant new responsibilities to these consultants."
1290
Just when will the Government come forward with a work force plan to ensure that that part of the work force is increased? Do they agree with the faculty's figure of a need for a 40 per cent. increase in the consultant work force in that field?
Just recruiting more staff to meet ever-increasing demands on the NHS is not a sustainable policy. As Derek Wanless found in his first report on health funding, if the NHS continues much as it is at present, it will cost an extra £30 billion a year to provide health care by 2020. There is a need to tackle the causes of ill health, both through preventing and postponing the onset of disease and through better controlling the spread of infection.
I shall not rehearse the need to tackle health-care acquired infections, an issue that we debated yesterday in some detail under the Health Protection Agency Bill.
Jonathan Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what his policies are? He is just giving us a commentary on the issues that the NHS faces. What are his solutions to the problems that he has set out?
Mr. Burstow: I am speaking to the terms of the motion. The hon. Gentleman should read the motion, tabled in the name of the Leader of the official Opposition, which is simply a list of the problems. I am not going to give the hon. Gentleman what he wants today, but I am more than happy to debate Liberal Democrat health policies in Government time.
On infections, the National Audit Office has said that 100,000 people every year pick up infections while in hospital. Research by the Public Health Laboratory Service has found that patients with health-care acquired infections stay in hospital on average 2.9 times longer—about 14 days extra—than those who do not pick up infections. That implies that about 1.4 million bed days are lost every year as a direct consequence of infections picked up in the NHS, which is the equivalent of seven and a half average-sized district hospitals. The potential capacity gain for the NHS from tackling issues of infection, and really bearing down on that problem, would be huge.
Work force issues are and will remain a critical factor in the NHS's ability to deliver. There are many issues still to be tackled in developing a work force strategy in this country, but what is clear, if not perhaps to every Member present today, is that we as a House must continue to applaud, reward, recognise and value the staff of the national health service as its greatest asset. Today's debate is not about Liberal Democrat policy but about the Government's record. That record is not as good as the Minister and the Government would like us to believe, and we have outlined why that is. When the elections come, we will demonstrate why this Government's record does not justify their being returned to office.
6.39 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has had to leave the Chamber for a moment, for which he has apologised. I want to wish him well, in his absence, in his new role. He has a good command of health policy, and I am sure that our debates will be assisted by

1291
his contributions. Having said that, I think that his contribution today was somewhat thin, to put it mildly—about as thin as the Tory Benches have been during a Tory debate. There are just two Tory Back Benchers in their places at the moment, which raises serious questions about the Conservatives' commitment to health policy. They cannot drum up more support than that, yet it is their own Opposition debate.
I have always believed that effective opposition, whether at the national or local level, will bring about better government. However, this Parliament has lacked an effective Opposition. What worries me particularly about the Opposition's focus is that their attention on policy issues has tended to skew us away from what I believe are the real issues on health policy. A good example was the first Opposition debate this year, which was on care of the elderly. The Conservatives skewed the entire debate by concentrating on the number of people in care homes, failing to debate prevention, how to assist people or measures to help people to retain their independence in the community. It was basically the Tory party being led a dance by nursing home and care home owners—and the Conservatives danced well to their tune.
Today's debate, following the Tory motion, portrays health as an essentially curative process. We are talking about the response to illness and about cures. We are bogged down with the institution of the hospital, just as we were bogged down in the earlier debate with the institution of the care home. I really think that we need to question the focus of the Opposition's concerns about health care.
We are not talking today about the fundamentally important health issues, although they were touched on by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—by that I mean the preventive agenda, which is about helping people to avoid being in hospital in the first place. The NHS Confederation said this week that one in 10 people who are in hospital do not need to be in hospital—and I believe that that is a gross underestimate. A consultant I spoke to recently told me that one in three people did not need to be in hospital, so let us examine why that is the case. It is sad that our debate has not touched on that crucial issue. The Opposition's frame of debate distracts us from addressing the crucial issues of health policy at the present time.
Turning specifically to the motion, the Opposition are, frankly, daft in trying to censure the Government over staff shortages. For anyone seriously looking into health policy, that really does not wear. The present Government have probably done more than any other in the history of the NHS to try to deal with staff shortages and they should be commended rather than criticised for their efforts during their seven years in power. The Government deserve praise for their initiatives on recruitment, which have been set out by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). The efforts of the Government have also brought about investment in training and they are attempting to establish a family-friendly NHS environment. My right hon. Friend spoke about 6,000
1292
nursery places. That is important for getting people, particularly nursing staff, back into the health service when they have left to have children.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend is focusing on family-friendly policies and the attitudes of hospitals as employers towards human resource issues. Does he agree that, as these policies start to bed in and become more widely known, many returning nurses will return direct to the NHS work force rather than, as some do now, choosing to work for agencies on account of their more flexible employment policies? That will be good for continuity and good for economics.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Yes, I believe that that is the case. It will be a long, slow process, but we are heading in the right direction.
We should do more to care for our NHS staff and seek to improve the environment in which they work. About six months ago, I spent one night—a Saturday night and Sunday morning—with my daughter in a casualty unit in my constituency, and I saw the pressures placed on nursing and medical staff. It really opened my eyes to the pressures that they are under and I think that we need to address those pressures. I saw how members of the public who ought to know better could abuse our health service staff.
The motion talks about the role of staff in high-quality health care. The Government are guilty of failing to emphasise the progress that has been made on quality of care. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire talked about numbers of finished consultant episodes, the normal measurement that is used, and he said that the number of FCEs did not reflect the amount of investment that had been made.
However, the Opposition very rarely mention one factor—the improvements that have been made in the quality of care offered by the NHS. The Government deserve great credit for the measures that they have taken to address in detail some of the problems that used to exist. For instance, the introduction of clinical governance has made a big difference to the operation of the NHS. The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, which replaced the Commission for Health Improvement, has done a lot of work on quality at local level, and that has made a big difference nationwide. Again, professional validation seems like common sense, but the Government deserve credit for ensuring that people's skills are checked and updated.
The Opposition's motion talks about bureaucracy and red tape. One assumes that that very easy criticism is aimed at organisations such as the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, or at the measures and mechanisms introduced to cover the important question of quality.
I disagree fundamentally with the Tory motion, but I have a few personal anxieties that I want to express about the direction of certain Government health policies. I begin with the question of central directives to the NHS. I said earlier that the debate had a curative approach and, all too often, central directives reflect a curative, hospital-based approach to health. That needs to be examined when the direction and targets set for the NHS by the Government are reviewed.
Occasionally, the central directives can also be seen to constitute a market-style approach to health. I am genuinely concerned about the consensus in respect of

1293
choice that has developed among the three main parties in this Chamber. Where will that concept take us? We are all for choice—of course we are—but we need to discuss in detail what the word really means.
Who is pushing for choice in the NHS? I get hundreds of letters about the service from all over the country, but I do not recall one that asked about choice. People write to ask about all sorts of things, and to tell me that they want their local service to give them what they need, near where they live. However, they do not go on about choice. Where does the concept of choice come from? I should be interested to get to the bottom of that.
Also, are we prepared for the consequences of choice? We know about the impact of choice on education, and about what is commonly called middle-class flight from schools. People with inner-city schools in their constituency will know that choice has meant that middle-class people move out and shift their children to schools in the leafy suburbs. Are we prepared for the same thing happening in the NHS? There is no doubt that it will happen, and the consequence that it will have for the NHS needs to be thought through.
What is the consequence for the wider health care agenda of concentrating on choice? I must tell my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, if we are not careful, we are in danger of making again the mistake that the Tories made—that is, we will create a public perception of health that is all hospitals, treatments and cures but which has nothing to say about prevention.
Mrs. Patsy Calton: Is not real choice a matter of getting timely diagnosis and treatment for people near where they live, and not about chasing all over the country after the best surgeon? Not everyone can go to the best surgeon, although some would like to be able to buy their way into doing so. We need good, local treatment that is available when needed.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I agree with the hon. Lady. I think that the Government probably agree with the point that she has made. On the choice issue, when we discuss Tory policy we often get down to the idea that somehow a person choosing to go private assists the NHS. The Tories do not seem to understand that the doctors treating people in the private sector are the same ones treating people in the NHS. They are not some magic, additional number of consultants. People say, "We are helping the health service by going private." What a load of tripe. What a load of nonsense. Of course they are not. They are damaging the health service by giving consultants the continuing incentive to treat people privately. We have to get those consultants back working in the health service. It is the big issue that has not been addressed by successive Governments since 1948. This Government have tried, and I wish them success in it. It is the key to solving so many of the problems.
David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hinchliffe: I will not give way because I know that colleagues want to contribute.
One of the things that I have learned from looking at some of the central directives is that they can be crude and simplistic and can have unintended consequences. I
1294
shall give just one example in the time that I have—waiting list targets. We come back to the activities of certain consultants. I know for a fact that some consultants wait until their waiting list levels reach a stage at which the trust will be penalised and then say to the trust managers, "Look, with certain patients you are going to be penalised. You might have your star rating affected." The patients on the waiting list end up being put into the consultant's session on a Saturday morning at a hugely increased cost to the NHS. That has happened in many parts of the country, and the Government should look into the way in which targets are skewing our approach and being exploited.
The concordat with the private sector was a fundamental error. We know that each item costs 43 per cent. more than we would have paid within the NHS. Okay, some people have gained from that. They have obtained earlier access to treatment. Some of my constituents have done so, but we have not addressed the reason why they had to wait all that time. The reason is frequently because the consultants were not on the golf course but doing private work instead of meeting clinical priorities within the NHS.
Mr. Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hinchliffe: I will not give way. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
The Tory motion exposes a worrying narrow view of health care, which the Government should not follow. It is a curative approach. It does not address the real issues in health.
I have spent the past year on the Health Committee investigating sexual health—some of those problems really do need to be addressed—and obesity. The message that one gets big style when one looks into public health issues is that the Tories made a fundamental error way back in the 1970s by castrating public health. In 1974 they got rid of the medical officers of health. Between 1979 and 1997 they cast aside public health. That is the real agenda.
In his conclusion the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire talked about setting the NHS free. We have set it free from the legacy of 1979. The consequences are still having to be addressed by this Government, who have been in power for seven years. God forbid that we ever get the Conservatives back in power, setting free the NHS and letting the market rip, as happened in the 1980s and early 1990s.
6.54 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield—yes, Wakefield.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Somewhere in Yorkshire.
Mr. Turner: Yes, somewhere in Yorkshire. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I do not intend to go far down the road that he explored, but I was interested in his suggestion that family-friendly policies were a priority in the NHS when it is only since the introduction of the new GP contract that none of my GP practices is open on a Saturday morning.

1295
I wish to pursue a number of issues briefly, and the first is the question of shortages. My hon. Friends have spoken of the shortages of doctors, consultants and nurses and the need to recruit from overseas to provide an adequate supply. I refer the Minister, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), to the shortage of dentists in my constituency. She is familiar with that situation, having kindly visited the Denbigh House practice in my constituency on 3 March this year. I remember that she said at the time that a review would take place of the provision of dentists, because the number of NHS dentists on the island had declined significantly. I congratulate her on being the first Minister to say that access to NHS dental provision should be available on the island and that my constituents should not have to travel to the mainland for that purpose.
Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman mentions travelling to the mainland to find an NHS dentist, but they are similarly rare in Hampshire. When found, they often provide care for children only on condition that the parents register privately with them.
Mr. Turner: I am indeed aware of that, because I read in the Southern Daily Echo recently that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was concerned about the shortage of dentists. I also know that constituents have been referred to a dentist in Southsea by NHS Direct and have travelled there to be told that their children will only be treated if the parents sign up for private dental treatment. The issue of dental provision is a serious weakness in the Government's strategy.
The chief executive of the local primary care trust wrote to me on 14 June to say that he had expected the recommendations of the Government's review
"to be available to the PCT by mid-May so that we could begin to make progress."
[Interruption.] I know that the Minister finds her colleague more interesting than me, but the chief executive also says that
"we have been advised by the Department of Health that the report is taking longer than was originally anticipated … We have not, as yet, been informed of the date this will be to hand."
I accept that the Minister has good intentions, but the number of NHS dentists in my constituents and in Hampshire has rapidly declined, and my constituents are suffering. I hope that in her reply she will bring up to date the remarks that she so kindly made on 3 March.
Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman seems to want a target for the number of NHS dentists. Would he care to comment on the remarks earlier by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)? Does he expect that at the next election the Conservative party will publish a target by which their success in improving access to NHS dentistry would be measured?
Mr. Turner: The answer is simple. The Minister is charged with delivering a promise that the Prime Minister made in 2001 that within two years everyone should have access to an NHS dentist. It was the Prime Minister's target, but the Government have failed to deliver. My hon. Friend the Member for South
1296
Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) explained our position on targets amply and adequately, and I do not intend to go further down that road.
Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Turner: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way again.
The second point to which I would like the Minister to respond is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) in European Standing Committee C on 24 March. My hon. Friend referred to the effect of the European working time directive on the number of consultants required in small hospitals—
It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the motion in the name of Mr. Michael Howard relating to NHS staff recruitment and retention may be proceeded with, though opposed, until 8.00 p.m.—[Mr. Cooker.]
Question agreed to.

NHS RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
Question again proposed, That the original words stand part of the Question.
Mr. Turner: In that Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury kindly referred to my hospital, St. Mary's. Referring to me, he said, correctly:
"He is particularly worried about this issue because of St. Mary's hospital on the Isle of Wight. It is a very small hospital for very good reasons: the inaccessibility of the Isle of Wight, the difficulty of getting people to the mainland and the fact that the population doubles in the summer months."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee C, 24 March 2004; c. 28.]
What, he asked, would happen to such a hospital if the European working time directive were introduced? The Minister of State is familiar with the hospital because she visited it on 3 March. Unfortunately, however, answer came there none from Ministers in the European Standing Committee; they were unable to explain how a small hospital could employ sufficient consultants to comply with the requirements of the European working time directive. As her hon. Friends left the question unanswered, will the Minister answer it today? [Interruption.] The Government imposed the target. Labour Members seem to be worried—
Clive Efford: Targets are measures by which the public can assess the success of the Government. The Government may not meet some of their targets but at least they have some idea of the direction in which they are taking the NHS. The hon. Gentleman's party have no such plans and will set no targets, nor has it given any indication of where it intends to go with the NHS if it is successful at the next election.
Mr. Turner: My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will not set targets for hospitals; they will set targets for themselves. The customers of the NHS, like those in the

1297
private sector, are perfectly capable of determining whether they are getting the quality of service they want without reference to a range of unnecessary bureaucratic Government targets.
I fear I have run out of time but I want to underline the two points that I would like the Minister to answer: the effect of the European working time directive on St. Mary's and how soon her review of the shortage of dentists on the Isle of Wight will be available, so that that shortage can be corrected.
7.2 pm
Ann Keen: It is often said that people remember nurses. Nurses remember Governments, and this nurse certainly remembers the Opposition when they were in government.
A few days after the Conservatives were re-elected in 1992, I went to support my local football team— Brentford—and outside the ground were nurses in uniform with collection buckets. They were collecting for accident and emergency equipment for the local hospital. Down the road at Kempton Park, the West Middlesex university hospital stakes were also raising money for vital equipment for my local hospital. A demoralised work force were being asked to beg—literally—on the streets to collect money for equipment.
We are talking about recruitment and retention. That was a demoralised work force. If staff are not cared for, they cannot care for the community of patients that they are unquestionably able and trained to look after. Other services in the hospital were demoralised; they are often called hotel services, but they actually involve people who do vital work. Vital cleaning services were contracted out to the lowest bidder. Dedicated staff had their terms and conditions of employment reduced to poverty, with no employment rights. They worked a full week, yet they were entitled to claim benefits. Of course, there was no minimum wage; the Conservatives opposed that. Unemployment was high, and people were very nervous about leaving to look for other employment. Their skills were not valued, unlike today, when all the training and development needs of all NHS staff are being met.
The motion talks about retention. To retain staff, people must be proud of where they work. Under the Conservative Government, many NHS buildings were in very poor condition. Many were not even just of the last century, but the previous century: workhouse facilities. I worked in them. I know what it was like to be on night duty, wandering around looking for somewhere that could offer some refreshment—tea, coffee or food—at night. Our needs were not met; they were not catered for in any way. That applied right across the board, not just in my own profession, nursing. If people asked for training and development, they were told that there was no money.
Some of the pay review body awards were not always paid in full. When I was employed by Ealing health authority, I was asked whether I was prepared to give back my pay rise because, if I did not, the hospital would have to make cuts. That was in 1992. I tell hon. Members now that I had a very different conversation
1298
today, when I spoke to the chief executive of my primary care trust, John James, who leads Hounslow's PCT, along with Christine Hay. We could contrast the training and development and, yes, we could discuss the improvement in GP recruitment that, without question, has taken place in Hounslow. Many of the GPs who have been recruited are salaried, which makes quite a difference, especially to medical staff who want to return to work after perhaps taking time off to have children or for child care.
Flexibility is so important. The rigidity of the employment of NHS workers in the past put many people off staying in the NHS. The NHS is one of the most brilliant, wonderful sectors in which people can work. The staff are most dedicated. No one joins the NHS, right across the spectrum, because they want to earn vast sums of money. Very special people decide to work in the health service, and they have always deserved better. I am proud of the way that the Government are looking after NHS staff. Without question, the money for training and development is there. Without question, child care makes a difference.
I have talked to Meena Singh, who is the director of West Middlesex university hospital—now a modern building, opened by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last November. I was employed at that hospital in 1985. I was told at my interview that I would be working in a brand-new hospital by 1987. It took a Labour Government and a Labour Member of Parliament, a Labour nurse, to help to deliver that hospital in 2003. Much hard work took place, but there is, of course, more to do.
Without question, there are recruitment problems with radiographers, as has been acknowledged. We need to consider the mix of skills in the health service professions. My own profession, nursing, has come to the forefront, and many of the duties that nurses now perform will soon be recognised in pay. With "Agenda for Change", nurses can go up a clinical pay structure—a clinical ladder—but the previous Administration of the Conservative party prevented them from doing so by creating managers out of nurses. If nurses wanted to make progress in their careers, they had to go into management.
There is nothing wrong with management. There is nothing wrong with managing the NHS properly. There is nothing wrong with having support staff who are trained in the latest IT skills. I started my working life in the NHS as a hospital clerk. We still need to improve the administration services in many hospitals, as they have not changed much since I worked as a clerical assistant.
Without question, recruitment and retention require the most important aspect of NHS delivery. Without question, we have now increased the availability of treatment for patients, but we have done so with the development of a dedicated staff and with the development of a dedicated Government who are totally committed to the NHS, and without question, everyone who works in the NHS will always remember that.
7.9 pm
Mr. David Amess: I join all hon. Members in saying a very big thank you to all the women and men who work in our national health service. Without the staff of the NHS there would not be

1299
a national health service. I am sure that I speak for every one of them when I say that they are overworked and underpaid. If any Government can come up with the solution to that particular problem, then I am waiting to hear it.
The last Conservative Government were elected in the last century. I want to talk about this century, in particular about recruitment and retention. I am not suggesting for a moment that I and my parliamentary colleagues had the solutions to all the problems that the NHS faces, but I am sick to death of Labour jargon. What particularly grates with me is the talk of targets and star ratings. The people who work in the NHS are fed up with those two things as well.
I congratulate the chairman of the British Medical Association Council who, when speaking about the burden of targets, said:
"The one memory that will live long after the sweet taste of negotiating successes and the sour taste of acid encounters with self-serving secretaries of state"—
I wonder whom he might have been talking about—
"have left my palate is the creeping, morale-sapping erosion of doctors' clinical autonomy brought about by micro-management from Whitehall which has turned the NHS I hold so dear into the most centralised public service in the free world."
He mentioned
"The stifling of innovation by excessive,intrusive audit and the imposition of Department of Health diktats … The shackling of doctors by prescribing guidelines, referral guidelines and protocols… The suffocation of professional responsibility by target-setting and production-line values that leave little room for the professional judgement of individual doctors or the needs of individual patients",
and went on to say:
"Targets are set nationally without any appreciation of what they might mean for individual doctors sitting in consulting rooms with individual patients."
On star ratings, the chairman of the British Medical Association said:
"Nobody should use star ratings to judge how well a hospital is doing. They measure little more than hospitals' ability to meet political targets and take inadequate account of clinical care or factors such as social deprivation. It is grossly unfair on staff working in low-rated trusts that public confidence in them is being undermined."
I certainly support everything that those two gentlemen said.
I want to touch on recruitment and retention as they relate to general practitioners, dentistry, the people who work in our mental health services, the people dealing with obesity and those who deal with allergies. The BMA has rightly questioned the Government's claims that GP recruitment targets have been met. The chairman of the BMA's general practitioners committee said:
"The Department quotes headcount figures but many of the new GPs will be working part-time in general practice. Using the Government's own figures, we calculate that between September 1999 and September 2003 there was at best an increase of 1,323 full-time equivalent GPs in England over the four year period."
1300
If hon. Members are honest with themselves, they will all admit that they know from their constituency pressures that not enough GPs are being trained. Again, I look forward to hearing the Government's ideas on how that can be improved.
Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Amess: No. The hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) would be angry if I did, because Mr. Deputy Speaker is, I think, hoping to allow one more Back-Bench Member to speak before we run out of time.
On dentistry, there are large queues when a general dental practitioner accepts new NHS patients, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) said. The UK has one of the worst dentist-to-population ratios in Europe. The average ratio in Europe is one dentist for every 1,1540 citizens, but in the UK it is one for every 2,097. There are two reasons for that. First, there is inadequate recruitment of young people to university degrees in dentistry, and, secondly, there is insufficient capacity in our dental schools, about which the Government have said very little. The intake of undergraduates to English dental schools increased by only 1.8 per cent. on the previous academic year, but the capacity of dental schools is not increasing fast enough to meet the increased demand for new dental students, which the Government claim they are meeting. When I asked the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to encourage more applicants, I was told that the Government have published a new brochure—my goodness, they are marvellous at publishing glossy brochures—and it will be distributed in places where young people will hopefully pick it up and read it. Interestingly, the Government claim that dentistry is a popular choice for A-level students, with nearly two applications for every available place in dental schools. I hope that we will learn more about that when the Minister responds.
Retention is another problem. Overall spending on dental care in the NHS budget is far too low to meet demand, causing an increasing number of dentists, as we have heard, to turn to private work. Although the Government like to claim that expenditure on dental services has increased since 1997, that is misleading. As a percentage of the total gross NHS expenditure, the funding of dental services has decreased every year since 1997. Dentists are fed up with the treadmill system of the NHS and are spending more time in private practice. I am delighted that two dental practitioners in Southend, West who came to my surgery are going to set up an entirely NHS-based dental practice. They hope to work closely with the primary care trust, and the success of the enterprise will depend on the skills of Irish dentists.
The Select Committee on Health is conducting a short inquiry into allergies. Ministers will shortly appear before it to answer questions, but its members have been shocked by evidence that the problem of allergies has been completely ignored. The number of allergies is escalating, and we heard expert evidence that that is because we are much cleaner, so our immune system has to look for other things to do. The Royal College of Physicians has published an earth-shattering report

1301
entitled "Allergy—the unmet need", but unfortunately until the Select Committee inquiry, the problem received no attention whatever. One third of the population suffers from an allergy, yet only six centres provide full-time specialist allergy services in the UK. To get a better idea of the scarcity of allergy specialists trained to deal with that enormous need, one need only glance at the numbers. There is only one whole-time equivalent allergist-led clinic for every 3.4 million of the population and one allergist for every 2 million people. The Health Committee looks forward to hearing Ministers' response to that problem. There are worrying reports that many GPs are not trained to deal with the problem and simply do not want to address it. Research by Allergy UK, a leading charity on the issue, reveals that many allergy sufferers believe that their problems are not being addressed and that GPs do not have the necessary expertise to deal with them. One patient describing her GP's reaction to her concerns about allergies said:
"He told me very politely to go away and stop bothering him."
I hope the Government will take the comments on allergies very seriously.
Mental health is without doubt the Cinderella service. There is a huge shortage of psychiatrists and physicians to deal with mental health. A study carried out in December by the Commission for Health Improvement found that there were
"serious problems nationally with the recruitment and retention of mental health staff."
The data show that three-month vacancy rates of 11.3 per cent. within the psychiatry group were higher than in any other specialty. I am delighted to say that a charitable organisation in Southend, West called Growing Together is trying to address the problem.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Amess: I am tempted, but there is one other hon. Member who wishes to speak before the winding-up speeches.
Finally, the Health Committee has led the way in the national and international debate on obesity. All Members of the Committee were shocked and disappointed by the fact that such a serious issue seems to have been ignored until now. It is certainly not just a matter of physical exercise; it has much to do with the content of what we eat.
The problems of recruitment and retention in the areas of health care about which I have spoken reflect the marginalising and neglect of issues that should be critical health priorities for the NHS. These are long-term problems and the country deserves to have them dealt with seriously. It is time for discussion to end and for more action from the Government.
7.22 pm
Tony Cunningham: I thank hon. Members for enabling me to speak. In the few minutes that remain, I shall concentrate on local issues of recruitment and retention. There are problems, but it is
1302
important to put them into perspective. In west Cumbria, no in-patients are waiting more than nine months, and no out-patients are waiting more than 17 weeks. There are 167 out-patients waiting more than 13 weeks, compared with the figure 12 months ago, when it was about 600. That represents a fall of about 70 per cent.
The accident and emergency unit in west Cumbria has a proud record: 96.7 per cent. of those in accident and emergency are seen and treated within four hours. That is an incredible achievement and I pay tribute to the staff, who almost perform miracles in the accident and emergency department. With regard to cancer services, 99.9 per cent. of referrals are seen by a specialist within two weeks.
We have 229 more doctors and 1,690 more nurses. One or two hon. Members have mentioned Filipina nurses. In 2002 we recruited 31 Filipina nurses. They have integrated extremely well and do a fantastic job. There have been three weddings and two babies have been born as a result of them coming to the area. The lady who was responsible for the Filipino programme says:
"It has been a wonderful experience for all concerned. The nurses have settled well into our hospitals and communities and have embraced life in Cumbria. It has proved to be an exceptionally successful international recruitment campaign for the Trust."
That is a great record.
One of the problems that we have with recruitment and retention is the isolation of west Cumbria—we are quite a distance from the nearest motorway, and so on. However, we have a fantastic quality of life: relatively low house prices, compared with London; the lowest crime rate in the country; and some of the finest schools. If there are any doctors or nurses out there watching the debate, west Cumbria is a superb place to come and work.
However, quality of life is not enough. There are two things that we must do. First, we must try to get a medical school in west Cumbria. Four new medical schools have been created recently and there have been three collaborations between universities. If more people were trained at a medical school in the area, there would be a greater chance of them putting down roots and staying there.
Another thing that would help with both recruitment and retention is a brand new hospital. A brand new community hospital is currently being built. It is a multimillion pound development that will be a huge bonus for the people of Workington, but we need a new district hospital in west Cumbria. I think that the figures suggest that by 2010, about 100 new hospitals will be built in this country. I hope that once all the machinations have been gone through and the consultations have taken place, west Cumbria will get a brand new hospital.
We have talked about targets and all sorts of things,but the vast majority of NHS users whom I speak to—I am sure that other hon. Members would say the same thing anecdotally—tell me what fantastic treatment and service they had. Regardless of the problems with recruitment and retention, there is no doubt that we have seen a huge improvement in the NHS throughout the seven years for which we have had a Labour Government.
7.25 pm
Mr. John Baron: This has been an interesting, if short, debate, with some thoughtful contributions from both sides of the House. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to give credit where it is due.
The issue of targets was, understandably, mentioned on a number of occasions. It is our central contention that, despite the best efforts of NHS staff, to whom we are all thankful for all their hard work and achievements, the NHS suffers from too many Government targets and too much red tape, which clogs it up and reduces its effectiveness, distorts clinical priorities and demoralises staff. That is one of the main reasons why there are so many recruitment and retention problems in the NHS, and why after such a massive increase in spending, there has been only a modest increase in activity. Patients are suffering because they are having to wait far longer than necessary to be treated.
It is worth remembering the scale of the problem. Staff turnover in the NHS runs at about 22 per cent. The national average stands at 16 per cent. In financial terms, the cost to the NHS of about 270,000 people leaving and having to be replaced is about £1.5 billion a year—the cost of 10 new hospitals. A report on the problem published by the Audit Commission back in 2002 cited specific factors such as a lack of professional autonomy, a sense of being undervalued by the Government and bureaucracy as some of the causes of the problem.
There is no shortage of evidence that the Government's targets are distorting clinical priorities and demoralising staff. Last year, for example, a House of Commons Committee heard from the Bristol eye hospital, where waiting time targets for new out-patient appointments had been achieved at the expense of delaying follow-up appointments, with the result that 25 patients went blind. Many other such examples exist; suffice it to say that a further recent opinion poll of doctors found that 82 per cent. thought that the amount of red tape that they have to comply with prevents them from devoting as much attention to their patients as they would like. Some 95 per cent. said that there were times when the pressure to comply with Government targets distorted clinical priorities and adversely affected patient care.
The point is that such targets can and do demotivate staff who are already working under tremendous pressure. Dr. Ian Bogle, the outgoing chairman of the British Medical Association, said last year that the Government's obsession with waiting times and performance targets was suffocating professional responsibility, damaging patient care and leading to fiddled figures on how well the NHS was doing. Indeed, he added:
"We now have a healthcare system driven not by the needs of individual patients but by spreadsheets and tick boxes."
Even Unison's head of health, Karen Jennings, said:
"Hospital staff need to be free to concentrate on clinical needs and priorities instead of chasing crude targets."
1304
It is no wonder that morale among professionals is so low and frustration is so high. Earlier in the year, 500 doctors paid for an advertisement in which they said:
"We once believed that the NHS was the finest healthcare system in the world. Today, few health care professionals would make that claim."
In a recent Royal College of Nursing survey, entitled "Stepping Stones", 10,000 nurses were consulted, and one third said that they would quit the profession if they could. Some 11 per cent. said that they planned to quit the profession in the short term. Although the internal rotation shift system helps to meet demanding targets, it is particularly unpopular, and it is no surprise that the number of nurses leaving to work in the USA doubled last year. Nurses' morale has not been helped by the Government's decision to delay the roll-out of "Agenda for Change".
With morale so low and staff turnover so high, it is not surprising that the NHS has not made the expected progress, bearing in mind the extra money that has been spent. Spending on health has increased by 46 per cent. in real terms since 1997, and no one can deny the Government's good intentions. However, it is a statistical fact that in-patient activity has increased by only 5 per cent. since 1997.
Government targets have significantly increased time spent on administration and bureaucracy. NHS figures show that the number of managers and senior managers has increased at almost triple the rate of new doctors and nurses. The massive increase in targets and bureaucracy means that a lot of the new money has not reached front-line clinical services. For example, an RCN eve-of-congress poll, which was taken only last month, made the point that most nurses have not seen any evidence of increased staffing at work.
Mr. Hutton: That point is made up.
Mr. Baron: The point is not made up; it is from the RCN eve-of-congress poll.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If Front Benchers want to intervene, I would be grateful if they did so formally rather than chattering from a sedentary position.
Mr. Baron: Department of Health figures show that, although some of the longest waits have been addressed, average waiting times for hospital operations have steadily risen, from 90 to 99 days, over the past four years. Government Front Benchers shake their heads in disagreement, but that fact comes from Department of Health figures and has been admitted by Nigel Crisp, the chief executive of the NHS, and I look forward to the Minister's response on that point.
Low morale and the recruitment and retention problem mean not only that patients must wait for longer than necessary, but that some patients do not get treatment at all. Let us take chiropody as an example. Recent chiropody statistics show that many hundreds of thousands of mostly elderly people are being denied essential NHS foot care. They show that more than 800,000 new patients are referred for foot care each year, but the NHS only treats around 2.2 million such patients a year. The vast majority of such conditions are not curable, and single episodes of care are in the minority,

1305
which means that hundreds of thousands of NHS patients are simply removed from the list without treatment.
At the end of last year, the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists stated:
"NHS capacity is shrinking as a largely static NHS chiropody/ podiatry workforce is deployed to support an increasingly difficult caseload. Sadly, those with lower priority needs are likely to be 'bumped' out of the system even though their needs are well above simple nail care."
For many elderly people, good foot care often means the difference between relying on other people and independence. Elderly people should not suffer that lottery, and the Government should act to resolve the crisis.
It is not only NHS patients who suffer from the Government's recruitment and retention problems. We heard in the debate how many developing countries are losing their much needed medical staff to the NHS, but the Government refuse to implement proper controls to ensure that that does not happen. The problem is particularly important with regard to nurses. Last year, for the first time more than half of new entrants to the nursing work force were from overseas, and many of them were from developing countries.
A recent Department for International Development report highlighted the fact that one quarter of the total influx of nurses to the UK came from countries on the Department of Health's list of developing countries from which NHS recruitment is prohibited. The Government have repeated their position that recruitment from prohibited developing countries does not take place, because the NHS is recommended to use only those agencies on the approved list that have signed up to the Government's code of practice on ethical recruitment, but that measure is simply not good enough.
In written answers, the Government have admitted that they cannot give the current figure for agencies that have not signed up to the code, and that they have no mechanisms in place to ensure that their code is being adhered to.
In short, the Government are all over the shop on the issue. Conservative
Front-Bench Members have been pressing them on it for some time. We have called on the Government to ban the NHS from using recruitment agencies that are not on the approved list. That is a relatively simply precaution, and we have tabled early-day motion 457 to that effect. The continual failure to adopt that simple measure suggests to many that the Government are happy to turn a blind eye to sloppy recruitment procedures so as to solve their recruitment and retention problems.
Recruitment and retention problems reflect the fact that, although some improvements have been made in the NHS—we all welcome them—progress is not what it should be, given the amount of money invested. Why else does the NHS have such a high turnover of staff? That is the fault not of the professionals who work in the NHS but of the Government. They still cannot understand that their approach is fundamentally wrong.
Politicians must stop interfering. The Government must stop bombarding staff with targets and micro-managing the NHS. The NHS has been a political
1306
football for too long Politicians must learn to trust the medical professionals and allow them to get on with their job. Bureaucracy and targets often come between NHS staff and their patients. Targets simply ensure that the NHS responds to the Government, not patients' needs and care. The time has come to scrap targets and the star rating system and give all hospitals true freedom, so that they are accountable to patients and not bureaucrats.
Such an approach will usher in an environment in which doctors and nurses, freed from political targets, choose to stay because they enjoy the freedom to deliver a standard of care to patients of which they can be proud. That environment will mean that the NHS, for the first time in a long time, can realise its full potential and become a patient-centred health service. It will reflect the fundamental difference in approach between the Conservative party and the Government, in that we have greater faith in the individual than in the state. I urge hon. Members to support our motion.
7.36 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): I thank the Opposition for initiating today's debate because, once again, it has given the Government and labour Members the chance to highlight our genuine progress in rescuing and rebuilding our national health service after years of neglect and under-investment by the Conservative party. It also gave my right hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity forensically to expose the threadbare nature of the Opposition's policy.
The vast increases that we have made in the numbers of dedicated and committed health service workers, who work so hard to provide front-line services to patients, have been crucial to rebuilding the NHS. Patients show much greater appreciation of the work of those staff than Conservative Members, who take every opportunity to snipe, complain and undermine the morale of health service staff.
Let me provide the facts. There are 19,400 more doctors and 67,500 more nurses working in the NHS than in 1997. An increase of 27 per cent. has occurred in the number of scientific, therapeutic and technical staff since 1997. Medical students have increased by more than 60 per cent. since 1997, and between 1997 and 2003, the number of nurses entering training increased by 53 per cent. The total NHS work force is now at its highest level.
We fully acknowledge that there are some recruitment problems. We have taken several steps to deal with them, and I shall tackle some of the points that hon. Members raised later. First, let us consider what the Opposition say about bureaucracy, red tape and targets. I want especially to examine the comments of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). The number of targets has been slashed. Three years ago, there were 108 targets, now there are 62. That is less than one target for every £1 billion of expenditure in health and social care.
Mr. Baron: The Minister clearly needs to check her figures carefully, because there are at least a couple of hundred targets, as well as a further couple of hundred aims and aspirations. The other point that we are making is that those targets have had a minimal effect

1307
despite the increased expenditure, and average waiting times have risen over the last four years. Will she respond to that point?
Ms Winterton: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he knows any organisation that will be spending £90 billion a year which does not set objectives and targets. In relation to targets, we make no apology for halving the maximum waiting time from 18 months to nine, or for the fact that 19 out of 20 people are now seen, diagnosed and treated in accident and emergency within four hours.
We have decentralised power and funding, and more than 80 per cent. of funding is now going directly to primary care trusts. The suggestion by the hon. Member for Billericay that the NHS is awash with managers is complete rubbish. Since 1997, only 13,000 of 224,000 new NHS staff were managers—5 per cent. of the increase. Furthermore, only 40,000 of the 1.3 million employees—less than 3 per cent.—are managers.
I should now like to deal with some of the points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—who, by the way, did not outline a single Liberal Democrat policy—raised the issue of agency staff. That is something that we need to deal with, and we are taking a number of measures to do so. He talked about NHS Professionals, and about the private sector using agency staff, and those are issues that we can look at in relation to the code of practice for using overseas staff. Indeed, we are already doing so.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also asked about the dental work force review; we shall be publishing that shortly. I have to say to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) that it was a bit of a cheek for him to talk about training places in dental schools when the Tories closed down two such schools themselves, but I am glad to hear that our money is getting through, and two new dental practitioners are now opening.
I should like to thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for his kind comments about my visit to his constituency. I am glad to hear that I progress is being made there in regard to dentistry, but I will look into why the report to which he referred has been delayed. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) talked about the need for preventive health measures. He also congratulated the Government on their investment in training and family-friendly policies,and mentioned the time that he had spent working in accident and emergency alongside his daughter. He talked about targets, and when I meet people who work in A and E, they say that the four-hour target has led to different ways of working, to the better patient experience that he mentioned, and to a higher quality of care for patients.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) eloquently spoke of her own experience of the dark days of the Tory Government, but pointed out that we needed to increase the number of radiologists. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) spoke eloquently, too, about recruitment and retention, as well as about the need for medical schools, and made a request for a brand new hospital in his constituency.
The Opposition motion before us today talks about demoralised staff, but what really demoralises staff is being constantly undermined and talked down by
1308
Conservative Members. Far from helping to recruit more staff to the NHS, the attitude of the Conservative party acts as a barrier to recruitment. That attitude shaped 18 years of Tory rule, wrecking our health service.
Amazingly, the Conservative party has learned nothing. The Tories want patients to shop around with their patient passport, which allows only those who can afford to pay to jump the queue. The Tory policy is for longer waits, new charges and choice only for the relatively well-off who can afford to pay thousands for their operations, and no amount of expensive Tory relaunches will hide the reality of their policies. They are not in the interests of patients, and not in the interests of staff. They are more extreme than the policies that brought the NHS to the edge of ruin.
Labour brought the NHS into being, and Labour is repairing the damage done by the Conservative party. That is why we are investing the largest ever amount of money in the health service. That is why we have increased the number of people working in the NHS by 224,000. We have done that because we care about the NHS. We want to see a health service of which our dedicated and compassionate NHS staff are proud, and a health service that provides high-quality services for all in our society, and not just for a privileged few. The NHS is improving, and we cannot let the Tories wreck it again. That is why I urge the House to reject the motion and vote for the Government amendment.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 282.

Division No. 200]

[7:46 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Amess, David

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bacon, Richard

Djanogly, Jonathan

Baker, Norman

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Baldry, Tony

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Barker, Gregory

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Fabricant, Michael

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Fallon, Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Flight, Howard

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Flook, Adrian

Forth, rh Eric

Brazier, Julian

Foster, Don (Bath)

Breed, Colin

Fox, Dr. Liam

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Francois, Mark

Burnett, John

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Burns, Simon

Garnier, Edward

Burnside, David

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Burstow, Paul

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Butterfill, Sir John

Gidley, Sandra

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Cameron, David

Goodman, Paul

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Grieve, Dominic

Carmichael, Alistair

Hague, rh William

Cash, William

Hammond, Philip

Chope, Christopher

Harvey, Nick

Clappison, James

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Heald, Oliver

Collins, Tim

Heath, David

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hendry, Charles

Curry, rh David

Hermon, Lady

1309

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Roe, Dame Marion

Hogg, rh Douglas

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Holmes, Paul

Sanders, Adrian

Horam, John (Orpington)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Howard, rh Michael

Selous, Andrew

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Jack, rh Michael

Shepherd, Richard

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Simmonds, Mark

Jenkin, Bernard

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

Keetch, Paul

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Spicer, Sir Michael

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Stanley, rh Sir John

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Steen, Anthony

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Streeter, Gary

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Stunell, Andrew

Lamb, Norman

Swayne, Desmond

Lansley, Andrew

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Leigh, Edward

Syms, Robert

Letwin, rh Oliver

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Lidington, David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Loughton, Tim

Teather, Sarah

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Mackay, rh Andrew

Tredinnick, David

Maclean, rh David

Trend, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Malins, Humfrey

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Tyrie, Andrew

Moore, Michael

Viggers, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Waterson, Nigel

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Watkinson, Angela

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Ottaway, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Page, Richard

Wiggin, Bill

Paice, James

Willetts, David

Paterson, Owen

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Pickles, Eric

Willis, Phil

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Pugh, Dr. John

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Randall, John

Redwood, rh John

Young, rh Sir George

Rendel, David

Younger-Ross, Richard

Robathan, Andrew

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. David Ruffley and

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Alexander, Douglas

Bradshaw, Ben

Allen, Graham

Brennan, Kevin

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Browne, Desmond

Bryant, Chris

Atkins, Charlotte

Buck, Ms Karen

Bailey, Adrian

Burden, Richard

Baird, Vera

Burgon. Colin

Barnes, Harry

Byers, rh Stephen

Barron, rh Kevin

Cairns, David

Bayley, Hugh

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Beard, Nigel

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Bennett, Andrew

Casale, Roger

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Caton, Martin

Berry, Roger

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Best, Harold

Challen, Colin

Betts, Clive

Clapham, Michael

Blackman, Liz

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Blizzard, Bob

Borrow, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

1310

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clelland, David

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ms Ann

Howells, Dr. Kim

Cohen, Harry

Hoyle, Lindsay

Colman, Tony

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Connarty, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hutton, rh John

Corston, Jean

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Cousins, Jim

Illsley, Eric

Cranston, Ross

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Cruddas, Jon

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Jamieson, David

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jenkins, Brian

Cummings, John

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Darling, rh Alistair

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

David, Wayne

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Dobson, rh Frank

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Doran, Frank

Khabra, Piara S.

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Kidney, David

Drew, David (Stroud)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Efford, Clive

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Fisher, Mark

Lammy, David

Flint, Caroline

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Foster, rh Derek

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Lepper, David

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Foulkes, rh George

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Gerrard, Neil

Love, Andrew

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Gilroy, Linda

Luke, lain (Dundee E)

Godsiff, Roger

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Goggins, Paul

McAvoy, Thomas

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McCabe, Stephen

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

MacDonald, Calum

Grogan, John

McFall, rh John

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mclsaac, Shona

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

McKechin, Ann

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McKenna, Rosemary

Hanson, David

Mackinlay, Andrew

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

McNulty, Tony

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

MacShane, Denis

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Mactaggart, Fiona

McWalter, Tony

Healey, John

McWilliam, John

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Mallaber, Judy

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Hendrick, Mark

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Hepburn, Stephen

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Heppell, John

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hesford, Stephen

Martlew, Eric

Heyes, David

Meacher, rh Michael

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Merron, Gillian

Hinchliffe, David

Miller, Andrew

Hodge, Margaret

Moffatt, Laura

1311

Mole, Chris

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Singh, Marsha

Moran, Margaret

Skinner, Dennis

Morgan, Julie

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Morley, Elliot

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mountford, Kali

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mudie, George

Soley, Clive

Munn, Ms Meg

Steinberg, Gerry

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Stinchcombe, Paul

O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Olner, Bill

Sutcliffe, Gerry

O'Neill, Martin

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Organ, Diana

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Owen, Albert

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Perham, Linda

Timms, Stephen

Picking, Anne

Tipping, Paddy

Pickthall, Colin

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Trickett, Jon

Plaskitt, James

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pollard, Kerry

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Prescott, rh John

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Purnell, James

Walley, Ms Joan

Quin, rh Joyce

Wareing, Robert N.

Quinn, Lawrie

Watts, David

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

White, Brian

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

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Wicks, Malcolm

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Wills, Michael

Winnick, David

Rooney, Terry

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Ruane, Chris

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Ruddock, Joan

Woodward, Shaun

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Worthington, Tony

Salter, Martin

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Savidge, Malcolm

Wright, David (Telford)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Shaw, Jonathan

Wyatt, Derek

Sheerman, Barry

Sheridan, Jim

Tellers for the Noes:

Shipley, Ms Debra

Mr. Nick Ainger and

Short, rh Clare

Jim Fitzpatrick

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main
Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government's record extra investment in the National Health Service which has resulted in increases of 19,400 more doctors and 67,500 more nurses since 1997; supports the extra investment in training which has increased the intake of medical school students by 61 per cent. and nurse training students by 53 per cent. since 1997; notes that over one million NHS staff will benefit from improved terms and conditions; recognises that the international recruitment of healthcare professionals has already made a significant impact on the delivery of NHS services; notes the Government's commitment to ethical international recruitment, with its robust Code of Practice, the first of its kind in the world, ensuring that NHS organisations do not recruit staff from developing countries without the agreement of their government; and welcomes the sharing and transfer of experience and ideas that international recruitment brings to the health service.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION
  Ordered,
  That the Motion in the name of the Leader of the House relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No.118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That—
(1) the matter of the Draft Transport (Wales) Bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 20th July at 25 minutes past Nine o'clock and between Two o'clock and half-past Four o'clock to consider the matter of the Draft Transport (Wales) Bill, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).— [Charlotte Atkins.]

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE (SITTINGS)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(1) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
That—
(1) the draft Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 8th July at half-past Two o'clock; and
(3) at that sitting—
(a) the Committee shall consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
(b) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Charlotte Atkins.]
Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Tony Colman: I wish to present four separate petitions from constituents who live in Southfields and who object to proposals to erect Orange mobile telephone company masts in totally inappropriate locations. I shall not read each petition out, but they all end with the same paragraph. It states:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Wandsworth Council to reject these planning applications on design grounds and that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister re-examine planning law in relation to mobile phone masts in urban areas in order to give local authorities more power to reject such proposals in the future.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

NHS Services (East Sussex)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
8.3 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have secured this debate. Almost every week recently there has been bad news in the Eastbourne Herald about our local NHS. Indeed, it has often been the front-page story. The content of my mailbag and the subjects that arise in my advice surgeries, as well as anecdotal evidence, show the extent of the problems. Clearly, certain issues need to be addressed.
However, at the outset I want to place firmly on record my appreciation of the hard work done by doctors, nurses, administrators and other staff at all levels in my local NHS. I hear from many of my constituents about their experiences in hospital and elsewhere and I see the work of the staff at first hand during my regular visits.
Recent problems began with the restructuring of services for older people and the closure of All Saints hospital in my constituency. It has been closing for some time—since before I was first elected in 1992. It had some 105 beds at its height and tended to specialise in older patients who had had serious strokes or broken hips or legs. It was clear that the hospital had to close at some stage. It was very old, and unsuitable for the modern age, the fabric was decaying and it was even dangerous. The only issue was what to replace it with. I have made my own position clear from the outset.
A plan was originally produced in October 2003, but it was decided, in the jargon of the NHS, to "unhook" the closure from the plans to replace All Saints. This beggars belief. In any event, it began to emerge that there was an intention to close All Saints come what may on 31 March this year. That raised some real worries among my constituents, especially the families of patients at All Saints—so much so that the Bishop of Lewes and I took the unprecedented step of calling a joint press conference in the chapel of All Saints to express our deep concerns. It is inexplicable to me even now that it has been so difficult to drag the truth about the plans out of the local NHS organisations. All this has been happening against a background of serious and sustained levels of delayed discharges in our area.
At this point, the county council's health overview and scrutiny committee under Councillor Bill Bentley became involved and played an important role in the unfolding drama. To cut a long story short, All Saints closed—a little later than 31 March, but it closed. Its replacement provisions contain three main elements. First, there is a new ward at the district general hospital called Hailsham 2, which I visited recently. It is now full, and it provides in-patient treatment for those patients who need acute treatment. It is my impression that it is working well. It is almost entirely staffed by former members of staff of All Saints hospital.
Secondly, there is Firwood house, a facility that has undergone renovation and is designed for those who are close to going home at the end of their treatment. Yet even now it is not fully operational. Staffing is not up to the levels needed, so not all the beds are being used. We were originally assured that it would be fully operational by 30 April, and that has not happened.
1314
The third element is community teams—rehab teams and others—looking after people in their own home. But again, the teams have been plagued by staffing problems so we do not have, in the words of the health overview and scrutiny committee, a "seamless provision" to replace All Saints. It remains a disgrace that all this provision was not put in place before All Saints closed. It is dispiriting that there has been so much open in-fighting between different parts of the NHS over this issue. It raises issues about the current structure of the NHS, which is a discussion for another day. It is deeply depressing that it has taken so much pressure to persuade the local NHS organisations of the value and importance of carrying the local community with them both in closing a much-loved local institution and in persuading them of the need for and effectiveness of the new arrangements.
All this is against a background of major financial problems in the NHS. We have a financial recovery plan. These days, we seem to have one almost every year. We also have a local delivery plan. It is worth spending a little time on the documents. They refer to the deficits that were built up in the previous year—the year that has recently finished—and they look at ways of trying to bring this deficit and the projected deficit in the current year under control. They look at decommissioning and what they call demand management, and they talk about significant bed reductions. The documents also make the point, which will be of interest to the Minister, that in 2001–02 all the organisations in East Sussex were able to balance their books, but in 2002–03 all of them, except the Bexhill and Rother PCT, reported a year-end financial deficit. The organisations have built up between them a deficit of some £26 million across the local health economy.
Rather dramatically, the documents say:
"The LHE has to get into recurring balance as a matter of urgency and is wholly committed to doing so."
I have to ask why there is such urgency. Can the Minister answer that point? Touchingly, the documents say that they have a project implementation weighting that is the product of the ease of implementation, multiplied by the anticipated resistance or "noise". I suppose that I count as part of that noise.
The organisations need to make a recurring saving of some £10 million.
We have already lost 105 beds in All Saints hospital. The are now talking about a medium-term saving of some 200 additional beds, and they are looking to close between one and two wards on each of the two sites, Eastbourne and Hastings, in the current financial year. They also talk about significant savings to be achieved
"by de-commissioning of services and demand management".
Amazingly, my local hospital plans to ensure
"that up to 4,000 new of outpatient referrals … will not be made"
in the current financial year. That is a significant number.
The documents also refer to something that they engagingly call "transformation" which involves "site and speciality rationalisation". That emerges from the previous management merger between the hospitals in my constituency and in Hastings. On the back of that,

1315
they have carried out a clinical services review. They make the point—this is my central concern in this debate—that when the review was set up originally
"its remit did not include working within a reduced resource envelope".
My reading of that is that clinical decisions and priorities may be decided not by medical criteria, but by the pressures of the budgetary problems that are faced. As I have said, we have a £26 million black hole in our local health economy.
The county council has been proactive on the issue, and has made the point that it would make more sense to stop fining it for delayed discharges and to invest the money in intermediate care services. It makes this damning indictment:
"As it stands the shortcomings of the LDP pose a serious threat to the health and wellbeing of the people of East Sussex."
On top of all those problems, we have seen some recent unhelpful and probably unfounded speculations about the future of the children's ward in my local hospital. I have received assurances from the authorities that the recommendations of the clinical service review are clear: in-patient services for children should continue to he provided on both sites. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to repeat those assurances this evening.
My own position since the merger has been clear: I can see no case for any major services being moved from one site to the other, especially in light of the poor communications between Eastbourne and Hastings—of course, the Government could choose to do something about that, but that is beyond the scope of this debate—unless a convincing case were to be made on grounds of safety of patients.
The clinical services review is still under way, but I shall sum up the position. We have massive problems with bed blocking, or delayed discharges. The present figures, from a day or so ago, show that the trust has 964 acute beds, of which nearly 11 per cent. are filled by bed-blocking patients. There is what the local hospital describes as the collective financial problem of nearly £26 million that has to be found from somewhere, yet the hospital and the PCT say that they suffer extra pressure due to the significant elderly population. In our area, we have the country's highest proportion of over-85-year-olds.
The PCT points out:
"The actual allocation to Eastbourne Downs is based on historic levels and historic levels of spending with specific increases each year … Because the allocation is over target, the year-on-year increase for this year and next is less than the national average."
There is a squeeze on funding over the current period. The trust also notes that East Sussex
"has the second worst level of delayed transfers of social and non-social care in the country".
In the long term, some of the initiatives may be right. Of course, we should avoid unnecessary hospital admissions and that sort of thing where possible, but my overriding concern is that the whole process, including the clinical services review, will be poisoned by budgetary concerns and that it will be driven by financial rather than medical motives.
In conclusion, I have four questions for the Minister. First, may I have his assurance that he and the strategic health authority will take a close interest in the re-
1316
provisioning of services for older people in East Sussex? Secondly, in due course, may we have as a serious option the possibility of a new, state of the art rehabilitation unit on the All Saints site? Thirdly, as there seems to be a recurring black hole in the finances of the local health economy of about £26 million, will he urgently review the formulae applying to East Sussex, with special regard to the high proportion of elderly people in the population? As I said, we have the highest number of over-85-year-olds in the country. Finally, will he ensure that budgetary pressures are not allowed to prejudice patient care or to distort clinical priorities in our area?
8.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): As one always does on these occasions, I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on securing the debate. I very much appreciate the interest he takes in his local health service. I know that these are matters of great concern to his constituents and, although I did not agree with some of the points he made, I very much appreciate the thoughtful way in which he put his case and the energy that he puts into trying to support his local health service.
I, too, begin by paying tribute to all the NHS and social care staff working in the hon. Gentleman's local health economy. Their commitment to the continued improvement of his local NHS and social care services is to be commended. I was delighted that he began his speech by congratulating them—something that is all too frequently forgotten.
The national health service plan sets out a challenging 10-year programme for NHS reform. We must ensure that services are accessible and flexible and designed around the needs of patients locally. That is why it is now for primary care trusts, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine the best way to use their funds.
The East Sussex health and social care community faces significant challenges, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Some of them are common to communities up and down the country, while some of them are specific to East Sussex; for example, East Sussex has a higher than average proportion of people aged over 60—a point to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In some areas, the number is twice the national average. There is a higher than average demand for primary care services and an increased use of GP services, due in part to the older population, and significant challenges are associated with delayed transfers of care. As the hon. Gentleman said, it would appear that the area is the second worst in the country. However, I must chide him slightly, as he is a member of a party that is committed to repealing the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003, should it ever come to power. What would that do to help the situation in his constituency?
Despite those challenges, the NHS continues to achieve the national standards set out in the NHS plan. For example, as at April 2004, no patient in East Sussex was waiting longer than nine months for in-patient treatment, and no patient in East Sussex was waiting longer than 17 weeks for an out-patient appointment.
Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con): What advice would the Minister give to one of my constituents—an 80-year-old lady—who has finally, after 18 months, had a hearing test? She has now received a letter saying that she is now on the waiting list for a hearing aid. She was told, "We cannot tell you how long your wait will be. Please do not contact us to find out", as that only distracts staff from doing the work that they should be doing. Is that a service of which the Minister is really proud?
Dr. Ladyman: I would certainly not approve of that type of contact with the hon. Gentleman's constituents. We should try harder to aspire to a much higher standard than that, but we have made tremendous efforts to modernise audiology services across the NHS. We have introduced a digital hearing-aid programme that is gradually rolling out, which will be concluded shortly. We are also making great efforts to improve the training and supply of audiologists. I very much hope that no one will suffer from that bad service in years to come. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me on the specifics of that case, I shall be happy to make inquiries and report back to him.
We have made some achievements and reached some important milestones. That is good news, but we want to go further. We want to build on those achievements and further reduce the length of time that patients have to wait for treatment and deliver better care services across the board. The health service and local stakeholders in East Sussex share that vision. To make that progress and to live within the resources that it receives, the NHS and all the health and care organisations in East Sussex must look carefully at the way that they work, and that is just what they are doing.
For example, the mental health trust has consulted on and adopted a new model of mental health service delivery that will improve prevention and provide early intervention and better access for patients. The East Sussex social services department has made radical changes to its structure, service delivery and commissioning arrangements. Eastbourne Downs primary care trust provides a range of services from a purpose-designed facility in Eastbourne that comprises a community stroke team, day hospital, in-patient step-up and step-down services and community rehabilitation.
Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that the Eastbourne Downs PCT, which serves my constituents in Seaford and Polegate, has a financial problem that prevents it from rolling out services to those communities, as they wish? Given the consequences of the belt-tightening that must be endured, Seaford—a town of more than 20,000 people—is not receiving the health services that it needs.
Dr. Ladyman: I am not aware of the specifics of that issue, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in general terms, which I shall repeat later in my comments to the hon. Member for Eastbourne who initiated the debate, all health organisations in the NHS must live within their means. If we allowed an organisation to overspend, the consequence would be that we would have to take money away from another organisation and another local community. So we allocate the money as best we
1318
can, using as fair a formula as we can devise—we can debate the details of that formula—and then we must leave the PCTs to manage their funds and prioritise local services. I surmise that that is probably what that PCT and both hon. Gentlemen's local health organisations are doing in trying to balance their books.
Furthermore, partner organisations in East Sussex have developed a county-wide process of service review that is nationally recognised as being at the forefront of public and patient involvement. That clinical services review has considered eight different areas of the health service over the past 18 months. Each of those reviews has involved patients and has been appraised by clinical and patients reference groups. Those groups have made a number of recommendations that are now under discussion in the partner organisations.
An East Sussex clinical service review of children's services has been undertaken with the full involvement of both clinicians and the public. I understand that the recommendations in the report are based on recommendations by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and that they are currently being considered by the boards of East Sussex hospitals and PCTs. Far from being a matter of concern, the review process will ultimately lead to better care for everyone. Those who have been brave enough to engage in the process should be congratulated.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne raised issues about potential service changes and sought assurances, particularly on children's services. I assure him that no decisions have been made, but the changes are clearly very important to the development and improvement of local health services in the future. Any major change in service proposed in this area, as in all other areas, would require a full public consultation and ratification by the health overview and scrutiny committee. Anyone who misrepresents the position or engages in scaremongering for political gain—my intelligence from the local area suggests that that is being led by the Liberal Democrats—should be ashamed. Those people are not putting patients first and applying the objectivity that local people deserve.
The objective of the review is that health and social care services are transformed from high levels of institutionally based provision to a wider range of flexible and integrated services provided by multi-professional people in locally based facilities. That model of care is proven to provide real benefits for patients in terms of health and independence. The local delivery plan describes how the NHS and social care community will deliver the NHS plan over the next three years and it has been agreed by all NHS organisations in the area. In addition, the East Sussex county council cabinet has endorsed the overall direction of travel, which envisages a reduction in the number of avoidable admissions to hospital, shorter lengths of stay in hospital, reduced hospital capacity and reinvestment in community facilities, in particular in intermediate care.
Underpinning the local delivery plan are 10 key work streams which can roughly be described under three headings: short term, medium term and long term. In the short term, the NHS and its partner organisations need to work together to make the most of the resources that they receive. I understand that work is progressing

1319
that will see improvements in procurement, moves toward more shared services, and more efficient use of the NHS estate.
In the medium term, new patient pathways will be designed. They will increase community services and thus reduce the need for hospital admission. The challenges associated with delayed transfers of care need to be addressed. For example, I understand that last week 10 per cent. of the acute hospital beds in East Sussex were occupied by patients who no longer required hospital treatment. That is not good enough. Although the NHS and the local social care services are working together to address the issues, the hon. Gentleman must direct some of the blame towards the local council, which has a responsibility.
The NHS and social care community in East Sussex are also refocusing services for older people. That includes developing services that encourage health, prevent unnecessary hospital admissions, minimise in-patient stays and maximise independence. Those services will be person-centred, closer to home, focused on rehabilitation and provided by a combination of professions. The closure of All Saints hospital must be seen in that context. Refocused services that allow the generation of more community and home-based provision are what people want.
The closure of All Saints hospital is a local issue. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits that it was unsuitable for the purpose and needed to be closed. I am aware that it was closed at the end of March as it did not provide safe and appropriate services for elderly patients. The closure released resources that have been and are being reinvested in community-based intermediate care in the Eastbourne Downs PCT area. That strategy is in line with our agenda for social care. In fact, we have announced that we are writing a new vision for adult social care. Three key principles will underpin and drive forward that new vision. They are that services must be person-centred, proactive and seamless. We have not always listened to what people want and need. We have created cultures and structures that have generated dependency. The challenge now is to offer people choice, control and empowerment. We must value their abilities. We must ditch the culture and language of need and dependency, and create services that empower people, which is exactly what the team in East Sussex are trying to achieve.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the financial position of the East Sussex health economy. The local delivery plan includes a three-year financial recovery plan amounting. to £26 million. The health service has received significant additional resources, and annual expenditure must remain within
1320
the resources allocated by Parliament—a point that I made to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). If one part of the health economy is allowed to overspend, another part must pick up the tab, which simply is not fair. Between 2003–04 and 2005–06, the four primary care trusts in East Sussex will receive an increase of £130 million for health care services. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, Eastbourne Downs PCT will receive an increase of £47 million over three years, which represents a cash increase of 29 per cent, so there is no reason why it cannot manage and deliver high-quality care. All NHS organisations must understand that having received their fair share of resources they have a corresponding responsibility to manage them effectively without relying on bail-outs from the centre or from other parts of the NHS. They must manage within allocated resources.
It is the responsibility of strategic health authorities to deliver overall financial balance for their economies and to ensure that each and every body achieves financial balance. The health community has already made significant efforts to bring the financial position under control, and will continue to do so while ensuring that adequate and safe services are delivered to local people. The hon. Gentleman asked me four questions, the first of which was whether I took a close interest in these matters. My ministerial colleagues and I always take a close interest in such reviews, but under "Shifting the Balance of Power", those matters are to be decided locally. It is no good my colleagues and I thinking that we can run the whole health service from our offices in Whitehall, as we do not have the local knowledge and expertise to do so. We have therefore shifted many of the health service's resources to primary care trusts and local bodies, and we expect local service reviews to address local challenges on the basis of local knowledge and expertise. The hon. Gentleman needs to raise the state-of-the-art rehabilitation unit that he wants with local service commissioners. If they decide that that is the way forward, they would not encounter any argument with us at the centre.
I have addressed the black hole, as the hon. Gentleman called it, and it is important that local services tackle it. There is consensus about the way forward on managing the budget locally, and I am pleased that agreements have been reached. The hon. Gentleman talked about budget pressures that affect patient services, and it is important that we ensure that that does not happen. I am sure that given the increase—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Muslim Communities
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Fiona Mactaggart.]
9.30 am
Ms Karen Buck: I apologise for the fact that I have a streaming cold; I suspect that my contribution to the debate will be even more irritating than usual because of my rather nasal tone.
I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to initiate this debate. It will be no surprise that I was prompted to do so by the recent publication of the report of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, chaired by my long-time friend and colleague Dr. Richard Stone. The report makes an important contribution to the debate. The previous report, published in 1997, has acquired vastly greater significance since the events of September 2001.
I believe that Muslims in Britain are now at the sharp end of race hatred and xenophobia, something that the Muslim Council of Britain recently described as
"a relentless increase in hostility towards Islam and British Muslims".
I venture to suggest that one of the reasons for that is the extent to which Islam, asylum, immigration and terror have become conflated in the public mind. That does not mean, however, that there is no race discrimination, xenophobia or disadvantage targeted at Britain's other minority communities. Should my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may want to speak on that subject. I was disturbed to read in today's newspapers of the attacks on synagogues in his constituency. As was outlined in a recent debate in the House, we have seen a significant increase in anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic attacks. We condemn that absolutely and unequivocally. Race hatred and xenophobia are not divisible. Hatred directed towards one community affects us all. When condemning it we should not suggest that hatred of one community is worse than hatred of another.
Last night saw the timely launch, which I welcome, of the Alif-Aleph manifesto for promoting understanding between Britons, Muslims and British Jews. That, too, involved my friend Dr. Stone. The manifesto reminds us of the limitless potential for understanding and tolerance between communities, as well as of the sadness of the scale of race hatred and race attacks, even in our country.
We need to understand why the Muslim community in Britain perceives its sense of discrimination and disadvantage so acutely. I shall give some objective figures in a moment, although we need to understand that the "relentless increase" in race hatred is global. I do not wish to spend much time on that, because it
302WH
warrants many debates. However, although some may argue the point, it is worth reminding ourselves of the strong perception among British Muslims that the international situation is revealing them to be second-class world citizens. Some of that is rooted in opposition to the Iraq war; but the war itself is compounded by the horror of the abuses in Abu Ghraib, the deaths of civilians in Falluja, the desperate plight of Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank, and the suppression of human rights among Muslims held in Guantanamo bay. All have an effect on the psyche.
Linking the domestic to the international agenda, there is real fear and anxiety over the return of failed asylum seekers to the shattered state of Somalia. That is sending out a shockwave across Muslim communities in my constituency and elsewhere. Muslims are not alone in their reaction to the global situation. Much could be said in response to all those points, but there is little doubt that the international situation is having an impact on domestic debates at a level that we have not seen before. That reinforces the importance of entering into dialogue at all levels, so that the anger and fear in those parts of the community is not simply pent up.
My core comments have more to do with the domestic agenda. Antagonism and prejudice are being fuelled by competition for scarce resources, which arises as a consequence of social inequality, and disadvantages Muslims and other minority groups. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) will comment if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the northern towns are experiencing a different version of the competition for work and regeneration funds. In the south, the competition is for housing.
The Government's efforts to tackle the scars of poverty and inequality in Britain, from the regeneration programmes through to public service investment, have had a major effect. Much still remains to be done, however, not least because society has not stood still in the seven years since many of those programmes began. I have seen that in my constituency, which is one of the parts of London that has undergone rapid change in the past two decades. Regeneration agencies describe it as "an area of arrival". That is nothing new. A short walk around Paddington and North Kensington and, indeed, a few meals there demonstrate the large number of communities that have arrived and settled in the area. There are the Irish and Spanish communities, for example, and the Caribbean people who arrived on the Windrush.
We now have several Muslim communities, which, I venture to suggest, are the most disparate in the world. In my constituency, there are Bangladeshi and Moroccan communities, as well as people from Iraq, Iran, Kosovo, Bosnia, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt and Algeria—to name those community organisations with which I am familiar. According to Westminster's draft ethnic minority needs audit, Westminster has the 13th highest proportion of Muslims in the country.
The danger of lumping those disparate organisations into the catch-all description "Muslims" is obvious. Some are refugees, but many are not. Some are relatively recent arrivals, but others, such as those in the Bangladeshi community, have been a settled feature of local life for decades. Some are from severely

303WH
impoverished countries and failed states, such as Somalia. Others, such as those from Iraqi and Kosovan communities in particular, are disproportionately likely to have professional and highly educated backgrounds. Some of the communities that have settled around the Edgware road in central London have extremely wealthy backgrounds. Some of the Muslim communities are secular. Some attend mosque but keep their faith largely private; others are informed by their belief in every aspect of their political and daily lives. A few are extremists.
Diversity is a key element of the Muslim community, as it is in modern urban society as a whole, but my daily experience tells me—and my conclusions dovetail with the commission's recent report—that we know far less than we should about the needs, characteristics and even the numbers of many of our minority communities. What we do know about such things as the concentrations of poverty is already sufficiently compelling to make the case for more substantial and targeted action. We know that the scale of disadvantage facing many in the Muslim communities is institutional and indirect, and flows from the challenge of demography as much as from any explicit policy.
We know that we need to do more to work with the Muslim community to ensure that their interests and needs are reflected in the infrastructure. Schooling is a very good example, but another issue that has been brought repeatedly to my attention in the past few years is the need to address the shortage of burial grounds for Muslims. Those are the sorts of very practical but important issues that we need to do more to address.
Some of the statistics that we do have make the case about disadvantage. Children from black and ethnic minority communities are most likely to be living in poverty. A staggering 75 per cent. of Pakistani and Bangladeshi households live in poverty. Some 17 per cent. of all children, but 35 per cent. of Muslim children, are in workless households. In London, the figure rises to 24 per cent. of all children and 41 per cent. of Muslim children. Some 16 per cent. of Muslims of working age have never worked and are long-term unemployed.
In the census, all ethnic groups reported particularly high unemployment among young men, with 40 per cent. of young Bangladeshi men out of work. The conjunction of demography—the high and rising child population—and high unemployment should have triggered a sharper response, but the new deal, for example, has not reached as many unemployed young people of black, Muslim and other ethnic minority backgrounds as it should have done.
Westminster's audit of ethnic minority communities further underpins the deprivation case. It shows that the four wards with the highest scores in the most recent index of deprivation account for a quarter of the total population but between a half and three quarters of the African and Bangladeshi communities. Yet, some of those wards do not even benefit from the Sure Start programme.
Sadly, there is no equivalent study for North Kensington. despite the obvious pressures in the area. We can only assume that the Moroccan community in Golborne, for example, experiences similar problems,
304WH
but it would be good to be certain. That is another example of the need for us to do local, rigorous work to establish the community's needs.
My friend Bashir Ebrahim-Khan, the deputy director of the North Kensington Muslim cultural heritage centre, recently wrote to me, saying
"decades of social exclusion in North Kensington has produced an underclass of people cut off from society's mainstream, without any sense of shared purpose".
Yet, more than a quarter of North Kensington is not included in the Sure Start programme, and half was not covered in the council's most recent children's centre plan. Furthermore what will happen to regeneration funding if the neighbourhood renewal fund dries up in 2006?
Housing is a particularly acute pinch point. Data from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the extent of housing deprivation, estimating that 2 per cent. of white families, but 22 per cent. of Pakistani families, 30 per cent. of Bangladeshi families and 15 per cent. of African families live in overcrowded accommodation. The Greater London authority has just provided me with research showing that 42 per cent. of Muslim children are in overcrowded accommodation. Homelessness is also a particular risk factor for African, Bangladeshi and Pakistani families. My experience as a constituency MP is that there is a chronic and growing overcrowding problem, which is impacting particularly on Muslim households. As the deputy director of the Muslim cultural heritage centre emphasised to me,
"Something drastic has to be done to reduce housing overcrowding."
In addition to poverty, unemployment and housing need, Britain's Muslim communities are increasingly concerned about crime and policing, including stop and search. Members or black, Muslim and other ethnic minority communities are at particular risk of being the victims of racially motivated crime, and that was true even before 2001. A survey in 2000 found that the risk of racial attack was 10 times greater for Pakistani and Bangladeshi families than for white people, but the situation has undoubtedly deteriorated since the events of 2001. Indeed, the Muslim Council of Britain referred to recent figures from the Metropolitan police, which show a 41 per cent. increase in attacks.
There is work to be done on the other side of the equation to ensure that police and community relations are well managed and that legitimate efforts to tackle crime and the threat of terror do not alienate young Muslims and risk undermining the flow of intelligence. North Kensington is probably one of the least likely problem areas, because of the history of racial diversity and good relationships with the police in recent years, but a meeting attended by Moroccan and Somali residents last week reported an increase in attacks on places of worship since 11 September, including abuse of and assaults on women wearing the hijab, under-reporting of racial assaults and abuse, and a sense of being disproportionately targeted for stop and search without charge. Indeed, there was anecdotal evidence that some people had been picked up as often as five times in one day. We all know that stop and search plays an important role in the fight against crime and terror,

305WH
but nothing tackles either so well as good intelligence and good community relations. A proper balance must be struck.
Taken together, the national, London and local figures paint a picture of disproportionate poverty, worklessness, housing need, rising populations of children and young people, a rising incidence of racial attacks and harassment, and a strong perception among members of young Muslim families—borne out by the figures in some cases—that they are being targeted for stop and search. All that implies the need for a far more comprehensive approach that responds more closely to such complex and varied patterns of disadvantage and opportunity.
The Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, which inspired me to apply for this debate, quite rightly found that there have been important developments in recent years, which have done much to improve the Government's response to the needs of Britain's Muslims. That includes the outlawing of discrimination in employment on the grounds of religion, the inclusion of religious discrimination in the remit of the single equality commission, more severe sentences for offences aggravated by religious hostility, the establishment of the faith communities unit in the Home Office, and the development of Islamic mortgages However, there is more to do, with the world changing as fast as it has been in recent years.
The commission's report sets out a number of key priorities and the monitoring of progress against the indicators flagged up in the 1997 report. Can the Minister tell me how the Government have interpreted the commission's report? Will some of the main recommendations be taken forward? In particular, will the Government respond to the need demonstrated in their opinion polls for the agenda of tackling racial discrimination in the delivery of services to be one of the highest priorities? How will the Home Office take the lead to ensure that the institutional disadvantages in social and economic policy that I have outlined will be tackled?
To what extent does the latest information from the census and other sources about the cultural, social and economic problems facing British Muslims inform the work of Government across Departments, so that there is a concerted drive to tackle those problems? What are the next steps for promoting community cohesion? Unfortunately, the Muslim cultural heritage centre in North Kensington missed out on the last round of community cohesion investment. We know that there is a real sense that Muslim organisations do not have the opportunities to apply for the funding that they would like, both to strengthen their own communities and to develop outreach and partnership with other communities.
Once again, the commission is to be congratulated on its work. It chimes with and reflects a reality that I see everyday in my constituency. There is real potential, even in the stressed circumstances of the years since 11 September 2001, to demonstrate that Britain can be the most successful multi-faith and multicultural society in
306WH
modern times. However, that means tackling head on some of the challenges, needs and disadvantages that face British Muslims today.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): The hon. Lady coped with her cold very well. To help the Chamber, I should say that it is my intention to start the winding-up speeches at half-past 10. I hope that those who catch my eye will bear that in mind.
9.47 am
Hywel Williams: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will certainly bear your words in mind and be brief. I want to deal with some specific points about the discrimination and disadvantages faced by Muslim citizens in rural areas such as my own, particularly in areas where there are either few Muslim people or high numbers but a low density of Muslim people.
The subject is interesting to me, as the situation is akin to that faced by Welsh speakers, particularly in the south and east of Wales. There are large numbers of them but it is difficult for them to access services because of a lack of official recognition, which results from the lower density. Equally, in my part of Wales at least some Muslim people face similar problems of obtaining social and official recognition as a group. There are practical problems, such as accessing services as Muslim people. We know what that means—problems with diet, with residential services for Muslim elders and with religious observance.
Conventionally, such problems are seen as affecting urban areas, such as Leicester or Bradford. However, they also occur not only in rural parts of Wales but, I am sure, in rural parts of England. Muslim people are isolated and there is a lack of support from kin or other members of the community, for practical reasons of density and distance. In addition, because there are comparatively few Muslims in the locality, awareness is low among other members of the community who would be sympathetic.
There is no reason to suppose that Wales is any less racist or less prone to discriminate. It is a matter for dismay that 700 people in my county voted for the British National party. That was disgraceful. I was amazed and I hope that they are not fervent supporters. The leader of BNP is a north Wales resident and a BNP youth training camp was recently held in Snowdonia, in my constituency. I am grateful to hon. Members who signed my early-day motion opposing that camp.
In my constituency, which is in a very white and Welsh-speaking part of north-west Wales, there have been racist attacks targeting members of the Turkish community and their businesses. That is why I welcome the renewed vigour of the Commission for Racial Equality in Wales, particularly in north Wales, where it has established an office at Colwyn Bay.
We do, however, have a greater concentration of Muslims at a very local level in the town of Bangor, which is outside my constituency. It has a comparatively large Muslim community because of the university there, which attracts many foreign students, and the local hospital, where a number of Muslim people work. In some ways, their needs are unrecognised because of the general lack of awareness in public bodies and local

307WH
authorities. There are also Welsh people who are Muslims: people who have lived in north-west Wales since the '60s, whose children were born there and are Welsh-speaking Muslims, and some local people who have converted to Islam, too.
I hope that the Government recognise that there are particular problems in areas such as mine. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister whether any attention has been paid to them or action taken about them. The local mosque, which was established with considerable difficulty because of the low numbers and small resources available, now faces a drastic problem. Like many businesses and institutions in the constituency, it has found that its public liability insurance has shot up for no reason that it can discern. I spoke recently to the imam, Mr. Khan, who tells me that the existence of the mosque is precarious and its future is endangered by the huge increase in costs. That is disastrous, given the low level of support available locally.
I shall close by asking the Government whether they have considered the problems that mosques—particularly the one in Bangor—face in obtaining insurance and whether they have they come to any conclusions. I also pose again the general question about discrimination and disadvantage in rural areas where there are low concentrations of Muslim people.
9.54 am
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on having secured this important debate. It is timely, in view of the report on Islamophobia, and it is appropriate to pay a short tribute to the work of Dr. Stone, who chaired the commission. He is a personal friend and was my GP before he retired from medical practice to devote more time to inter-faith dialogue. He has done a magnificent job and played a leading role in that work.
Like my hon. Friend, I have a diverse community in my constituency. I was pleased that she remarked on the appalling attack on the synagogue in Hendon. We do not know who did it—police inquiries are ongoing. What made it particularly bad was the fact that the attack was on texts, books and learning. I know that Muslims take great pride in the fact that Islam was able to keep alive so much learning anal knowledge during the dark ages in the west and then return a lot of it to us, so I know that Muslims in my constituency will be as horrified as everyone else by the attack on the synagogue. All decent-thinking people of any faith would condemn any attack on any place of worship. In my constituency, we have worked hard to maintain good and harmonious relations between all the different faiths. The police have worked hard to achieve that, not just by making sure that mosques and synagogues were protected against any possible backlash after 11 September, but in setting up a dialogue over many years.
One problem that we face is the way in which extremists seem to have hijacked the media agenda regarding Muslims. I have, perhaps, built a reputation as an arch-critic of extremists such as Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammed. Some of those extremists have
308WH
branded me as a despicable, Islamophobic arch-Zionist—I think that that was the last quote. If I am a despicable Islamophobe, I am afraid that quite a lot of the Muslims in my constituency also fit that category. I know from talking to people in my constituency that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims want nothing to do with those extremists and actively condemn them.
However, Muslims are concerned that they are called upon all the time, as other people are not, to condemn extremists. Why should the Muslim community be treated any differently in that respect? As an elected politician, it is my job to voice their concerns on their behalf—which I do, although I am occasionally criticised for it—in the same way as I voice the concerns of all the other communities in my constituency. That should be adequate they should not be called on time and again to express their views and condemnation, while others are not. As a result, we see a disproportionate coverage of extremists, who do not in any way reflect mainstream Islam in this country, but we do not see similar condemnation of other extreme fundamentalist religious groups. Some of the activities of the Christian far right strike me with as much fear as the activities of those extremists.
My hon. Friend mentioned the hatred and vilification of asylum seekers and people seeking to settle here. I know from my work on this issue that very few asylum seekers have anything to do with terrorism—a handful, if that. Yet, all asylum seekers seem to be lumped in with that campaign.
Ms Buck: Just for the record, will my hon. Friend confirm that the majority of Muslim refugees who came to this country to apply for asylum were fleeing the very fundamentalism from which they are called on to disassociate themselves?
Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend anticipates my remarks to the word—perhaps because we have known each other so long. That was my next point. There is an unhelpful mixing up of domestic and international politics.
The real issue is not what should happen in the middle east, but that has become a flashpoint. If one talks to people in the Jewish and Muslim communities in my constituency, one finds great agreement on what the solution should be: apart from extremists on both sides, both communities recognise the need for a two-state solution with a viable Palestinian state and an Israel secure within her borders. Yet it has become a divisive issue, and a symbol of something far greater in terms of the problems facing Muslims in this country.
The war in Iraq has been treated similarly. We all have our reasons for the way in which we voted. I supported the war, not so much over the issue of weapons of mass destruction, but because I have spent my life campaigning against evil dictators, and for once we finally had the chance to get rid of one, who has killed something like 1.5 million Muslims—more than any other person in history—and who was oppressing his own people, who are almost all Muslim, with horrific torture, imprisonment and murder. It is clear that the people of Iraq had no prospect whatever of freeing themselves from his tyranny. It is right to say that many

309WH
Muslims died, but many more would have died if we had not intervened, and they would have died in horrific circumstances over a long period. We have not found the weapons of mass destruction; we have found the mass graves first.
In considering the Government's international activities we should remind people that our first military intervention was in Kosovo. We intervened to protect hundreds of thousands of Muslims from ethnic cleansing by the allegedly Christian Serbs under the brutal dictator Milosevic. That shows a degree of even-handedness in international intervention.
My hon. Friend referred to terrorism. I know that there is concern about police action in that respect. I have had many dealings with the police over the issue, and I have great respect for the people at Scotland Yard. Contrary to popular belief, they approach it with a significant degree of sensitivity. There has been no "Casablanca" moment of rounding up the usual suspects, although many Muslims have been detained. The police tell me, "Yes, we have detained people. A lot of people have been charged and are awaiting trial." They believe that when some of the trials are held people will begin to recognise that they acted legitimately.
It is also important to bear in mind the fact that we have banned not just Muslim groups but other groups. There was an outcry in my constituency over the banning of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the context of the Tamil liberation movement in Sri Lanka. This is not a numbers game. There just happen to be more organisations involved in terrorism associated in some way with Islam; perhaps other groups are more cohesive.
As for international issues relating to detention, I share many of the concerns that have been expressed about Guantanamo bay. I support those bringing a case to the United States Supreme Court, and hope that it will recognise some of the rights of those involved. However, it is also right to recognise that Belmarsh is not Guantanamo bay. There are significant differences. The people there are not held incommunicado. They have access to lawyers of their choice and their detention is overseen judicially, as we have seen in connection with recent challenges to Government decisions.
I should also say that indefinite detention is not recognition of human rights. We have had to derogate from the European convention on human rights to be able to do that. I support the power of detention, but detention cannot be for ever. It is important to try as far as possible to bring proper cases in court against the people in question. I have looked into the records of one or two of them, and I think that there is a case to answer. I am surprised that one, in particular, has not already faced criminal charges. However, the key is perhaps the review of the law that is now under way, with particular reference to the rules of evidence. For example, if we were allowed to use intercept evidence in court, as happens in other countries, it might be possible for those involved to go on trial and face justice, and to be released if innocent or face the penalties under the law if not.
I am surprised that we have still not comprehensively outlawed religious discrimination The issue is of particular concern to the Muslim community. We have, in the teeth of much opposition in the other place,
310WH
introduced a law to outlaw discrimination in employment, but as my hon. Friend outlined in her statistics, we have a long way to go to ensure implementation of the law. We know that Muslim people are more likely to be unemployed and to be in low-paid jobs.
We now have laws under which Islamophobia can be taken into account as an aggravating factor, as we have laws on race in general. However, the willingness of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute in such cases is a factor. I know from my work not only with the Muslim community but with the Jewish community that there is a feeling of injustice—a feeling that although the police have come a long way and are interested in investigating offences reported to them, the Crown Prosecution Service has a long way to go, and could perhaps make bolder decisions.
It is appalling that we still have no law against discrimination in the provision of services, even by the Government's agencies. We still do not have equality of opportunity in the civil service. That is why, for the second or third year, I am promoting a private Member's Bill, the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, to open the civil service to competition on merit, reserving only a small number of posts, where necessary, for people of UK nationality.
I am appalled that three Conservative Members went out of their way to block the Bill last Friday and that one in particular, who says that he does not believe in a multicultural society and revels in his rejection of it, can undermine such an important measure. I hope that the Government will bring forward their own proposals if I cannot make progress with the Bill. That is the sort of thing that we have to do because the present arrangements discriminate against Muslims in particular. I hope that the Government will see fit to legislate, if I cannot get my Bill through.
Education is also important. There are a plethora of schools in my constituency, serving not only the Jewish community but every branch of the Christian faith. However, if we are to have religious schools, it is only fair that Muslim children and parents should have the same opportunity to go to the schools of their choice. Although dozens of schools cater for other faiths, it is regrettable that only one or two schools in the state system cater for the Muslim faith. Similar issues arise when we consider the school curriculum.
I have taken up with the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education the important question of student loans. Being expected to pay interest may be a matter of concern for students of the Muslim faith, although I know that the Minister is discussing the issue with the Muslim Students Association, to see whether there is a way through the problem.
There are social issues, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North talked about the reform of stamp duty, for example, but one could also mention halal or, in the Jewish faith, shechita. The Farm Animal Welfare Council recommendations pose significant difficulties in that respect, so I am pleased that the Government have indicated that they will not act on them.
My hon. Friend talked about recognising the need for cultural centres. There is a huge demand for a cultural centre for the Muslim community in my constituency.

311WH
However, trying to get together the different agencies and finding the land and money is proving an insurmountable obstacle, no matter what I try to do to help. My hon. Friend was lucky in that resources were available to build the centre in North Kensington, which my constituents hold up to me as a flagship. They ask, "If they can do it in North Kensington, why can't we do it in Hendon?" That is a good question, to which I am afraid I do not have a sensible answer, other than to recognise the fact that we have significant difficulties. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend says that I am an appalling MP, but let us put that the other way round: she is an excellent MP, for achieving the centre.
Ms Buck: I did not say that; I said, "We're poorer than you." I was not referring to the situation in my hon. Friend's constituency, but merely pointing out that one of the reasons for our success is that some areas in North Kensington have high levels of deprivation and poverty, which has allowed us to lever in sources of funding into the community.
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Levering in such funds is a difficult job.
The Muslim community in Hendon is significant and growing. We must try to recognise their needs, but actively engaging the local authority has been difficult. That was even true when we tried to organise a celebration for the Eid festival last year. Little was done, compared with the efforts made to commemorate the festivals of other faiths. We have a long way to go in that respect.
I had intended to talk about poverty and bad housing, but my hon. Friend dealt with those issues extensively and effectively. They are the root causes of many of the difficulties that we face. If we are serious about helping the Muslim community in our country, we must do something about child poverty and the appalling deprivation in which those children grow up. Otherwise, it will not be surprising if we create dissatisfaction in which—to return to my earlier point—extremism can flourish and find recruits. The problem is not confined to London, although it is particularly severe there. The Government must take steps to deal with those serious issues.
10.9 am
Ms Oona King: I must also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). She has consistently campaigned on issues that affect not only the Muslim community, but any community in her constituency or mine that is at the sharp end of deprivation.
This debate is timely, given the publication of Dr. Richard Stone's report on Islamophobia. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said that it was appropriate to pay a short tribute to Dr. Stone, although I think that it would be appropriate to pay a long tribute. He has worked tirelessly in this field for more than four decades. He has many genuine friends among faith communities and among those of no faith. I believe that he should be able to sit in the House of Lords, but at least we can benefit from his work on Islamophobia.
312WH
I have no doubt that Islamophobia impacts negatively on the lives of many of my constituents. The same is true for Muslim communities across Britain. Not only do British Muslims suffer social exclusion; they suffer cultural and financial exclusion. The two largest Muslim communities in Tower Hamlets are from Bangladesh and Somalia. I naturally wish to highlight the situation facing those two groups, although I recognise that other Muslim groups in the United Kingdom—many of them have members living in my constituency—are from countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkey and Morocco.
In Britain as a whole, 2.7 per cent. of the population is Muslim. In Tower Hamlets, the figure is 36 per cent. Many issues affect the Muslim community. We hear from the media about religious discrimination, hate crime, policing, the criminal justice system, drug misuse, attitudes post 11 September, Islamophobia and so forth. However, I want to concentrate on three issues: housing, education and employment. Everyone should have the right to a roof over their head, a decent education and a job to keep themselves and their families out of poverty. All research shows that the biggest indicator of poverty is households where no one is in employment.
Housing is the most fundamental public service. I was delighted that, in answer to a question that I and others raised recently, the Prime Minister said that in a third Labour term—were there to be one—housing would have to be as important as education and health were when the Labour Government came to power. We have poured a lot of money into housing. For example, the amount of money available for social housing in Tower Hamlets has trebled. I have said repeatedly, however, that that is not enough The extent of overcrowding in Tower Hamlets is horrific. I once took a housing Minister to visit an extended family of 16 people living in two bedrooms. That was the most extreme case, but I am regularly contacted by constituents who live six, seven people to a bedroom. We recognise that the overcrowding standards, which date from the 1930s and were based on 1880s legislation, must be changed.
I and other MPs here this morning, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, have been campaigning on the issue of overcrowding. I have tried to make clear the link between overcrowding and institutional racism towards the Muslim community, inadvertent though it may be. In Tower Hamlets, Bangladeshi families are 14 times more likely to live in overcrowded housing than white families. The children of Bangladeshi and Somali families are suffering the consequences in terms of their health, education, employment prospects, the problems of family breakdown and the crises that it causes, and the huge levels of depression and mental health issues, which have been raised in various recent reports on the Muslim community All of us can testify to the fact that such problems are widespread. For example, although my evidence is anecdotal, well over three quarters of the people who contact me about overcrowded housing or immigration are suffering from and receiving treatment for depression or other mental health problems.
Although the issue is not specifically in the Minister's brief, I should like her to encourage colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that our new standard for tackling overcrowding is ambitious. We also urgently need a programme to free up family-

313WH
sized accommodation. The Housing Corporation should be encouraged to ensure that its new system of preferred partner registered social landlords leads to more family-sized accommodation.
The situation with education is not all doom and gloom. We have had spectacular successes in Tower Hamlets. Many hon. Members will know, as I have said so many times, that Tower Hamlets has achieved the greatest educational improvements of any borough in the country. That is a great tribute to the teachers, parents, governors and, of course, children. However, an Ofsted report last month showed that a lot more could be done to improve the progress of Bangladeshi teenagers in particular. The report showed that pupils of Bangladeshi heritage were doing better than some other ethnic minorities between key stage 3 and GCSE. The actions that some schools have taken include extra support in learning and using English, adapting the curriculum to make it more relevant to the pupils and their heritage, and working hard to involve parents in school life. I encourage people to have a look at the report's recommendations, particularly on the need to analyse pupils' performance data to track progress and plan appropriate action that is relevant to their needs, and to be versatile and innovative in the range of strategies used to improve Bangladeshi pupils' English language skills.
My final point about education is about race segregation in our schools. The problem is very serious in Tower Hamlets and is bound up with many other issues, including housing and perceived racism. We hear a lot about "white flight", for example, but we also hear from Bangladeshi parents about the isolation of Bangladeshi students, on which I did a documentary in 1998. Many of those students go to a schools where not a single other pupil from a single other ethnic group attends—be it from the white majority ethnic group or the Afro-Caribbean group, for example. Given that London is one of the most diverse cities in the world, what does that say about our theoretical proclamation about diversity and its virtues? We are failing in that area. I learned when doing the documentary how frustrated Bangladeshi parents are. They told me that their children had to survive in mainstream society and that they did not want them ghettoised, but that many never met white children. Their parents felt that the educational establishment was isolating and marginalising their children.
There is obviously a direct link between that and employment. The employment rate in Tower Hamlets among the white community of working age is 73 per cent., whereas among the Bangladeshi community of working age it is only 33 per cent. That 40 per cent. differential leads to many other differences in later life. We need to address the problem of children being brought up in workless households I recently worked on child care provision and the problem of how we reach Asian women, should they wish to overcome the many barriers that prevent them from entering the labour market. We need to ensure that appropriate child care is available to them. In a recent big conversation event in my constituency, which I arranged, the Asian women, who were all Bengali, said that their greatest problem was that child care was not affordable. As a result, they see no prospect of being able to enter the labour market.
314WH
We heard about the need for Muslim communities to have community centres. We have had an astonishing success in Tower Hamlets with the new London Muslim centre, and the Muslim community deserves full credit for being responsible for opening one of the largest centres of that kind in western Europe. Prince Charles attended the opening, which was held the week before last. The centre caters for 10,000 to 15,000 worshippers. One of its aims is to teach women and young people the job skills that they lack and how to balance work with other roles.
Representatives of the centre say that they hope to improve dialogue between Islam and other faiths, which is desperately needed. Sheikh Abdur-Rahman al-Sudais from Saudi Arabia, the very respected imam of the Ka'ba, Islam's holiest mosque in Mecca, who came to open the centre, said:
"Muslims should remember that throughout this long history Islam has carried the message of building communities, not isolating themselves."
I hope that education professionals will heed his advice when we draw up education policy and consider ways of breaking down barriers and reducing segregation. I should also say that the block of buildings that house the new centre includes one of the east end's oldest synagogues, which was built in 1899. In the spirit of Dr. Richard Stone's launch of the organisation Alif-Aleph last night, I hope that we will continue to build relationships and bridges between, for example, the Muslim and Jewish communities.
Members of the Somali community in Tower Hamlets face many of the problems faced by other residents, including poor housing, low employment, poor access to education, antisocial behaviour and drug misuse. I stress, however, that their problems are made so much worse by the fact that the immigration status of many of them often prevents them from accessing mainstream services. I confess that what has distressed me the most as a Member of Parliament is seeing members of the Somali community entirely isolated, in almost all senses of the word, and prevented from accessing mainstream life and services.
Many of the women in the Somali community are single parents, which points to a very sharp difference between them and the Muslim community. Some have lost their husbands in war; others have suffered breakdowns in their relationships. Many have left children behind, or their children have been killed. The Somalis who are granted leave to remain in the UK find it difficult to access English classes and work. Those who are refused access are left destitute with no access to work, to housing or to benefits. Perhaps they are concerned that they will have no access to health care in the future either, although I hope that the Minister will ensure that that does not happen. Disability is a huge issue in the Somali community. Somalia has no Government, no services and no transport. It is not a country that we would recognise as a state. People have been dispossessed in every conceivable way. My plea to the Minister is that she will consider asking her Department to look into the problems of the Somali community and clarify for that community some of its fears over recent announcements about deportations and returns to Somalia, given the situation there. That practice is wholly inappropriate at present.

315WH
I would like to thank the hon. Members who have taken the time to be here for this debate, and to mention again the levels of deprivation affecting the Muslim community. However, I want to end on a positive note. I do not think that there are any children brighter and more eager to learn than the children in Tower Hamlets, the majority of whom, in many areas, are Muslim. I know that the Government will want to give them the opportunities that they deserve.
10.26 am
Sarah Teather: I too congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing this vital and timely debate, and I am glad to be able to respond on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I represent a constituency with a large Muslim population.
In preparing for the debate I trawled through some statements made by the Home Secretary, the Minister and the Prime Minister. Their words were reassuring and I have no doubt about the genuineness of the Ministers' sentiments and of statements such as these:
"Expression of religious freedom is a core British belief",
"Mosques play an important role in community cohesion and civil renewal",
and
"Many faiths build one nation".
The problem is that when I speak to Muslims in my constituency and organisations that campaign on behalf of Muslims they tell me that the actions do not match the words.
I shall quote a statement made by the Muslim Council of Britain in 2003:
"It is the view of the Muslim Council of Britain that very little progress has been made in tackling the horror of Islamophobia in the United Kingdom since it was brought into sharp focus by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia in its report published in 1997."
The statement continues:
"we strongly feel that the government has done little to discharge its responsibilities under international law to protect its Muslim citizens and residents from discrimination, vilification, harassment, and deprivation."
Others have spoken of progress that has been made, but clearly to the Muslim Council of Britain an enormous amount still needs to be done.
Others have spoken eloquently today on social exclusion issues—particularly the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. However, when I speak to Muslims, the No. 1 issue that they raise is antiterrorism legislation—particularly section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Searches of individuals suspected of terrorist offences rose from just over 10,000 in 2001–02 to more than 32,000 in 2002–03, which is an increase of more than 200 per cent. The vast majority of those stopped were in London, but just 1 per cent. of those stopped and searched under section 44 were arrested, compared with a 13 per cent. arrest rate for stops under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, suggesting that section 44
316WH
is being used indiscriminately. The Home Office is not doing any kind of ethnic monitoring of that, and given the impact on the Muslim community, that is of grave concern. The indiscriminate and unmonitored use of stop and search powers contradicts the recommendations of the Macpherson report that powers should be used only proportionately and on suspicion that an offence has been committed. I urge extreme caution in the use of section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The imprisonment without trial of terror suspects at Belmarsh under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act has also provoked widespread anger. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) says that there are enormous differences between Belmarsh and Guantanamo bay, and there are, thank goodness, but people's human rights are still being flouted. It is a basic human right that people should be given a fair trial and either released or, if they have committed an offence, imprisoned. Given the backdrop of the war on terror and the attack on Iraq, which many Muslims perceive, rightly or wrongly as an attack on Islam, we must understand that they see terrorism legislation as a direct attack on them.
Mr. Dismore: Before the hon. Lady moves on from the issue of detention at Belmarsh, I should say that there is no great difference between us in principle. In my view, we need to put people on trial, but only once have we amended the law on evidence. However, is she saying that the people in Belmarsh—particularly Abu Qatada—should be released immediately?
Sarah Teather: The Home Office needs to consider a variety of options for dealing with the problem, because the present solution is simply not an acceptable long-term way of dealing with terrorism. [Interruption.] I am not going to comment on a specific case; that would be highly inappropriate. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is currently considering other options, which I hope will be widely debated and implemented when they are made public. However, the Liberal Democrats opposed the extension of the present powers because, as the Government said when they introduced them, they were intended to be a short-term measure. Clearly, they are no longer a short-term measure, but a long-term one.
When Muslims are tried in a court of law, there is a widespread feeling that justice is not done in an even-handed way. Following the appalling riots in Bradford in 2001, the Institute of Race Relations found a huge discrepancy between the sentences handed out to the Manningham rioters and those handed out to rioters from a neighbouring estate. It was concerned that the sentences were designed not to reflect
"the severity of each individual's actions"
but
"to discipline an entire community".
Those words are frightening, and I have heard them used by others who have talked about the terrorism legislation.
There are similar concerns about racism in prisons, and the failure to act appears to have led to the murder of the British Muslim, Zahid Mubarak, in his cell. I accept that there has been enormous progress in prisons, but there is still considerable work to be done.

317WH
The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North discussed attacks on Muslims, and there is widespread concern about how the media report the arrests of Muslims under the Terrorism Act. The hon. Member for Hendon talked about Muslims' feeling that they must always distance themselves from extremists and about how their expectations differ from those of other members of the community. Many of those issues underline the need for an equality Bill. Discrimination on the grounds of religion is being outlawed in employment, but as others have mentioned, it has still not been outlawed in other areas of service provision. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches argued strongly for the Bill introduced in the other place, which was the subject of widespread cross-party agreement, but, unfortunately, the Government did not support it. They have agreed to merge the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, and that is welcome, but what do they intend to do to bring together all the piecemeal discrimination legislation?
Other hon. Members have discussed the deprivation figures, which are startling. Muslim children account for about a third of the children living in workless households—twice the number for white British children. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, who is not in her seat at the moment, talked about the problem of overcrowding, and I certainly empathise, given the situation in my constituency. Tragically, it is typical to find eight people living in a two-bedroomed flat; such cases are not among the worst. That is why so much more work needs to be done. Similarly, three quarters of Bangladeshi and Pakistani children live in households receiving less than the national average wage and 54 per cent. of them are in homes that are on income support. There are much lower rates of employment among Pakistani and Bangladeshi men, and the average earnings of Muslim risen are 68 per cent. of those of non-Muslims. That is staggering.
The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North discussed the fact that fewer Muslims are represented in the new deal than might be expected. There is an argument for much more individualised programmes to deal with specific problems; that is much more likely to get people back into work.
Poor health has also been mentioned, which is so often associated with poor housing. The two are dramatically interlinked. Whore there are overcrowding, poor health and poverty, there is often also educational under-achievement I am delighted to hear that there has been so much improvement in Tower Hamlets. However, the statistics are still very worrying. Particularly significant is the widening gap in performance between boys and girls of Pakistani origin. Just 34 per cent. of boys of Pakistani origin achieve five grades A to C at GCSE, whereas 48 per cent. of girls do so. Both those figures are way below the national average.
A report published earlier this month drew attention to problems in education, and said that the state sector was failing Muslim children. The solution is controversial across the House—hon. Members of all parties support faith schools, while others adamantly oppose them. Regardless of one's view the issue has to be addressed. Many of the problems can be tackled by improving housing and health, but that is not the only
318WH
solution. I should be interested to know what the Government intend to do specifically to target the under-achievement of Muslim children.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister will be discussing student loans with the Federation of Student Islamic Societies in the UK and Ireland, but I wonder whether a simpler solution would be to abolish the dramatic increase in the burden of debt by voting against the Higher Education Bill on Wednesday.
We have all mentioned discrimination and social exclusion, but I want to close on a more positive note. I do not want to leave hon. Members with the impression that Muslims are passive victims. Those of us who represent constituencies with large Muslim populations know that that is not true. We know of the contributions that individual Muslims, local mosques and community centres make. The many organisations that have been mentioned today represent the expression of the best of Islam in this country. The Al-Khoei foundation in my constituency, with its academic, diplomatic and educational work, is the embodiment of Islamic values, tolerance and inclusiveness; the political campaigning of the Muslim Association of Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee is the expression of Islam's passionate fight for social justice and fairness; the supportive work of the An-Nisa society in Brent shows Islam's emphasis on compassion and mercy; and organisations such as Alif-Aleph bring British Muslims and Jews together to demonstrate Islam's meaning of peace.
Perhaps the injustice in this country is not only that suffered by Muslims but the fact that society is unable to benefit from what individuals and communities have to offer.
10.39 am
Mr. Tim Boswell: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on having introduced the debate. Without exception, speakers have contributed to it sensibly and thoughtfully. It is an example of how useful these debates can be.
Many organisations with which I am associated, both secular and Christian, are beginning to come to terms with the issue in a way that they have not been in the past. Overwhelmingly, they want to show respect and to deal with the subject positively, and I think that they hope for a reciprocal response. The terms of the hon. Lady's debate rightly drew a distinction between discrimination and disadvantage. The first is a matter primarily of law; the second is a complex matter—a mix of public policy and private sector and personal responsibilities.
Over a period of years, I have become interested for a variety of reasons in equality issues. I welcome debating with the Minister in due course the establishment of the single equality commission. It is clearly important that we should have a statement in law about what is or is not discrimination and what is or is not acceptable. We should also remember in the process of legislating that it does not by itself achieve the means of redress. That means of redress may be set out in law, but people have to have access to it and not be frightened of using it. We should also recognise that ethnicity is not the sole source

319WH
of discrimination; there can often be overlapping issues. Particularly in relation to Muslim communities, there may well be gender and disability issues. It is not a matter of a one-shot approach.
So far, I have been talking on a personal level. However, on an institutional level, there is obviously also work to be done. Anybody who has read the Lawrence report knows that the concept of institutionalised racism or, more generally, institutionalised discrimination has to be faced. I do not think that it is an easy concept to tackle. To start to tackle it requires firm leadership from the top to show that such practices are not acceptable; to show an emphasis on professionalism, which makes it clear, for example, that it is bad policing if one is prepared to deal with the problems of citizen A but to disregard the problems of citizen B, whatever their elements of difference; and to show a readiness to drive on with such actions and to uproot a massive cultural flaw, of which we still see examples. On the discrimination agenda, I think that we can all easily be at one in saying that such practices are not acceptable, that they need to be tackled and that they need to be tackled effectively.
Disadvantage is clearly a more complex issue. That is not to understate it or in any sense to diminish it. I will pay the Government the compliment of quoting from their "Strength in Diversity" document. I entirely concur with that title as a broad aspiration; I think that we all would. As it states in chapter 4, the fact is that
"67 per cent. of people from Black and minority ethnic communities live in the 88 most deprived districts in England, compared to 37 per cent. of the white population."
In round terms, that is two thirds compared with one third. That is a heavy loading of deprivation which we should accept as being the case.
There will always be differences of interpretation, and I would give some measure of qualification. The first point is the historic one: anybody who considers discrimination issues or equality issues over the years realises that simply legislating does not make the problems go away. We need only to look at equal pay, for example. It will take a very long time without other actions for the legislation and its intention to come together.
We should also remember that some of the population, particularly those who are relatively newly arrived, may live in conditions that are significantly better than those of other members of their family who live in their origin countries. Of course, at the same time, it is highly difficult, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, if people live in gross comparative or relative deprivation in this country compared with other citizens or neighbours. There are welcome signs of social mobility, and that must be right. I think that we would all accept that the Government, the council, cannot do everything. We need to consider what we can do.
I turn specifically to some of the Muslim community issues. First, we should realise that there is an association with deprivation. There is no point in arguing about that. I do not want to turn this into an example of victim culture. It is right not to wish away or pretend away the issue of lslamophobia, particularly
320WH
after 9/11—it is a horrible by-product of that horrible event—but it should not drive the Muslim communities into a shell from which they will not be prepared to emerge in dialogue There is also a need for strong public policies about asylum seekers, for example, so that we know who is here, and so that the stuff that appears in tabloid papers without justification can be exposed, because we have control of the situation—but that is a debate for another occasion.
Secondly, there is a strong element of ignorance throughout the majority of the country. My constituency has very low ethnicity; that does not mean that the problem does not exist in rural areas, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) rightly reminded us, but it does mean that people do not focus on it, although that does not make it any less unacceptable. It also means that some of the things going on in our cities that have great positive elements—as well as creating problems; there are opportunities as well as difficulties—are completely overlooked. We must work hard to start joining up the public dialogue.
One case that I will mention to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow concerns a school in her constituency, which, through an organisation with which I am involves, the Country Trust, sees what goes on in the country. Those exchanges need to work both ways and to be developed. They should form part of the public debate, because it is our country in the rural areas as it is in the towns and it is just as much the country of her constituents as it is that of mine.
Thirdly, we need to appreciate the complexity of Muslim communities and their histories. This year, for various reasons, I have had to deal with the parents—who are, incidentally, Christian—of a Caucasian supporter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, who is imprisoned in Cairo. That is interesting, not least because of the nature of the representations and support that he has received.
Equally, we have communities such as the Dawoodi Bohra, which is prepared to have international conferences, with which I have had constructive discussions. I will be participating in its conference. Therefore, we should not see these issues as simple and as having one answer, but should, in a sense, rejoice at the complexity and the opportunities offered.
I want to pick up briefly on a point about education: the English language is extremely important in that respect, as is the engagement of women in the education process, although it is difficult culturally. It is also important to acknowledge the historic role of education in enabling people from disadvantaged communities to work their way up through the system. I personally would like more after-school facilities for Muslim faith education in schools, rather than the setting up of separate madrassahs, which may send the wrong signals. Regeneration is clearly important, although I want it to be on a human scale rather than the "big bang", which does lot work.
We should remember that these are new communities, which often have practical needs such as the need for a place of worship, or the need for sensitive treatment of the bodies of the dead, as with the new certification system for coroner s. We know that we need to make changes, but they must be practical. I was interested to hear about bodies being taken into church with the agreement of everyone involved. That may be an

321WH
example of the way in which communities can help each other. Civic involvement has not been mentioned yet. We need to ensure that there are more Muslim councillors and parliamentary candidates joining our debates.
"Strength in Diversity" is a tentative and modest document; it is good that the Government are being modest. The document touches on many areas of concern, but I want to make two points more clearly than it perhaps does—no doubt, the Minister will disagree. The first point is about the involvement of the commercial private sector. We need people to employ Muslims. We need banks—clearing banks, for example—to be representative of the communities that they seek to serve, and to have a sensitive attitude to interests. All those things can be managed, and are being tackled. We also need the sector to work actively in local regeneration.
Secondly, part of the underlying change that is coming about is the development of civic society at all levels, including the political. It is a matter of getting voluntary organisations in the Muslim communities to talk to their counterparts. Young people should talk together, not in order to proselytise or convert one another but simply to share their problems and experiences. If we are to tackle the problem, it is important that we reach out for our common humanity, that we respect each other's traditions, including faith traditions, and that we make ourselves comfortable with living together in one country—whict we are very lucky to do.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): The irony of these debates is that I am asked many questions but never have as much time as everyone else when it comes to answering them. None the less, I shall gallop ahead.
I echo the kind remarks made about Richard Stone. He is a star. He has been a friend of mine for a long time, and he makes a substantial contribution to intelligence and tolerance in Britain today.
It might be helpful for me to make my response to the debate in the context of the Government's paper "Strength in Diversity". For a Government paper, it is surprisingly tentative; it poses 13 questions rather than giving millions of answers. It organises them in categories: inclusive citizenship, identity in belonging, eradicating racism and extremism, tackling inequality, opening opportunities and building cohesive communities. All those subjects were raised during the debate.
I shall put the contributions to the debate towards the Government's consultation on our race equality strategy. When we produce it, I promise that the solutions will be underpinned by clear levers for delivery. It has been said that we need to ensure that our ambitions are turned into reality with straightforward practical measures, ranging from uniforms that allow police officers to wear a turban or a hijab, to prayer rooms in prisons. Such measures are at the heart of providing a genuinely equal society.
I shall answer first the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). Her overall theme was of
322WH
discrimination and disadvantage. The Government recognise that Muslim communities, particularly those in our inner cities, have experienced more discrimination and disadvantage than other groups. However, I would argue that that is probably not because they are Muslim. That is important. The experiences of Muslims with an Indian background are different from those with Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds. Household income and the likelihood of living in disadvantage are different. It is important to separate the factors that contribute to those disadvantages, and to ensure that we tackle them.
The other issue raised by my hon. Friend is the way in which matters such as policing can make a community feel victimised. The subject was raised by several hon. Members. We clearly need to prevent disproportionality in the use of stop and search powers, and all stop and searches should be recorded. We have established a stop and search action team to help Departments to take action to reduce disproportionality and to increase community confidence in the use of the power.
With the help of the action team, we are developing a circular to advise the police on the use of section 44 powers. In doing so, we consulted closely with Muslim community organisations. We have established pilot schemes, and we will ensure that monitoring of all stop and search powers, including those under section 44, will shortly be in place. It is not right that people should not know how a power ought to be used; nor is it right that a community should suffer a lack of confidence because it feels targeted.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North pointed out, we need to ensure that work across Government is informed by our commitment to eradicate racism and Islamophobia. That is one of the reasons for publishing "Strength in Diversity"—as a way of working towards a race equality strategy to inform the work of every Department, including, I assure the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The hon. Gentleman's point about the experience of isolated minorities in rural areas was a serious one. I am glad to be able to assure him that only yesterday I was talking with civil servants about the issues of insurance in the voluntary sector, and how we shall work with insurance companies to ensure that access to public liability insurance becomes fairer. I believe that that programme will include problems such as those faced by the mosque in his constituency, along with other voluntary organisations.
I join the hon. Gentleman in his condemnation of the extremism of the British National party. "Strength in Diversity" makes a connection in this context. The threat is a dangerous one. Hon. Members have rightly pointed out that the debate that is going on seems to suggest that extremism is of one kind only. The worst and most dangerous extremists in Britain today seem to me to be those associated with the British National party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) suggested that one way of tackling such issues is to consider legislation to outlaw religious discrimination. We have certainly made progress on the issue of religious discrimination, through the proposal

323WH
to establish the commission for equality and human rights and through measures under article 13 of the European Union treaty of Amsterdam. However, there is still a debate about the extent to which religious discrimination adds to the disadvantages of minority communities.
I know that there is strong support in the Muslim community for more effective legislative protection. One reason for that is the way in which the courts have interpreted the Race Relations Act 1976, which has in practice given power to the faith communities that are not as racially diverse as the Muslim community, as our discussion has made clear. Therefore, the Muslim community is not protected in the same way as, for example, the Sikh community. We need to continue to focus on that issue, because I am not confident that we have resolved all the problems now arising from it.
We are, however, making progress in increasing the eagerness of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute in relevant cases. I have visited local CPS teams to ensure that crimes motivated by religious and race hatred are prosecuted effectively, to ensure that the additional penalties in the legislation can be enforced. There is a greater eagerness to do that, with greater specialisation in some CPS teams, which enables it to work well.
We are making progress on Muslim schools. Six have now been approved. We should remember that only a few years ago a state-funded Muslim school was impossible. Although progress may not be as fast as people want, it is substantial.
My hon. Friend also pointed out difficulties in gaining resources for community centres. I was interested that it was clear from his exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North that the resources exist in areas of disadvantage; often the issue is finding mechanisms to bring the elements together. A challenge for us as we consider such issues is to create centres that are not exclusive to one faith tradition, but that belong to many.
I was privileged to attend the opening of the east London Muslim centre, although Prince Charles was not—Ronald Reagan's funeral took him away, so we had him there only in video form. It is important to consider how such centres, which are expressions of citizen action, can be used to form connections with other communities.
The progress that has been made in educational achievement in the Muslim communities is significant, but needs to go further. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) about ghettoisation and single-ethnicity schools is a serious one. If that is what choice leads to, we should perhaps try to ensure that every child, whether they are in Hampshire or Bethnal Green, receives an opportunity to meet people of other faiths and races.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair deplores it when Opposition spokesmen take longer than they should, thus leaving the Minister inadequate time to reply to the debate. I hope that that will be noted, because I deeply regret the fact that the Minister had inadequate time to reply to the many valid points that hon. Members raised.

Cannabis
11.1 am
Mr. Bill Tynan: In welcoming the opportunity to raise the issue of cannabis reclassification, I make no apology for continuing the ongoing debate. I hope that the Minister and the Government will not regard my contribution in a negative light, but is an attempt to raise the genuine concerns about reclassification that many groups and individuals in my constituency have expressed.
I believe that the reclassification of cannabis was a dangerous mistake and that history will confirm that view. The 90 minutes that were allowed for debate in the House left many MPs unhappy and concerned. Many felt that there was no opportunity to scrutinise the evidence that led to the Government's decision to reclassify cannabis. Heroin, cocaine, cannabis and other illegal substances are dangerous and addictive, so unless there is substantive evidence to the contrary, Governments should not tinker with either the classification or the legality.
Many groups and individuals are involved in drug counselling or drugs support services. Their experiences ensure that they can speak with authority, but their views are often conflicting. That is why a comprehensive examination of all factors should be undertaken before any change. For example, in my constituency, an individual whom I regard as an expert on drug councillors strongly believes that cigarettes and alcohol are the real gateway to addiction and to progression on to hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine. He has expressed his concern about the quality of the cannabis sold on our streets and in our neighbourhoods. He believes that it is impure and dangerous, and a major source of the growth among young people of throat and mouth cancer. In his opinion, legislation is needed to control the sale of cigarettes and alcohol, as they are the real gateway to drug misuse. He has asked me on many occasions to get involved in a private Member's Bill to deal with the issue, but I have resisted. He would also argue for the legalisation of cannabis, to ensure that a high standard of the product is available. Obviously I do not share that view either.
I shall quote a few experts and drugs professionals. Professor C. H. Ash ton of the department of psychiatry at Newcastle upon Tyne university said:
"Cannabis intoxication can precipitate severe psychiatric reactions including paranoia, mania and schizophrenic-like states",
adding:
"Few, if any doctors, will deny that the symptoms of schizophrenia are made worse by cannabis".
Professor Griffith Edwards of the National Addiction Centre has said:
"There is enough evidence now to make one seriously worried about the possibility of cannabis producing long-term impairment of brain function".
Judge Keith Matthcwman said:
"Perhaps people who say the drug should be legalised should sit where I do and see the devastation it can cause to other people as well as the defendants"
Cannabis damages the unborn child and is much more dangerous than tobacco in the damage that it causes to lungs. Cannabis takers have a higher risk of heart attack. Cannabis leads to the impairment of skills and contributes directly to road, rail and air accidents.

325WH
There are differing views, even among those with expert knowledge on drugs. That is why legislation should be approached with caution. We need to separate the necessarily inexact and best guess areas of classification and law from the more certain areas of what science is saying about thy harm caused by cannabis, especially to the mental health of our youth. The Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drugs cannot continue to do both. I understand its role and its advice to reclassify. However, the advice and judgments of any body often depend on the question asked and the response received. Without doubt, reclassification sent mixed messages about the dangers of cannabis. Despite information to the contrary, many young people believe that cannabis is now legal just like cigarettes and alcohol. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if she disagrees.
Cannabis is clearly a danger to physical health. That was demonstrated by research at the university of California, which has shown that THC, the major psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, is likely to impair the body's ability to resist cancer. Research has also shown cannabis smoke to be more dangerous than tobacco smoke. There is also large and growing evidence, as demonstrated by the reported doubling in the past decade of those seeking treatment at drug treatment centres for cannabis use that cannabis is a major contributory factor in the on set of mental health problems.
A paper published by the Department of Health in 1998 entitled "Cannabis: Clinical and Pharmacological Aspects" warned in its conclusion of long-term dangers, commenting that
"One cannot expect the human pathology of this drug to be written before one or two decades".
The evidence of links between cannabis use and mental health problems ranging from depression to schizophrenia became clear in October 2002 at a British Toxicology Society seminar. More importantly, three studies published in the November 2002 edition—we should note the date—of the British Medical Journal supported the link between frequent cannabis use and mental health problems. They also indicated a strong correlation between cannabis use and the onset of schizophrenia. The headline figures from these studies are alarming. They cite daily cannabis use among young women leading to a fivefold increase, in the incidence of depression. In addition, as Professor Robin Murray from the Maudsley hospital said:
"The conclusion was that, if you took cannabis at age 18, you were about 60 per cent. more likely to go psychotic. But if you started by the time you were 15, then the risk was much greater, around 640 per cent."
The editorial accompanying the research was subtitled "More evidence establishes clear link between use of cannabis and psychiatric illness". More recent work indicates that 80 per cent of new cases of psychosis in some hospitals in the US have been triggered by cannabis use, and continues to highlight the correlation between mental health problems and cannabis use. I invite hon. Members to compare that with the concluding sentence of paragraph 5.1 of the advisory council's report, which recommended reclassification. It states:
"The high use of cannabis is not associated with major health problems for the individual or society."
326WH
That is completely at odds with additional medical evidence that has come to light since the report.
The Government have of course relied on the advisory council's March 2002 report as justification for the decision to reclassify cannabis. When responding to concerns about cannabis use and health problems, the Minister has indicated several times that those concerns are misplaced because the advisory council has fully explored them. Can she confirm that again today?
The breadth of the advisory council's role has become unsustainable. Trust in its scientific assessments has been damaged by its attempt to comment on the science and health consequences of cannabis misuse and then to urge contentious decisions to be taken on reclassification. The chronology is important. In October 2001, the Home Secretary asked it
"to review the classification of cannabis preparations in the light of current scientific evidence."
The advisory council's statistics information research committee then conducted private research before the publication of the March 2002 report. That was based on scientific research published until November 2001. In November 2002, eight months after the report, the damning research studies from New Zealand, Sweden and Australia were published. Can the Minister confirm whether the advisory council took those studies into account before recommending reclassification? It is important for us to know that.
Over the past few weeks, I have submitted a series of parliamentary questions seeking to clarify whether the advisory council had indeed discussed the British Medical Journal articles, but I have not yet received answers. I am not complaining to the Minister; it is due to the timing of the questions. The advisory council has made no pubic comment on the BMJ studies and has issued no addendum to the March 2002 report. That must give rise to concern.
On the basis of that chronology and the March 2002 report, I seriously question the Minister's assertions, such as those in a 9 March written answer, that the advisory council has adequately responded to recent research on the links between cannabis use and mental health problems. The Minister might not be able to respond fully now, but I trust that she will be able to write to me detailing exactly when the advisory council discussed what, and when its views were conveyed to her. I live in hope—I am a super-optimist—but I know that it is a difficult issue and am not convinced that the Government will reverse their mistaken decision to reclassify cannabis. They should look at the evidence that has accumulated since the 2002 report.
I accept that some of those who are concerned about the growing health problems are ambivalent about reclassification. After the confusion and problems over the reclassification of cannabis and the discussions that have surrounded it, we need to reconsider the role of the advisory council. Perhaps it needs to be restructured so as to separate the science, enforcement and treatment aspects of its work from the wider direction of drugs policy. As a first step the statistics, information and research committee of the advisory council should consider meeting more regularly and publishing public reports. We should then consider whether to replace it with an independent scientific review body.
Two weeks ago, I raised the issue of cannabis and mental health problems in oral questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and

327WH
suggested that more Government-funded research into the link between mental health and cannabis was needed. The long-term consequences of increased cannabis use on the health of today's teenagers cannot at present be adequately assessed; some predict substantial increases in mental health problems over the next 10 years. We need to set up an independent body to assess the health implications of drugs misuse—both by commissioning research and by bringing together other research—separately from considering the policy aspects of combating that misuse.
I therefore urge the Minister to consider setting up a commission, separate from the advisory council, to take on that body's responsibilities for the research and science side of drugs misuse, and to accept the wider remit of informing the debate independently. By recommending cannabis reclassification as part of its current role, the advisory council has become a party to the debate. It was established in 1971, more than 30 years ago. We need to re-examine its role in a modern setting. I still believe that the reclassification of cannabis was a mistake that we will come to regret, and we need to consider how to avoid such mistakes in future.
Yesterday, I received an e-mail from the Police Federation of England and Wales, asking me to make it clear in my contribution today that
"Policing is all about prioritisation and it is clear that cannabis did not need to be reclassified to be reprioritised. Put simply, reclassification gave a wholly wrong message. In reality, only a properly balanced three-pronged attack encompassing education, treatment and enforcement can combat the insidious forward-march of drugs in society.
Despite costly government attempts to increase public awareness as to the change in the law, many people now believe cannabis has been legalised. In addition, many users feel more comfortable to purchase and smoke the drug in public. This not only contributes to community degeneration and a sense of lawlessness, but also brings with it known—and possibly as yet unknown—consequences upon their personal health. An increasing body of eminent medical professionals believe what has long been suspected: Cannabis usage can contribute to psychosis and other associated mental health problems.
We believe the government should U-turn on its decision. Society must ensure that reclassification does not spell the beginning of a gradual 'softening' of policy on other illicit drugs.
I would encourage you to take account of the views of our members".
The federation encourages me to take account of those views, and so, too, should the Minister.
If the advisory council did not consider all the relevant medical evidence before recommending reclassification, there is an urgent need to address that serious admission. I sincerely believe that this debate gives the Government the opportunity to do so.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on securing this Adjournment debate.
In dealing with illegal drugs and the criminality that surrounds them, we cannot simply pass a law and move on; we must always be watching for developing trends. Despite its reclassification, that goes for cannabis, too,
328WH
and for any of the drugs in schedules A or B. The Government have tried to consider the problems of drugs in an open and honest way. My hon. Friend did not pay much attention to class B and class A drugs, but it is important to do so because the reclassification of cannabis, as well as the drug's harmful effects, must be seen in relation to other drugs.
It is clear from debates in the House and from other discussions that I have had that there is an issue about how young and, indeed, older people perceive such drugs. I have never said that cannabis is a harmless drug, and nor has the advisory council. In fact, cannabis has several harmful effects. However, it must be seen in relation to other drugs, such as amphetamines, or class A drugs such as crack, heroin and cocaine. The Government have said that cannabis is harmful, that regular use can be addictive and—I shall go into more detail about this later—that it can have an impact on those with a propensity to mental illness.
The Government wanted to ensure that there was no risk of young people who had experimented with cannabis being tempted to move on to amphetamines in the belief that the potential harm was of the same order as for cannabis, which it clearly is not. Following advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, therefore, we decided to take action.
My hon. Friend said a lot about the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and we should remind ourselves that it is a fully independent, non-departmental public body, whose membership is drawn from a wide range of disciplines and is highly respected worldwide for the quality of its reports, The ACMD's March 2002 cannabis report clearly set out the scientific evidence for the risk of harm fro n cannabis. Setting cannabis in the context of other controlled drugs, the council concluded that class C was the most appropriate level of classification.
As I said, the advisory council is an independent and impartial body, and it provides evidence-based advice to the Government. To ensure that it has a balanced membership, it is required to include representatives from the practices of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy and chemistry. It should also include representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and people with wick and recent experience of the social problems connected with the misuse of drugs. Furthermore, the appointments are made in accordance with the guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
Following reclassification, we did not end discussion on the issue. I have met the chair of the ACMD, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, as well as the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers' drugs subcommittee and chief constable of Norfolk, Andy Hayman, to discus, what we should be doing in the wake of the reclassification of cannabis.
My hon. Friend made several points about the research. Much of the research was known to members of the advisory council when they considered the reclassification of cannabis. They felt that the new research added no significant new knowledge and was consistent with earlier research. All research shows that early use of cannabis is associated with a higher likelihood of mental health problems developing in later

329WH
adulthood. However, that has not been shown to be a causative association and might be explained by other factors.
Some evidence suggests that young people with a vulnerability to later mental health problems may start taking cannabis younger than their peers, or may be more likely to use illegal drugs, including cannabis. The ACMD report was based on all the available data included in the Nutt and Nash report, called "Cannabis—An Update 1999–2002". The report was drawn up by Professor Nutt and Dr. Nash of the psychopharmacology unit at the university of Bristol, and is a fully comprehensive study of the evidence available. It is accessible from the Home Office website.
The committee looked clearly at all areas. During the discussions on changes to the reclassification, I had discussions with Professor Robin Murray, who was sometimes interviewed on television and radio at the same time as me. It was clear that Professor Murray was and is concerned about people who have mental health problems using drugs—I should sad that that does not just mean cannabis, but any drugs—but he did not say that he thought that the reclassification of cannabis was wrong. He was concerned that more work needed to be done in that area.
Following our meeting with Sir Michael and Chief Constable Andy Hayman, as well as discussions with officials in the Home Office, we have agreed that it is vital to monitor arrest patterns and the work that is now ongoing between forces and the Home Office research unit to assess the impact of reclassification at street level.
We made sure that the message retched young people at the time. My hon. Friend made a number of comments about people thinking that cannabis is now legal. We have evaluated the campaign and found that 93 per cent. of those under 18 understood the message that cannabis is illegal. However, we clearly cannot give up on that and need to do more.
There may have been some confusion among young people about the consequences, but people know that a number of offences are illegal although they do not necessarily know the consequences. It is enough for them to know that the act itself is illegal. The evaluation of the campaign found that, but we should not just accept that—we have to get the message across constantly.
We are devising a series of health messages on the harmful effects of cannabis, with general information that young people and parents can access through the "Talk to Frank" campaign, as well as targeting specific groups such as frequent and heavy cannabis users as well as those with mental health problems. We will ensure that the campaigns are properly researched and that they will be evidence based. To that end, officials have been liaising closely with a number of organisations, including mental health charities and interested individuals.
The technical committee of the ACMD played a key role in drawing up the evidence base for the main council's consideration, and it now has the issue of cannabis as a standing agenda item. The committee will monitor closely all new research developments. I hope that that will assure my hon. Friend that we do not think that the issue is not important because of
330WH
reclassification. Cannabis is still an illegal drug, and as I have tried to point out, it is harmful—an approach echoed by the ACMD.
There is now a thought-out regime for policing cannabis. For those aged 18 and over, there is a presumption against arrest. However, a police officer may exercise the power of arrest in specific aggravating circumstances, such as when someone is smoking in public view. Dealing with younger people raises other issues, because we want to engage with them to ascertain the problem.
I was interested by the comment made by my hon. Friend about one of his constituents, who talked about cigarettes and alcohol. I have been engaged in discussions about how, from an early age, young people could put themselves at risk from drugs later in life. We must consider such risk-taking activity, even with substances that may be legal for those above the age of 18. For example, I visited Rotherham yesterday and met two men in their early 30s who had become involved with drugs through solvent abuse. We must consider how young people start. They do not start with class A drugs. We need to consider what other drugs they use and what other risk-taking behaviour they may indulge in—even truancy—that could lead them to meeting in groups and being put at risk of gaining access to harder drugs in later life.
No approach to the drug problem is without risk, but I hope that the measures that we have implemented will provide the best opportunity to make our drugs education programme credible, and to get the priorities right on law enforcement and treatment for dealing with class A drugs. It is the latter drugs that cause the harm, but we should stand back from that to consider what influences children. We should tackle and prevent the early involvement with drugs.
Early indications from police forces show that the change in the law on cannabis has freed up significant resources, which can now be redeployed to preventing the supply of class A drugs. I am pleased to say that since reclassification we have agreed a young people's treatment budget for local drug action teams. That has brought together pots of money from various Departments. That will result in less bureaucracy. We hope that the teams will be able to consider a range of intervention measures for prevention and treatment.
Since 1998, drug use among 16 to 24-year-olds has shown some modest reductions. I say modest because I do not want to sound complacent. The British crime survey showed a reduction in the number of people admitting to taking drugs from 31.8 per cent. to 28.1 per cent. More specifically, the figures for cannabis show a fall from 28.2 per cent. to 25.8 per cent. We must be mindful of the figures, but we should not stray from the fact that we still need to bear down on the health implications of using drugs, for young and older people alike.
The advisory council considered schizophrenia, and the possible links between cannabis use and mental illness. It did not find evidence of a causal link, but it recognised that cannabis use can unquestionably worsen an existing mental illness. Those real issues need to be discussed with colleagues in the mental health sector and the Department of Health.

331WH
We also need to consider how individuals are managed in the process. I was in Crawley a few weeks ago, and met an individual in his early 60s who, at various times throughout his adult life, had been defined as a drug addict and as someone with mental health problems. He was also an alcoholic. He said that he sometimes needed an agency that would deal with all those issues rather than being shunted from one agency to another. The label itself is not as important as the help that individuals receive. I hope that our discussions over the past few months will produce some ideas on that subject. Again, it is for the Department of Health to consider its mental health services, with a read-across to tackling drug addiction for users of those services.
We know that heavy cannabis use can produce a psychotic state, as can other class A and class B drugs, although for cannabis it is mostly short lived. The advisory council acknowledges other concerns—for instance, acute effects include damage to the ability to learn and carry out tasks, including the operation of machinery and the driving of vehicles. Wearing another of my Home Office hats, I can say that we are considering the sort of tests that might be used on people who drive cars under the influence of drugs. We hope that they will feature alongside alcohol testing.
I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend, at least to an extent. We have not ignored the health implications of cannabis, nor has the ACMD. It can provide independent advice to the Government. I have given information on what new things the ACMD has been doing since reclassification. My door is always open should my hon. Friend wish to discuss the issue further.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Composition of Parliament
2 pm
Andrew George: I am pleased to have secured this debate, although I am concerned that it may appear rather presumptuous for any Member to lead a debate from the Back Benches about whether the composition of Parliament is appropriate, or whether we should review how the House of Commons is composed.
I first raised the issue with a ten-minute Bill on 15 October 2003, in a debate entitled "Representation of the People (Consequences of Devolution)". Now that powers have been handed out to the nations of Scotland and Wales, and there is the prospect of handing further powers to the regions of England, in addition to the Greater London authority and the Northern Ireland Assembly, I asked whether it was appropriate for the House of Common to continue to consist of 659 MPs.
People who take a more jocular approach might think that we each have a personal list of people whom we would like to have removed—having raised this debate, no doubt I am at the top of some lists. On a serious note, however, if we are to reconnect with the electorate, we need to consider whether the efficiency that all parties believe we should perpetually aim for in the public services might not be applied in our approach to the House as well.
One of the triggers for my raising the issue was this year's Electoral Commission review of the constituencies in Cornwall. The population of Cornwall is now more than half a million, which gives each of its five constituencies on average an electorate of more than 77,000. According to the Electoral Commission, that means that our constituencies have at least 7,000 people more than the quota. The rapid increase in Cornwall's population in recent years means that we should now have six Members of Parliament. I strongly agree that Cornwall should be proportionately represented in Parliament. However, we would have to consider which bits of each constituency to lose. I represent the west of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and would rather lose a limb from my body than a square inch of my constituency. I defend every part of my constituency with vigour. Of course the Electoral Commission must complete the review, and of course the sixth Member of Parliament must be fitted in somewhere in Cornwall. However, the problem raises questions, not only for Cornwall but for the rest of the country, about whether we are going about things the right way.
The idea of having 659 MPs is not written in tablets of stone, and was not preordained by God. We can change the situation ourselves; it should be a matter for review, and of course it has been. From 1688 to 1707 there were 513 Members of Parliament—if that can be believed. Given the electoral system in those days, each of those MPs must have known every one of his electors personally. The figures increase over time: from 1707 to 1800 there were 558 Members of Parliament, and from 1801 there were 658 very close to our present number— a level that was maintained after 1826. From 1885 to 1918 there were 670 MPs, and from 1918 to 1922, 707. The number then fluctuated, reaching a low of 625 in the mid-1950s, before rising to our present total of 659.

333WH
The reason for my belief that Parliament should take a lead in reviewing the number of Members of Parliament is that if we are keen, as I am, to devolve certain functions and responsibilities of Parliament to other Chambers, whether in Scotland, Wales or elsewhere, we will find that we have less to do here. Therefore, we should review our justification for maintaining 659 MPs. However, I do not wish to reopen the can of worms that is the West Lothian question. Although that touches on important issues, it can be left for other occasions.
We have, of course, gained further layers of elected representatives. Only a week ago had the results of the elections to the European Parliament—another layer of representation that was not in place during most of the history that I have recounted. Then there is discussion about possible elections is to the second Chamber—a matter that I shall return to later if we have time, as it appears that we might.
Part of the political context in which the review takes place is the perpetual drive for efficiency savings in the public sector. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget his intention to achieve efficiencies by reducing the civil service by at least 40,000; it numbers over half a million at the moment. I understand that the Chancellor might come to the House next week, too, to make a further statement about his spending plans, and possibly about the publication of Sir Peter Gershon's review of the civil service and other matters.
On 8 June, the Financial Times claimed that
"Gordon Brown is poised to announce the loss of more than 80,000 public sector jobs when he unveils his review of public spending this summer as the government strives to make big savings on back office functions and the purchase of goods and services."
Those savings are likely to go still further. Responsible representatives of all political parties must press for efficiency savings in the public sector. Things do not remain in aspic, and it is incumbent on all of us to achieve such savings when we can.
We cannot do that and be respected by the electorate, or by the civil servants who are losing their jobs, unless we also turn the focus on ourselves, and see what efficiency savings we can make in this place. There is certainly a perception out there that we in the House of Commons lead a charmed and luxurious life—
Nick Harvey: What?
Andrew George: My hon. Friend questions that—I am sure that his life is one of sackcloth and ashes—but among our constituents there is a perception that we have a luxurious lifestyle in comparison to them, and that we vote ourselves generous pay rises and allowances, and more favourable pensions than we offer them. If we are to reconnect with the people who put us here, we need to gain their respect by acknowledging that we need to consider efficiency savings.
It may help to consider how many people Members of Parliament in other westernised democracies represent.
Mr. Oliver Heald: What does the hon. Gentleman make of the fact that the
334WH
rules on the distribution of seats, in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, state in paragraph 1(1):
"The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 613."
Yet we have 659 constituencies. Can he explain that?
Andrew George: I suspect that that is a question for the Minister, but that anomaly may be a result of the process of rounding up within certain geographic boundaries that I described earlier in connection with the review of constituencies in Cornwall.
When compared to countries with populations of a similar size, the UK appears to be rather overrepresented. Germany has a population of nearly 82.5 million and 603 Members of Parliament, so each Member represents about 136,000 people. In comparison, the average population that UK Members of Parliament represent is 89,400, although there is, of course, significant variation: I represent a population of about 100,000. Spain has a population of 40 million and 350 representatives, each representing 115,500 people. Similarly, in France 577, Members each represent an average of nearly 103,000 people. Italy has 630 representatives, who each represent an average of 90,000 people, so they are closer to us in that respect. The Netherlands has a population of only 16 million and 150 Members of Parliament, each representing an average of 107,000 people. If I were to extend those comparisons across the Atlantic, the UK would look inappropriately over-represented.
I shall now talk about the financial implications of what I propose. In its annual report, the House of Commons Commission says that each MP costs about £211,000 per annum, including pay, allowances, office costs and so on. I am sure that many of my constituents think that that is just my pay—if only it were—but it covers a range of costs. However, it is not clear whether such an estimate would cover all the implications of reducing the number of MPs, which would include fewer calls on the Library and the Refreshment Department, lower Select Committee expenses and so on.
Based on the House of Commons Commission's estimate, reducing the number of MPs from 659 to about 500 would result in savings of about £40 million per annum. That may sound a lot of money to the public, but in the overall scheme of things it is a relatively small amount. Nevertheless, although it is a small part of overall public expenditure, it is still important and it would better spent on other public services. If we Members of Parliament were to ask our constituents whether they would prefer improved health services and more police on the beat, or an unfeasibly large number of MPs, we would not need to wait for an answer.
The practical implications of reducing the number of MPs need to be studied. I am not sure whether the House would able to scrutinise everything. Indeed, the Government might welcome the idea of fewer MPs, as they would ask fewer questions. However, the Executive would be no less held to account if the number of MPs was significantly reduced, and the opportunities for each Member of Parliament to engage in the high-profile debates on the Floor of the House would be improved.
I represent a rather complex constituency. It has four local authorities, with a single unitary authority—the Isles of Scilly—which makes unique demands, different

335WH
from those of the mainland. From my experience, it seems that MPs would find it impossible to cope with the work load, and the possible implications of a further increase in the office costs allowance to take account of the need to deal with a larger case load might counterbalance the savings that I have mentioned. In practice, however, the situation would not be unworkable.
While we are concentrating on the implications, I have to say that I am not sure that the collective wisdom of a House with 500 Members would necessarily be much different. I am not sure at what point the marginal benefit of having extra Members contributes significantly to the collective wisdom of the House; perhaps someone should make an objective study of that. At what point would those additional Members make a significant difference? Some might think that their wisdom was sufficient and they would not want to trouble the electorate—they could manage quite happily on their own. However, some Chambers manage with 150, 200 or 300 Members. It would be interesting to compare the level of scrutiny and accountability, what gets missed and what slips through the net in different Parliaments.
While we are talking about collective wisdom, let me add that one of the reasons for having a second Chamber is that it is supposed to provide an opportunity for sober second thoughts about what comes from this House. Although the primary purpose of today's debate is to raise the issue of the composition of the House of Commons, as the Minister who is here is responsible for the policy area, and as it would fall within the title of the debate, it might be worth reflecting on the impact of any House of Lords reform. That issue appears to have been kicked into the rough, if not the long grass, by the Government. The debate so far appears to have been obsessed more with process than product—in other words, how the Members of the House get there, rather than what they do when they have got there.
When the Government wish to bring the issue back to both Houses of Parliament, it is important that they reflect on the purpose of the second House, rather than on their apparent obsession with process. If, as I have argued, the second Chamber is primarily a chamber for sober second thought, it is important that as a result of the process by which the Members get there, it does not become either a cause of logjam or a lapdog for the Executive.
My concern—although not all members of my party would necessarily agree with it—is that if we were to elect all or a majority of Members to the second Chamber, and if the second Chamber's membership did not reflect the Government of the day, it would become a cause of significant logjam. Those Members' democratic origin would also give them a great deal more spirit when it came to taking on the Executive, which would put a significant constraint on the process of government.
Conversely, if the Chamber largely reflected the political persuasion of the Government of the day through an electoral process, it would be more likely to
336WH
become a lapdog for that Government than the effective constraint and source of reflective analysis that the second Chamber should, and does, provide.
Before the debate, I gave the Minister and his Department a number of questions, which I hope have helped him to frame part of his answer. Has his Department undertaken any kind of review of the composition of Parliament in recent years? Has it looked at that, or undertaken an analysis of it? In the conduct and process of the Government's commitment to devolution, has the subject been raised at all? If it has been raised and assessments have been made, what are the results? Have the Minister and his Department had the opportunity to reflect on the implications of devolution? The West Lothian question certainly prised the issue open, but the question of what justification there is for having 659 Members of Parliament must have arisen among Ministers.
If the Chancellor wants to make the efficiency savings that he says he wants to make in the public sector, he should accept that if we are going to do that to civil servants, we should turn that level of scrutiny and drive for efficiency savings towards this place, and seek to justify the number of Members. If the Minister's Department is going to reintroduce a Lords reform Bill, will he also reflect on the composition of this place, and on the need to ensure that the other place is a Chamber of sober second thought, as I argued a moment ago?
I have spoken to many Members. Some of them sponsored my ten-minute Bill last year and others did not, but they all said, "You're absolutely right," "This must be done," "That's difficult to justify," and so forth, but getting them to stand up and say that in the House of Commons is not easy. However, I still think that we need to ask ourselves difficult questions such as those that I have asked. I hope that, having had the opportunity to look into this matter and reflect on it, the Minister will ensure that in future the Government come back to the House with concrete, worked-out proposals for ensuring that the subject is reviewed as a matter of urgency.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the next speaker, I think that I am entitled to express from the Chair regret that more Members are not present in Westminster Hall to take part in an important debate of fundamental importance to the future of this House. The main Chamber is debating another matter of fundamental importance to the House, so I can only assume that there are more Members there; that, too, is something that could be debated, but not today. Because I have no alternative, I have to call another representative of the Liberal Democrats immediately after the one who opened our debate.
2.27 pm
Nick Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I echo your regrets about the small number of Member taking part in the debate and your hope that the reason for that is that they are all busily debating the electoral system, which is also a very important issue.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on raising this matter. He did so at a timely moment and on the basis of some pertinent

337WH
and relevant factors. The impact of devolution must certainly be reviewed, and our own workings in this House should be reviewed in the light of it. Devolution is a process that has begun, but it has by no means finished. It is also right that we should look at possible reform of the second Chamber because that has a direct and profound impact on how the House of Commons works and should work.
It is right that we should in any case review our own workings and operations, for some of the reasons that my hon. Friend alluded to. Everybody else in the public service is examining efficiency, and there is no reason why we should be immune from that. Also, although it seems to have been forgotten for the time being—by the Government, at least—the recommendations of the commission chaired by the late Lord Jenkins on the electoral system for this House are gathering dust on a shelf somewhere in a Government Department.
Although I very much sympathise with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's case, I would certainly not wish to see any reduction in the number of Members of our House, unless that were accompanied by a significant change in the electoral system. Some of the grotesque distortions that the current electoral system serves up would be made worse by degree if we were to move to a smaller House of Commons but continue electing it by the first-past-the-poet system—a system that, in my view, corrupts the will of the electorate.
I will start by looking at devolution. So far, we have seen a real and meaningful devolution process in Scotland, a less substantial and rather unsatisfactory measure in Wales, and, in the case of London, something so unsatisfactory as to invite questions about the point of it all.
Later this year, there are to be referendums to see whether the northern regions of England want to set up regional assemblies, whose powers, it would be fair to say, will be broadly comparable to those of the Greater London assembly. As an enthusiastic supporter of devolution in England, I find the Government's proposals for regional devolution timid. It is regrettable that the Government are not looking to devolve meaningful power or the resources that could give effect to the decisions that the exercise of such power would involve. It would not surprise me if there were a negative outcome in the referendums, as those who deplore the whole idea of devolution to the English regions combine with those who would like it to be Far more meaningful and who regard the Government's proposals as such a botch-up as not to warrant active support.
Let me make it clear that I would like much more devolution in England. The British political system is horrendously over-centralised. It is perfectly ludicrous that Members of Parliament should have to raise questions about the administrative and operational details of their local hospitals in the national legislature; it is absurd that we should run the system on that basis. Ministers also have far too much responsibility for micro decision making in individual constituencies. We must go further with the process of devolution, whatever structure we put in place. We might even devolve power to the existing county councils, which would be well capable of exercising much more power, responsibility and authority.
338WH
Although my hon. Friend resisted the temptation to go into the West Lothian question, I shall not, because the issue is relevant. It is often said that the answer to the West Lothian question is devolution for the English regions, but that would not answer the question at all, unless the powers that we devolved to them were equivalent to those that we give Scotland or that we might give it in future. Unless one is serious about allowing people in the east midlands to drive on the left while those in the west midlands drive on the right, and about different regions having different criminal law, or East Anglia having different abortion law from the south-west, one must accept that some decisions will still need to be made at the England level, without the assistance—however kindly we may thank them—of our colleagues from Scotland. Some things might also be done on an England and Wales basis, but we need that England tier. It would not be practical, helpful or useful to elect a separate English Parliament, and the public would not welcome one, but there are occasions when those who are elected as Members of Parliament for English constituencies should sit in this House in English session to make decisions that apply only to England.
We also need radical reform of local government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to range widely, but I would be grateful if he could associate his remarks more closely with the composition of Parliament, which is, in fact, the subject of the debate.
Nick Harvey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have, indeed, allowed me to range widely.
Unless we are inviting the public and the public purse to pay out for more and more political representation, we need to accept that, as we diffuse and disperse power to other places—in local government, regional government, Scotland or Wales—and more people are elected to exercise it, there is a powerful case for reducing the number of Members of Parliament in line with that dispersal of power. It is incumbent on us, for that reason and for reasons of the efficiency of our operations, to respond in that way.
Mr. Heald: When the hon. Gentleman started, he said that he was against reducing the number of Members of Parliament. Now he has said that he thinks that there is a strong case for doing it. If we were to give away powers to regions as he suggests—of course, the Liberals would like to do that in Europe, too—might we not just as well rename this Parliament the UK county council?
Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman clearly misheard me. At no stage have I said that I was against reducing the number of Members of this House. I am emphatically in favour of doing so, and that is the entire burden of my remarks. For Parliament to resemble in any way a county council, we would have to be stripped of a great deal more power than would go as a result of my suggestions.
We are, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has described, one of the largest legislatures in the world. Although there have been some welcome modernisations of our proceedings in recent years, there

339WH
are far too many of us, and, as a result of that, opportunities for individual MPs to ask Ministers questions or to take part in parliamentary debates are reduced.
It would serve our constituents much better if their Member of Parliament represented a somewhat bigger seat but had more opportunities to raise issues of significance to that seat or area. If we represented larger seats and if the best part of 500 Back Benchers were not competing for opportunities to raise points, our constituents would get a better service.
It is hard to think of anywhere with a larger legislature than this one. I know that the European Parliament has just grown larger than we are. It remains to be seen how efficiently that will operate. The only other example that I am aware of was one of the former Soviet republics, which had just over 700 members in its second chamber. However, it was hardly an advertisement for democracy. Some might say the same of the European Parliament, but to pursue that would be to stray from my brief.
My hon. Friend outlined the situation in various other countries, and pointed out that elected representatives in other countries represent more people than MPs here. It is interesting that the US House of Representatives has only 435 members representing a population four times the size of the population of the UK. Their Senate, of course, has only 100 members.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the United States has a federal system and has a much more proximate degree of local and state-based government than this country?
Nick Harvey: I entirely recognise that; it was the purpose of what I have said this afternoon about wanting the UK to develop a comparable system, with far more power exercised nearer to home. That would be a justification for electing fewer Members to this House. Modern technology also lends itself to helping a representative to cover a larger area and a bigger population.
We also need to ask ourselves questions about the role of an MP. I have talked to Scottish colleagues about how having an elected Member of the Scottish Parliament representing the same constituency and being responsible for making representations to Scottish Departments has affected their work load. If there were meaningful devolution to English regions or counties, English Members would experience the same impact. I also have great sympathy with a colleague who once said, after having been in the House for a couple of years, that if he had wanted to be a social worker, he would have gone into social work.
We could do worse than look at the system that operates in some Scandinavian countries, where each parliamentary constituency has, in addition to an elected member of the national legislature, a multi-purpose ombudsman. An individual with an administrative problem, such as not getting their pension through efficiently, takes it to the ombudsman. If someone has a problem in principle—perhaps they do
340WH
not think that the state pension is large enough—they take it to the elected Member of Parliament. I do not necessarily advocate that system, but examining it would be a worthwhile exercise.
On how our workings might be made more efficient, Government Whips might like to reflect on whether their lives might be,made easier if slightly fewer of the more than 400 Labour Members of Parliament needed occupying all the time. I remember when Francis Pym, who was Chief Government Whip during the 1983 election, expressed the hope, rather foolishly perhaps, that the Government 's majority would not be too large. He discovered after the election that he was no longer a member of that Government. Having more than 400 Members from one party is, frankly, rather ridiculous.
My hon. Friend also rightly touched on the role of the second Chamber. We cannot arrive at a rational view about what the composition of the first Chamber should be without considering the function and composition of the second Chamber. The Government seem completely to have lost their way on that. In 1997, they were committed to serious and fundamental reform of the Lords. They swept out all but 92 of the hereditary peers, but thereafter became lost and confused. We are now invited to settle for a largely—probably even an exclusively—nominated House of Lords, a system that carries through neither the spirit nor the letter of the commitments that the Government made when they were originally elected.
I do not believe that there is any great validity to a nominated House and I probably disagree with my hon. Friend, who said that members of the party might do so. It is debatable whether people who enter the House of Lords on the basis of the useful service rendered have any more validity that those who are several generations down from people who once did so—one could even argue that the intervention of two or three generations made such people more legitimate.
We must ask ourselves what the second Chamber is for. As my hon. Friend said, its purpose is to revise, occasionally to press the brake pedal and to provide checks and balances. The second Chamber should not be able to initiate legislation—it is precisely the power to do so that has allowed the Senate to get the upper hand in the US—nor should it have Ministers in it. If people in the second Chamber are jockeying for position, we will end up with the sort of pork-barrel politics that the public complain the whole system is bedevilled with. Ministers from the House of Commons could, quite sensibly, go to a slimmed-down and modernised second Chamber to answer Questions.
The numbers in the second Chamber should also be small. I had sympathy with the proposal that election to a second Chamber should be for a relatively long term, but that it should not be renewable. We should elect Members for, say, 10 years, perhaps half of them at a time every five years, and they should not be able to seek re-election. That would give us a second Chamber with a detached, robust and independent perspective and members who were not jockeying for position. If we did not want them to be too powerful, we need not give them too many powers. They could have just enough carefully codified powers to enable them to fulfil the brief of revising, pausing and, as my hon. Friend suggested, adding a little wisdom and providing a useful check and balance. Electing half of them every five years at the

341WH
same time as slimming down the House of Commons might provide a useful escape route for some of those who were squeezed out at the outset.
Andrew George: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's comments about the shape of the second Chamber. However, I caution him against attaching too many conditions to the revision of the composition of the primary Chamber. He has already made the condition that there should be proportional representation and that the House of Lords should be inextricably linked to the revision. Does he accept that if he adds too much to this shopping bag, he would risk losing the support that we require?
Nick Harvey: My hon. Friend is right, and I do not seek to build a series of conditions. The only one that I would stipulate would be a charge in the electoral system. I am describing the comprehensive constitutional settlement that I would like.
The last matter that has to be analysed is the electoral system, which is being discussed elsewhere. There is on the shelf an official report by an official Government-appointed commission, recommending a change to the electoral system for this House, and making a proposal about what the new system should be. I strongly support the recommendation of a system called AV-plus, with a top-up component—[Interruption] I hear the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) guffawing, but this is not a distant relative of the systems that have been introduced in Scotland, Wales and London.
Mr. Heald: Would the hon. Gentleman care to say a word or two about the d'Hondt principle, while he is on the subject?
Nick Harvey: I shall resist saying anything about the d'Hondt principle, as it is a method used only for dividing on regional list PR systems, which I do not support. We should do away with d'Hondt and its alternatives as a red herring.
The system proposed by the Jenkins commission is a close relative of those used in Scotland, Wales and London. It suggests that the top-up element should be between a sixth and a third of the House of Commons. At a sixth, it would not do a great deal of good in terms of proportionality, but at a third, it could. If we were to have a House of Commons with about 300 Members elected to single-member constituencies and about 150 as a top-up, providing a total of about 450, that would serve our democracy well, and would provide an efficient size of House of Commons, which would work better than the current one. That would be an extremely valuable step forward, although at the outset as many as 200 Members of this House would be squeezed out. At any election some would be retiring anyway, but if others were squeezed out, the concurrent reform of the second Chamber might form a useful parachute for them—I mention that only in parenthesis.
Devolution is not going far or last enough, but it is happening and it is real. As power is devolved and dispersed, the case for there being quite as many of us as there are at the moment becomes weaker. In any case, a smaller House of Commons would be more efficient.
342WH
MPs would be more effective, because a smaller House would enable us to conduct our business more briskly and in a more businesslike way. We await further Government proposals about the reform of the second Chamber, which is very necessary. The second Chamber is completely ridiculous at the moment, and the Government's proposals for it will not be tenable into the future. Moreover, a slimmed-down, modernised and more efficient second Chamber would work very well alongside a slimmed-down and more efficient House of Commons.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives, however, I would apply one condition: we should not reduce the size of the House without fundamental change to the electoral system. If we move from 659 MPs to 500, which my hon. Friend suggested, or to 450, which I suggest, and continue with the first-past-the-post system, the anomalies and statistical corruptions of that system will become even worse. I therefore very much hope that the Government, who have responsibility for devolution, electoral reform and advancing proposals for the second Chamber, will take all those points on board, and that they will continue to make the progress towards constitutional settlement with which they vigorously began their period in office, but on which they seem to have lost their way of late.
2.52 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: I agree with the previous speakers that it is a bit of a poser that, in 1832, we had 658 Members of Parliament to cover the whole of the United Kingdom, which at that time included Ireland, at a time when we directly governed a third of the world, and we now have 659 MPs at a time when we have lost a good deal of that geographical area as well as particular areas of power: we have lost the empire and we are losing powers to the European Union and the regional assemblies. If the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) had his way, we would also lose powers to the county councils.
There is undoubtedly an argument that one should look at the divisor, or the electoral quota, and see whether reform of the number of MPs is required. The calls for reform started, I believe, with Robert Rhodes James in 1986, and continued with Sir Peter Emery in 1991, Robert Blackburn, the academic, Spencer Batiste in February 1995, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) in January 1998. A striking feature of Governments, including the current one, is that they do not seem to have much appetite for this subject. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister will undertake to review the divisor, or the electoral quota, and the rest.
It is odd that the review rules, which were made in 1986, state:
"The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater…than 613",
and add:
"The number of constituencies in Northern Ireland shall not be greater than 18",
which makes 631. Since then, however, Parliament has somehow managed to grow to 659 constituencies. It is, of course, right that some constituencies, such as Isle of

343WH
Wight, have as many as 100,000 electors. There is a case for considering whether an element of saving can be made by having a smaller number of MPs.
I must make one or two points about how Parliament works. The fact that the Government have a massive majority—there are more than 400 Labour MPs—has affected how we do our business. For example, the Government can boldly say that the House will have only one day to debate important matters such as Iraq even though as many as half of our number want to speak. Indeed, that is what happened; I asked for two days and we were given one. As a result, many Members had no say. The problem is particularly acute for Labour Members because there are so many of them. The same happened with tuition fees; I asked for two days of debate and we were given one. Again, numerous Labour Members were unable to speak. Debates on foundation hospitals and trial by jury saw the same thing happen. When it came to the local government settlement, which used to be an occasion in the parliamentary year, not one Back Bencher was able to speak in the debate despite the fact that I had asked for more time.
We have ended up with an arrogant, manipulative Government with a large majority who are able to do pretty well what they want. The troops meekly go through the Lobbies as required. It is wrong. Not only has Parliament lost a lot of its power to Europe, the other Parliaments and regional assemblies, but the Government are actively manipulating the procedures of the House so that important subjects are not given the necessary debating time.
The sort of matters that we are debating in the House over the next two or three weeks are very light. Members sometimes look at the business that the Government have offered for debate and simply go home. The truth is that we have lost something like three days because the anodyne topics served up by the Government were not what the public wanted.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to be even-handed. In a modest and courteous way, I reprimanded the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) for straying from the subject. The Opposition spokesman is doing likewise. I suggest that he relates his remarks directly to the composition of Parliament.
Mr. Heald: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was about to say that we do not get many Members of Parliament in the Chamber these days. That is because, as I said, the Government are manipulating the business of the House. The interesting subjects that people want to debate do not get enough time, and the subjects served up for debate do not seem to interest MPs. However, it may be necessary to consider whether we have too many MPs, or at least to review the number.
The hon. Member for North Devon suggested that we move to AV-plus as a way to reduce the number of MPs. He also suggested that we should have an MP plus an ombudsman for each constituency, which would double the numbers.
Nick Harvey: I said that that idea was worth examining. It is operated in Scandinavian countries and is worth thinking about. I was not advocating it as a party policy or personally.
Mr. Heald: The only thing that I would say is that when we are on th doorstep we never hear people asking for a few more politicians. The idea of doubling the numbers by having an MP and an ombudsman is mistaken, bearing in mind the regional assemblies and all the other institutions. It would be difficult to find good people to go into politics because there would be too many jobs. I wonder whether the public think that a sensible way forward; I suggest that they do not.
The hon. Gentleman says that the regional assemblies will not have much power. Notably, we have not seen the Bill that would set up the regional assemblies. On the European constitution, we are told, "You have to pore over this document for months on end before you can have a referendum," but we do not even have to debate the regional assemblies before there is a referendum.
Before I go too far on that tack, if regional assemblies are being set up and they do not have much power, is not it legitimate to ask for the money to be spent instead on another 1,000 police officers in each region? Is it really necessary to have regional representation in Hertfordshire, for example, where I am based, and the eastern region? People ask what is the point of that. There is not much point. People think of themselves as either being from the UK, as being British or English, or as coming from Hertfordshire, but I do not know anybody who thinks of themselves as an easterner, or an "eastern regioner". I do not see what having regional assemblies is going to achieve.
Nick Harvey: In that case, what does the hon. Gentleman think to my alternative suggestion of devolving more power and resources to the county councils as an alternative to creating the regional assemblies?
Mr. Heald: I am very keen on the county councils, but having said that, this is an important sovereign Parliament. There are jobs to be done, and it is wrong that we are constantly trying to give them to somebody else. The public have the idea that MPs count for something and do something useful, at least in their own locality. Once all the responsibilities are removed and given to the county councils, to Europe, and to a Parliament or an assembly here or there, the work of the House will have narrowed to the point where an MP becomes somebody of little use. At that point, the public will be entitled to ask not whether we need 659 MPs, but whether we need any at all.
People do not want that. They want this Parliament to be a powerful and important place where things are decided and dealt with. Certainly, they want a more powerful and import ant place than the body that the hon. Gentleman described. Rather than reducing the numbers of MPs, we ought to ensure that we retain power here, not give too much away and, if possible, repatriate some of th power that we have already lost to Europe.

345WH
This has been an engaging debate. When I came into the Chamber I did not have much idea about what the hon. Member for St. Ives would propose, but I congratulate him on securing the debate and giving us an opportunity to consider the composition of the House of Commons.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now await the Minister's response with trepidation and interest.
3.3 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing this debate and on the manner in which he presented his arguments on an important subject. I also congratulate the hon. Members for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on taking part in the discussion and assisting us with the arguments in different directions. We are preoccupied with the composition of Parliament, but the purpose of our national Parliament is central to any discussion. We have heard comments on a range of issues, but I shall try to deal specifically with the points that the hon. Member for St. Ives so clearly set out.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned that the Government were not giving enough thought to the question of the size of the House. He asked in particular what assessment the Government had made of the justification for retaining so many MPs. I know that he has studied the subject with care; indeed, he introduced a private Member's Bill on the very subject. He will therefore be aware of the importance that successive Governments have attached to ensuring that the size and shape of the House is not determined by the Government of the day. I think that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire alluded to that, although the Conservative Administration chose also not to enter that domain. I suspect that that is because it is difficult to launch a fundamental review of the question without facing the accusation of gerrymandering or attempting to gain some short-term political advantage.
Every time there is a redistribution of seats, those who are badly affected express concern. I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Ives held his hand up and admitted that there had been such redistribution in the south-west of England. Those who lose badly through such changes include some whose seats disappear, and they call for this sort of discussion. However, even those whose constituencies survive and who are not affected may see that wards that traditionally supported them are disappearing, and discussion arises not just of the composition of the House but the role and nature of the boundary commissions, independence and the important relationship between an MP and his or her constituents.
The boundary commissions, of course, do not take such matters into account in making determinations. Their concern is with the overall size of the electorate, and with respecting both the other administrative boundaries and the natural links or barriers in a region.
346WH
That process, although disruptive and sometimes difficult, engages the minds of MPs in an area where such questions are being determined. I should point out, however, that the UK electorate are not over-burdened with representatives.
International comparison shows that the UK has relatively few tiers of government, even with devolution. When hon. Members list countries with the numbers of electorate per MP, two factors should be borne in mind: one is that the figures are based on the electoral roll. In all constituencies there are many people not on the electoral roll. It is for other nations to determine what qualifies people to be on the electoral roll, and how good their systems are in that respect.
The second factor is that tiers of government should be considered. Some of the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentioned have a federal system, and others have different layers of local government. Some elect to virtually every office. Indeed, some elect their judges. There is a range of different approaches, but that has not been the general state of affairs in this country.
Andrew George: That evidence raises two questions—first, what are the Government doing to ensure that all those who are entitled to be on the electoral register are included on it, if he is implying that the Government are failing in that aim? Secondly, in making the connection between federal states and large population representation by Members of Parliaments, is the Minister acknowledging that as the Government progress further towards devolution of power, the argument for fewer MPs grows stronger? Perhaps the Government should begin to review that question now.
Mr. Lammy: If the hon. Gentleman had let me, I would have gone on to explain that many hon. Members of all parties would then have a powerful discussion about the unique relationship between a constituency MP and his constituents. Give or take a few hundred people, our constituency quota is about 70,000. That relationship is zealously guarded across all sections of the House. There is the nature of our advice surgeries; throughout the country on a Friday evening or a Saturday morning, MPs sit in their constituency offices meeting and engaging with their constituents in a way that is envied around the world.
Mr. Heald: In 1983, the Labour party argued in the famous Foot case that the electoral quota of 70,000 that the Minister referred to should take precedence over county, borough and even geographical boundaries, and that equality in the size of constituencies should be the main feature of the distribution of seats. That would have the effect of limiting the rise in numbers of seats. Are this Labour Government still in favour of that? If so, do they have any plans to change the rules?
Mr. Lammy: A cursory look in "Dod's" will reveal to the hon. Gentleman that I was 11 in 1983 so I cannot speak for what the Labour party was proposing then. However, I can speak for what the Labour Government are proposing now.
What I have to say is of relevance to a question that the hon. Member for St. Ives raised and to my second point on tiers of Government. [Interruption.] The hon.

347WH
Gentleman is asking me from a sedentary position to give way, but I have not finished what I have to say on this matter.
It is because of the absence of the many layers of government that exist in the federal and state-based systems of other countries that there is that unique relationship between our MPs and their constituents. That quota of about 70,000 means that there is a proximate and powerful relationship between the MP and his constituents in this country, which is unique. In discussions on this subject, Governments must be mindful of that.
Andrew George: If that figure of approximately 70,000 is passionately regarded by constituents and MPs and if it results in a rather magical and very special relationship between MPs in this country and their electors, is the Minister therefore arguing with regard to, for example, the Member for Orkney and Shetland with only 25,000 or 30,000 electors and the MP for the Isle of Wight, that one is very underworked and the other is impossibly overworked and is incapable of making a strong bond with his constituents?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I think that it was the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire who referred to schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. It is in that that there is the rule that
"The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 613"
and where the quota of about 70,000 was established. It is important to concentrate on the words "greater or less than". That has meant that in subsequent reviews—and we are now on the fifth review—there has been a ratcheting up of that number.
In rule 5, the strict application of those rules are subject to disparity in the electorate in any particular constituency and a number of other factors. Therefore, there are areas of the country that are sparsely populated where there is one MP with a smaller number of constituents, and some London constituencies have been subject to keeping to borough boundaries. There are differences across the piece, and those are the determinations that the boundary commissions have to make and which the Electoral Commission will have to make.
Another important aspect of the speech of the hon. Member for St. Ives was the impact of devolution and regional government. The change to the number of Scottish Members that will result from applying the same electoral quota in Scotland as in England is a sign that the Government do not shrink from action where they believe it to be justified. Clearly, the circumstances in Scotland were different, particularly in that, for historical reasons, it had a much higher density of MPs than England. The justification for that higher degree of representation lapsed with the ending of the need to pass distinctively Scottish legislation at Westminster.
With that exception, I do not think that a reduction in the number of MPs at Westminster is or should be a product of devolution, because MPs representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
348WH
have a responsibility to their constituents regarding devolved matters. It is not clear—I say this as a Member for a London constituency—whether there is some overlap between constituency MPs and assembly members in areas in which responsibility is devolved, particularly when those responsibilities are strategic, as would be the case with any regional assembly.
For example, in a default assembly, there may be certain determinations in relation to policing numbers. That issue is of national importance to Parliament, but it may well have local or regional implications with which assembly members would want to wrestle and engage—that is certainly the case in London. There may also be planning or strategic transport decisions that impact on both those bodies. Therefore, it is not clear whether case loads will decrease. In that regard, in the words of the Carpenters' song: "We've only just begun" this journey. At this stage, it is clear that there is an important role for Members of Parliament and regional assembly members.
Mr. Heald: I am surprised that the Minister has heard of the Carpenters, given his youthful nature.
The effect of giving precedence to county and borough boundaries is that the number of constituencies will continue to rise; that has been the effect since 1983, when, I think, the Carpenters were around. Do the Government have any plans to review that or to see whether there is a way to limit the rise in the number of constituencies, or are they happy to see it go up to 680 or 700?
Mr. Lammy: All boundary commissions are currently undertaking their fifth review, so it would be inappropriate to launch into an inquiry of that nature in the midst of that. For the reasons that I have outlined, the Government's instinct is to let well alone, but it is important that we revisit those issues from time to time. Of course, it is important that the independent Electoral Commission is well able to comment or report on such issues should it see fit to do so.
The hon. Member for St. Ives argued that we should take a more strategic view of the role of MPs in Parliament. I know that he is a fervent advocate of regional government, although not necessarily in the economic regions into which England is currently divided, and he has made clear his belief in the Cornish people. We are all grateful for the passion with which he has brought the debate to this House.
The Government agree that there is scope for a regional strategic assembly for the south-west region, should it wish it. However, we do not agree that that would have the sort of impact on the role of the MP or of the Westminster Parliament that would lead to a case for reducing MPs' numbers, any more than devolution does.
Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for recognising my strong arguments for a Cornish assembly. I confidently predict that the south-west region will never get off the ground because there is, unfortunately, no passion or demand for it, although we continue to favour devolution. However, crucially, the Minister said earlier hat the Government would avoid taking a leading role in opening this can of worms for

349WH
fear that they would be accused of gerrymandering. Can he at least allow Parliament the time and the framework in which to raise the issue and to resolve it, even if the Government are not prepared to take a lead?
Mr. Lammy: I think that Parliament is, in this debate, giving time to the subject. What I said was that there are difficult issues. I do not hear MPs clamouring for us substantially to reduce our numbers, but it would be wrong for the Government to launch into such an inquiry while four boundary commissions are undertaking reviews. That is the context in which we are having this discussion.
Parliament and central Government will remain responsible for UK-wide matter, such as defence, foreign policy, European policy, relations with international bodies, taxation, the passing of primary and secondary legislation—the things that preoccupy us from week to week. They will also retain responsibility for areas of England-wide importance, such as the NHS and education, and will continue to be responsible for legislation, even in areas in which the regional assemblies have a considerable role to play.
In considering what the right number of MPs is, we need to examine both ends of the spectrum. How many MPs do we need to ensure that we do our jobs properly here, and how many to ensure that we do our jobs properly in our constituencies? The answers may well not be the same, so we have to balance the two sets of considerations. That is one of the issues that feeds into the work of the boundary commissions. We have, for many years, concluded that that balance is best kept with an average constituency size of about 70,000 electors. As our population has increased, that has led to an increase in the number of Members of this House. It is possible to look at the equation from the other end, and to decide that we need a certain number of Members to deliver the objectives of the House. In that case, we might end up with a slightly different number. However, if that method led to an increase in the average number of constituents, that would have to be taken into consideration. That could be the consequence of what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
The Government do not agree that we should simply equate a reduction in the number of MPs with efficiency, although, of course, we should always look to improve the service that we offer our constituents. I acknowledge that there are arguments for reducing the number of Members, irrespective of devolution. Fewer Members would mean more opportunities for the remainder to participate on the Floor of the House, and fewer Members who would find no place on a Select Committee, and it would probably reduce pressures on facilities and cost less than is currently the case.
On the other hand, having fewer Members would make those Members more remote from the communities that they serve, which is the point I sought to raise earlier. Personal contact would inevitably be reduced. Hon. Members could have suggested that new technologies might offset that to some extent; for example, some have suggested online surgeries. Clearly there is a role for modern technology, but in all our constituencies there are pockets of social exclusion and issues of access; certainly among the elderly those technologies could go only so far.
350WH
I accept that perceived inefficiencies in Parliament may harm the relationship between politicians and the public, but increasing the size of constituencies may make Members more remote, reducing the personal element and their value. The personal link between a Member and his constituency is a central and valued part of our political democracy. It is important that we place that at the centre of the debate. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency. We welcome the publication of the Modernisation Committee report, "Connecting Parliament with the Public". I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is essential that we take further steps to engage more closely with the electorate and. indeed, the future electorate.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the rules by which the boundary commissions work are set down in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Those rules require them to start from the existing number of seats when devising the quota of constituents for each seat, so an overall reduction in numbers would require primary legislation. The present reduction in the number of Scottish MPs is possible only because Parliament has already agreed to remove the previous statutory minimum number of Scottish MPs and impose instead the same electoral quota as in England. There is no work in progress actively looking at the case for changing the rules to deliver a reduction in the number of MPs, and as all four of the boundary commissions are currently engaged in reviews, that would be wrong at this time.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should approach House of Lords reform by first looking at what we want a second Chamber to do. That has been the Government's approach. It is also important to ensure that, taken together, the powers and the composition of the second Chamber enable it to fulfil its role properly. We believe in a bicameral Parliament, and in that we follow the line of most large, mature democracies. But if we are to make the most of such a bicameral Parliament, we need to find a distinctive role for the second Chamber. In some systems that is easy because of the federal nature of the state and because in the second Chamber there is a role for representing one's constituency. That is not the case in our arrangements, which means that we continually revisit those issues. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have said that we will revisit the issue in our manifesto as the debate continues. He will be aware also of discussions about indirect election and other matters. However, the central nature of the House of Lords is that it is a revising Chamber.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue. It is rare that we have the opportunity to discuss why we are here in the first place and the nature of what we do. I hope that I have satisfied him in answering his questions, even if I have not been able to go as far as he would in ratcheting down the numbers of Members of Parliament.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister, not only for his reply but for finishing in the nick of time. We now pass on to the next debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), who is making her second appearance today in Westminster Hall.

Education (Brent)
3.30 pm
Sarah Teather: It is a great pleasure to have been able to secure this debate about education in Brent and to have the opportunity to bring to the Minister's attention a number of issues, particularly about funding. My constituents, local schools and the council—it is Labour-controlled, but we have been working together—have raised the issues with me.
Those who know my constituency will be aware that Brent is a highly diverse borough, but also an area of great need. Brent, East borders Camden to the east and Westminster to the south. It stretches north-west up to Neasden, taking in Kilburn, Queen's Park, Willesden Green and Dollis Hill en route. Most of my constituency lies within the tube's most central zones—1 and 2.
The Audit Commission has said that Brent is an area of significant deprivation. It is the 13th most deprived London borough. Unemployment in Brent, East stands at about 6.9 per cent., a third higher than the average figure for the UK. Deprivation is particularly apparent in the south of my constituency in Carlton Vale, the area that borders Westminster.
The picture is similar in the schools. A recent report by the Audit Commission and Ofsted on Brent local education authority said that
"Brent is an outer London borough but faces many of the same challenges as those in inner London with high levels of deprivation in five wards in the south".
Brent's schools have many inner-London characteristics. For example, 31 per cent. of pupils in my constituency are eligible for free school meals, compared with an inner-London average of 39 per cent., an outer-London average of 19 per cent. and a UK average of about 17 per cent.
Brent is one of two boroughs in which whites are a minority. Its schools are even more diverse: 72 per cent. of pupils in Brent's schools are from ethnic minorities, and around 130 languages are spoken in those schools—an extraordinary figure. English is an additional language for more than half of all pupils. Pupil mobility is high and is growing. That diversity and pupil mobility are partly due to the large number of refugees in the borough; there are about 17,000 refugees and asylum seekers, some 7 per cent. of the overall population. Children of refugees and asylum seekers make up 8.3 per cent. of children in Brent's schools.
There are 27 schools in my constituency: 24 primary schools and three secondary schools. Of the constituency's primary schools, 12 are voluntary aided, 11 are community schools and one is a foundation school. In addition, the borough supports five special schools, four nursery schools and two pupil referral units. Between the two most recent Audit Commission and Ofsted reports in 1998 and 2003, Brent's primary schools steadily improved, as did the progress of vulnerable pupils. The borough's secondary schools were praised in the last report for highly satisfactory progress. The report noted, however, that most of the poor performance issues stemmed from underfunding of education, and I want to turn to that.
Despite the inner-London characteristics that I have highlighted, Brent, along with five other London boroughs—Ealing, Merton, Newham, Haringey and
352WH
Waltham Forest—has a legal obligation to pay inner-London weighting. However, that obligation is not recognised in the funding that the borough receives from central Government through the formula spending share, which assumes that it is an outer-London borough. The obligation appears to stem from the pay board review of 1974 and subsequent legislation, but is now defined in the teachers' pay and conditions requirements of the Department for Education and Skills.
Brent LEA has estimated that it costs around £3.5 million a year to pay the extra London weighting to its staff. Brent's contention, and that of the other five affected boroughs, is that they are penalised by having to pay the inner-London weighting because they do not get the compensatory funding via the FSS from central Government, unlike the other inner-London authorities. The argument is that the imbalance should be remedied by a specific grant to the six boroughs concerned, which would be much simpler than trying to tinker with the highly complex funding formula.
The Minister may argue that those councils receive more than the difference between inner-London and outer-London weighting through other money from the grant system, taking into account their outer-London status. However, he will be aware that the inner-London element of the FSS takes into account factors other than pay or inner-London weighting, such as the need to pay extra to retain teachers by moving them more quickly up the pay spine. Whatever the solution, the situation is clearly an injustice. Will the Minister please consider this or another proposal to resolve the funding shortfall in Brent?
What are the implications of that shortfall for schools? As a result of the budgetary pressures, Brent LEA spends a much higher percentage of its school budget on pay—85 to 90 per cent., compared with an average of about 70 per cent. for other LEAs. That is highly significant. High wage costs result in reduced funding for other areas; that is common sense. Brent cannot provide the teaching assistants that it feels it needs; it cannot refurbish buildings; and it has a higher proportion of schools in budget deficit than the rest of London. Some 12 Brent primary schools, about 20 per cent. of the borough's total, are in deficit, compared with 12 per cent. in Greater London. Five Brent secondary schools are in deficit, 37 per cent. of the total, compared with 24 per cent. in Greater London.
Refurbishment is a particular concern for such schools. The executive summary of the Government's consultation document, "Building Schools for the Future", stated:
"School buildings are important to pupils' education."
The research showed a clear link between capital investment and school standards. In practical terms, the budgetary pressure has prevented the council from taking action to replace the portakabins in the John Kelly secondary schools. Brent has a poor stock of school buildings; the lack of available cash for maintenance means that many have a large backlog of minor repairs that may well be more expensive to fix now than if they had been dealt with sooner. Brent is desperate to be part of the second wave of "Building Schools for the Future", which is due to be announced in the autumn. At the moment, some schools are

353WH
forgoing expenditure in the hope—indeed the expectation—that BSF funding will be made available soon.
The budgetary pressure has other implications for Brent schools. Although most special educational needs support comes from the non-delegated part of the schools budget, the growth of some of the more innovative and exciting schemes is being hampered by pressures on the delegated portion. For example, the council is keen to provide extra, preventive, support for pupils with special needs through behaviour support teams in mainstream schools. Such work is highly inclusive and works with children ahead of their being statemented; they may never be statemented, but they need that extra support. I am sure that the Minister would agree that that is vital work.
The Minister may argue that Brent council is not spending the expected spending share allocation on education, although it has passported 100 per cent. of the FSS increase in the past two year That underspend is largely due to a large historic debt burden, owing to decisions made by the council when it was under Conservative administration. It made decisions to lay off many staff and pay for early retirement, and the heavy costs of paying pensions continue to be a problem for the council.
The Minister will know that a council can find it difficult to get out of the trap of underspending in a particular area, because of the various checks and balances that tie its hands. For example, Brent's revenue support grant is, in effect, capped by a ceiling on the percentage increase in the FSS. If the council attempted to raise more revenue to meet that or any other shortfall, it would have to resort to local revenue-raising powers. However, the gearing effect in local government funding means that that would require a substantial increase in council tax, and councils were warned that if they increased their council tax too much, they would be capped. So the council finds itself in a Catch-22 situation. In January, extra funding was announced for local authorities, and Brent received a relatively generous £4.2 million from a total of £340 million. However, those extra funds were intended to ease budgetary pressures on environmental and social services. It would be disingenuous to imply that such funds would solve the problem in education.
In addition to the problem of inner and outer-London weighting, Brent suffers as a council because of the ceiling on possible increases in Government funding. The council estimates that that cost it about £1.3 million this year.
A similar funding dichotomy affects Brent's further education sector. The Learning and Skills Council is implementing revised area uplift costs in further education and reducing the number of London areas from three to two. Brent is the only borough not to have moved from the old London area B to area A. Its uplift therefore remains at only 12 per cent., compared with 20 per cent. for those in area A. That affects sixth-form colleges, but it particularly affects the College of North West London in my constituency. As the Minister will know, the college is already at a disadvantage because the LSC agreed in evidence to the Education and Skills Committee that further education colleges are under-represented in funding compared with sixth-form colleges. That college has a high proportion of students
354WH
who are asylum seekers or refugees, and it suffers particular disadvantage. On Friday, it heard that it would have to cut 220 full-time students in 2004–05, which is equivalent to about 1,000 part-time students. There is no additional funding for any college covered by the London West LSC, even though it knows that it is one of only four LSC areas to have exceeded its overall targets.
The schools whose sixth forms are funded by the LSC to the tune of about £15 million have also lost out because of the lack of uplift. That translates to an annual cost of about £800,000. Hon. Members may not think that that is very much, but it probably equates to about two teachers for each of the 13 sixth-form colleges in the borough and is highly significant.
I want to make a final point about the implication of funding pressures in Brent for the provision of voluntary aided status to two faith schools in my constituency: the independent Jewish Menorah high school for girls and The Avenue independent Islamic school. Following provisional agreement of VA status for those two schools, Brent council obtained permission from the DFES to include their pupils in the borough's pupil level annual schools census return for 2004. That is important, because it means that the schools' pupil numbers will be included in the Government's calculation of Brent's RSG for 2005–06. However, as annual increases in funding cannot rise above the Government's ceiling, granting either or both schools VA status would mean that Brent might not obtain any additional funding for the schools in 2005–06. The council has argued that the simplest solution to that problem would be to amend the 2004–05 education formula spending share baseline by the amount that those extra pupils would have attracted in that year. The additional grant would not then be treated as a pure gain for Brent and hence would not be subject to the ceiling or scaling factor.
The transfer of independent faith schools to VA status is very much in line with the Department's policy of encouraging as wide a spectrum of educational provision as possible in the maintained sector. Indeed, it has agreed capital funding of about £8.5 million for those two schools, and that will be at risk if the council cannot support the applications. I have written separately to the Minister for School Standards asking for a meeting about that, but I hope that the Minister who is present will be able to respond to those points.
In conclusion, I thank the Chamber for providing me with the opportunity to raise the important issues of education and funding in Brent. I ask the Minister to take action to address the shortfall of funding and its impact on students in my constituency. I accept that in all arbitrary funding calculations there are winners and losers. However, I am sure that he agrees that in an area of such considerable deprivation as Brent, East it should be a priority to remedy such an injustice.
3.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): It is a privilege to appear before you in Westminster Hall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has become a regular occurrence in the past few months. I congratulate the hon. Lady on speaking in her second Adjournment debate today. Her

355WH
productivity is to be commended. This is an important issue, and I acknowledge at the outset that there are legitimate, important matters that need addressing. I will attempt to do that in my response to her contribution.
I must first make some general points. She will forgive me for making political points; this is a political environment. Her contribution was slightly misleading. For example, advocating faith schools and their expansion is not a policy that her hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has shared. This Government have proudly advocated that since they were elected in 1997, and they have expounded the importance of newly created faith schools and of giving existing ones the opportunity to come into the state sector from the private sector. In fact, the Liberal Democrat party has been hostile to the concept of expanding the number of faith schools in the maintained sector. I must say to the hon. Lady that that is another example of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing in one community and then attempting to give an entirely different impression in another.
Sarah Teather: The Minister should be aware that the Liberal Democrats' official policy is to leave the matter up to local authorities to decide. It is at their discretion depending on local need. I personally think that faith schools can play an important role as part of the multiple provision of services in an area, but they are not the sole source of that provision.
Mr. Lewis: I would not pretend that faith schools were the sole form of providing education. They are part of a diverse education sector, in which parents have access to a range of choices that meet their needs. I remember some hostile contributions that her hon. Friend made about faith-based education and single-faith schools. Frankly, it is not good enough to say, "I personally believe", when the Government have fought for the right of the faith-based sector to expand where appropriate and when the Liberal Democrats have opposed such moves at every opportunity.
The other issue in the political context is about finite resources. The Government's level of investment in education is unprecedented, historic and sustained—I shall come to the figures for Brent, which highlight that. However, let us be absolutely clear about the spending commitments, as I understand them. The Liberal Democrats said that they would increase the 40 per cent. rate of tax to 50 per cent., which would pay for two things: the subsidy for university graduates, so they would not have to pay fees; and free care for the elderly. There would not be a penny piece more under Liberal Democrat spending plans for local government, schools or further education. We should not attempt to mislead constituents in these debates into thinking that the Liberal Democrats would make significantly more resources available for schools or further education colleges than the Government. It is disingenuous of politicians to pretend that there are infinite resources. The hon. Lady knows full well not only that the Government's record of investment is unprecedented, but that hard decisions will always have to be made.
Sarah Teather: The increase in taxation from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. would not only pay for the two things that the Minister outlined, but enable us to lower the burden of local taxation. We would also give more freedom to local councils to raise revenue, depending on their priorities. As the Minister knows well, I am arguing about fairness for the borough, which is out of step with other areas; I am not arguing for a complete change in the formula spending share.
Mr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Lady for her clarification. I can see the "Focus" leaflets emerging which say, "We advocate higher taxation"—at local discretion, of course—"but you can significantly put everybody's local taxes up." I look forward to hearing about the Lib Dems' election results in local authority areas where they make that offer overt in their election literature. Of course, that was not the offer to the people of Brent in the by-election. Then, as I remember, people were promised that everybody would get a council tax subsidy. However, the leader of the Liberal Democrats subsequently said that that offer was only for the period of the by-election and would not be sustained on a long-term basis. We now hear the hon. Lady talk about local discretion to increase council tax to significantly higher levels.
Let us focus on the amount of the funding increases that Brent has received. In 2004–05, the increase in Brent's school formula spending share was an above average 6.8 per cent. per pupil. When the increase in its pupil numbers is taken into account, Brent's overall FSS increase was 8.1 per cent. Over the longer term, between 1997–98 and 2004–05, we estimate that Brent's total funding per pupil will have increased in real terms from £3,590 to £4,660. That is an increase of more than £1,000 per pupil. Brent received an 8 per cent. increase in formula grant from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2003–04 and a 7.5 per cent. increase in 2004–05. The hon. Lady was good enough to refer to the extra £4.2 million that the local authority received—in January this year, I think. Even to suggest that resources that could be provided are not being provided is therefore slightly disingenuous.
Everyone in this place advocates making available more resources for their constituents and it is appropriate that the hon. Lady should make the case for Brent. My constituency was one of the biggest losers under the old local government finance regime. My colleagues and I fought for a fairer share of that settlement, and we were delighted that the Government reorganised the local government finance settlement. My local authority would never say publicly that it had enough money, because local authorities never do, but its share of resources is fairer. In that context, other local authorities would say that they have ended up worse off as a consequence of the change.
In any reorganisation of the local government finance system there will always be winners and losers. The question is whether the system is fair or fairer than it was prior to the changes. The current local government finance system is considerably fairer than the previous system, and I sure that it could have be even better from the point of view of some authorities.
One reason why there are ceilings is that there has to be a phasing in of the gains over a period of time—again, in terms of real economic and realpolitik. If the gains

357WH
were not phased in, the horrendous short-term consequences for local services of the "losers" would be devastating. It is about a sensible and balanced approach, and trying to create a fairer system. It is good news if Brent is at the ceiling, rather than somewhere near to the floor, because that means that there is a recognition of its needs.
On the hon. Lady's comments on "Building Schools for the Future", we are proud that the Government are rebuilding from top to bottom the secondary school stock in this country over a 10 to 15 year-period. Local authorities such as Brent that are facing genuine deprivation and challenges, which the hon. Lady outlined, as well as local education authorities and local partners that are able to demonstrate innovative and imaginative proposals, will be considered sympathetically as part of the decision-making process.
The hon. Lady was hoping that Brent would feature in the second wave of "Building Schools for the Future", and if an application is made, it will be considered. Consideration will be given to the priority of upgrading the stock in Brent in comparison with other LEAs, and to ensuring that the proposal is genuinely imaginative and innovative and would create 21st century schools. I have no reason to believe that that is not so. I will speak to my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards about the comments that she has made about the "Building Schools for the Future" programme.
The hon. Lady commented on the area costs weightings, which are complex and technical and a source of contention. We acknowledge that there is a long-standing discrepancy, which is owing to the different origins of pay and funding systems. The pay boundaries date back to the Burnham recommendations, to which the hon. Lady referred. The area cost maps and weightings for schools are determined by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and for colleges and schools by the LSC, through research into costs—most significantly into wage rates in the locality. I accept that that is difficult. The pay arrangements were first developed in the 1960s. Funding arrangements for schools in inner London were set up later on a different geography and to serve different purposes.
School funding has developed to accommodate that partially, but Brent schools remain on the outer-London funding rates. We accept that funding systems need to be updated regularly to respond to local needs, but it is difficult to keep chopping and changing on whether somebody gets an inner or outer-London salary. Local and regional pay discussions, for example, may have a future role in considering any changes, but it has to be acknowledged that that is a long-standing issue and I cannot make any commitments today that those differences will be reconciled. That not to say that I am closing the door, and it does not mean that we will not consider the genuine case that is being made for Brent local authority and others, but I can make no firm commitment today on the changes that the hon. Lady seeks.
In relation to the post-16 sector, the hon. Lady referred to funding affecting the Learning and Skills Council. I accept that there are genuinely serious issues. There were particular problems to do with the College of North West London, to which she directly referred. The LSC has made efforts in its funding allocation to
358WH
provide the College of North West London with additional funding in recognition of the particular problems that the funding system creates.
The LSC is advised on these matters by the national rates advisory group, an independent body whose members include representatives from the learning and skills sector. The group commissioned the research that informed the advice that it gave to the LSC. The LSC accepted that advice and the case for change, and started implementing some of the changes in 2003–04. The NRAG and the LSC have been willing to review those decisions. I understand that the NRAG re-examined the data for Greenwich and decided on reflection to change its recommendation. Unfortunately, it also re-examined the data for Brent and decided to stand by its original advice. The LSC has accepted those recommendations.
It would be very difficult for us to ask the Learning and Skills Council, supported by the advisory group, to consider such situations objectively and reach reasonable conclusions, only for Ministers to intervene and undermine the process. That would be inequitable and undesirable. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to intervene at this stage. However, officials from the Department for Education and Skills, the LSC and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently met as part of the planning for the next review of the LSC's area costs for implementation in 2006. As part of those discussions, we will consider area costs as they affect schools, colleges and providers. As I said, I cannot give the hon. Lady the assurances that she seeks today, but I do not totally close the door on continually monitoring any funding difficulties and funding challenges to ensure that we can create the most sensible and objectively fair system.
The hon. Lady has made representations to the Minister for School Standards about the two faith schools, on which I am sure he will reflect and respond in due course. I am also sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the very generous capital allocations of millions of pounds that the Government have been prepared to make available for each of the two faith schools, thereby demonstrating their commitment to supporting those schools' becoming part of the state sector. I genuinely hope that those schools will be able to enter the state sector as soon as possible. That is consistent with this Government's policy of welcoming faith schools, although it is slightly at odds with the hon. Lady's colleague, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on those matters.
In conclusion, I say again to the hon. Lady that it is perfectly legitimate to make representations on behalf of one's constituents and constituency for a greater share of the cake. It is equally important that the Liberal Democrats say the same things in every setting about finite resources and the fact that we must have credible economic policies, yet they offer no additional resources whatever to schools and colleges as part of their spending plans. I congratulate her on securing the debate. I take seriously some of the issues that she raised, but I am also very proud of the additional sustained investment in education from which the people of Brent have benefited as a direct consequence of having a Labour Government.

Lyons Review
3.59 pm
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: It is a great privilege to be in the Chamber with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Chair. I know that you will keep me in order as the debate unfolds.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about the Lyons review, having been involved for some time in making representations to various Ministers, not least in the Treasury. I shall say more about that later. The review is important to my constituents and to the whole of Ayrshire, which covers five constituencies. They would all benefit greatly from some of the elements in the review. Ayrshire is one of the most beautiful areas in the country, and it has the potential to be one of the most dynamic, which is one reason for my applying for today's debate. I want to show the advantages of the review, and its economic disadvantages.
Not only is Ayrshire a beautiful county: it contains some of the gems of society. It has two championship golf courses, Troon and Turnberry, which will be hosting the Open tournament in July. A course in my constituency known as Dundonald is a potential third course for the Open. Those courses will clearly be an attraction for civil servants. The area also has some of the best transport links: it is served by two airports, at Prestwick and at Glasgow, and in recent months we have seen fairly substantial expenditure on the uprating of the A77, the main arterial road out of Ayrshire.
The economy of Ayrshire is changing, as is the economy of most of the United Kingdom, but without doubt we are seeing a change in the number of jobs affected by tourism. Ayrshire is one of the most attractive areas, and it is attracting tourism.
I said that I would mention the Treasury. First, I thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), for being here, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), with whom I had a fruitful meeting on 3 December. The debate is the follow-up to that meeting. I also thank the many civil servants who have helped me with some of the statistics.
I shall take an overview of some of the statistics of Cunninghame, South and, more generally, of north Ayrshire. The latest statistics are for May 2004. Unemployment in my constituency is the fifth highest in Scotland and the 40th highest in the United Kingdom. The total number of unemployed is 2,047, or 6.6 per cent. of those eligible to work. That is made up of 1,536 males, or 8.7 per cent. of those eligible to work, and 511 females. That is a significant figure; it is one reason why I want the Minister to concentrate her mind on my request. We have analysed the unemployment figure and determined that it is always 1.5 to 2 per cent. higher than the national average. I argue forcefully, as does my local authority, that that is due to the lack of public sector jobs.
Another unwelcome statistic is that income in my constituency is among the lowest in the country. Only 10 per cent. of the population earn less than £11,340 a year; and only 10 per cent. earn more than £507 a week, which is £33,000 a year. The latest blow was the finding by the
360WH
marketing company Axciom that some 15 per cent. of households in Irvine, the main town in my constituency, have a monthly household income of less than £400. That figure was based on an extensive shoppers survey.
I now turn to the Lyons review and the King Sturge report. On the basis of what I have seen, it does not recommend relocation to north Ayrshire, which I argue—and will continue to argue—is an area in greatest need. I am concerned that the idea was not looked at; there was no suggestion that King Sturge should look at it, and it is not in its report. I would argue that that is due to the fact that it was not included in the terms of reference by those who were responsible for instructing King Sturge. That is an oversight that must be corrected.
The remit given to King Sturge for its report suggested that areas—towns—must have a population of 100,000. Since that stipulation was made, quite a bit of flexibility has been shown elsewhere in the country, but none in the west of Scotland. Only six areas in Scotland have beer identified, four of which are cities. Although the report is only advisory, it will have a major impact if Departments come to choose to act on it; otherwise, it could be argued, why have the study? I do not believe for one minute that Departments will look at the 102 sites considered by Sir Michael Lyons and discount them in favour of an area not recommended in this review. That is why I argue forcefully that this debate is very important.
Unemployment is one of the greatest indicators. None of the other areas have anything close to the unemployment rates that I have mentioned. The unemployment rate in Cunninghame, South is 6.6 per cent.: Aberdeen's unemployment rate is 1.6 per cent.; Edinburgh's is 2.5 per cent.; and the Financial Secretary's constituency of Bolton, West, which is one of the 100 recommended areas, has a rate of 1.6 per cent.
We cannot simply look at population size when considering these matters. I call on the Financial Secretary to ask King Sturge to commission a review in north Ayrshire and the surrounding area. North Ayrshire council has produced a report suggesting that there is a way round the issues. I do not want to add to that report, but I know that the Treasury has a copy and that the Financial Secretary has seen it.
Today, my office spoke to Dr. Angus McIntosh of King Sturge. I am informed that such reviews have taken place elsewhe -e for smaller towns—towns with a population of fewer than 100,000—such as Durham, and Carrick in Cornwall. However, no such reviews have been called for in Scotland. I ask that such an instruction now be given.
At 1 April, there was also a disparity in the number of public sector jobs in different parts of Scotland. There are 10,804 public sector jobs in Edinburgh and 8,823 in Glasgow, but in the whole of north Ayrshire, which has two constituencies, there are only 805 such jobs, and in my constituency there are approximately 150. We can therefore see that there is a crying need for public sector jobs, and on the basis of what I have said that need must be addressed.
We have to contend not only with a north-south divide, but with the east-west divide in Scotland, which must be looked at. It is widely accepted in north Ayrshire and elsewhere that civil service jobs have a

361WH
strong beneficial effect on the areas that they go to. North Ayrshire is generally held to be one of the most under-performing areas in the United Kingdom, and all the indicators demonstrate that. Public sector jobs would give an enormous boost to its economy. They create stability in the job market, which the north Ayrshire economy demonstrably lacks. They would bring high wages to an area in which private sector jobs have consistently paid lower wages.
Public sector jobs can also boost are area. They attract industries in a way that nothing else can, as clearly shown by indicators in the economy of north Ayrshire, such as the fact that we do not have a Marks and Spencer. They have them in the east and the south, but there is none in the north. That takes me back to the point about the shoppers survey that showed the obvious deficiencies in north Ayrshire that have to be addressed urgently.
Looking at public sector earnings, one can see that full-time employees on adult rates consistently earn more than those in the private sector. Within that category, the rates are highest in government—
particularly central Government—and public corporations. That is why I have spent some six to nine months forcefully arguing about the Lyons review. Before that, I was making representations to the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments that had indicated that jobs might be dispersed, to ask for those jobs to be sent to Ayrshire, particularly to north Ayrshire.
Given my arguments, I hope that the Financial Secretary will reassure me that north Ayrshire will be considered as part of the Lyons review. If it is not included in the top 100 locations in that review, our unemployment will continue at 1.5 to 2 per cent. above the national average. The Financial Secretary could do something about that at a stroke in her response.
In conclusion, while I understand that relocation is not an exact science, I believe that I have outlined a compelling argument that cannot and should not be ignored. I cannot see—and have not been able to find anybody who can tell me logically—why Aberdeen or Edinburgh should have been chosen to be in the top 100, when there is practically no unemployment there; one could argue that there is none at all in Aberdeen. Those cities might be attractive, but the fact that housing prices in the north-east are far higher than they are in my area is not a great consolation to somebody seeking the redeployment that will result from the transfers. I firmly believe that that should be taken into account by the Lyons review, but from what I have seen, it is not.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree that north Ayrshire should be considered a priority and that all my representations as well as those of my colleagues in Ayrshire will bear fruit. I hope that we can proceed in an atmosphere in which north Ayrshire prospers and, moreover, its prosperity is considered to be one of the jewels in the crown of benefits that we have accrued by having a Labour Government for the past seven years.
4.14 pm
Ruth Kelly: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) about the Lyons review, and to set out the rationale behind it. I
362WH
congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate and on championing the merits of his constituency, north Ayrshire and the rest of Scotland. I note his comments about the beauty of his constituency as well as its economic potential. I know that he has had meetings with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and that my right hon. Friend has listened to his concerns. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the constructiveness of the approach taken by civil servants towards his case.
In his Budget 2004 statement on 17 March, the Chancellor rightly welcomed the Lyons report, which was published two days previously and has since been generally well received across the country. The Government accept that the concentration of activities in London and the south-east has not always represented the best value for money or served the country as well as it could have done. Advances in modern telecommunications and working methods, and the ability to deliver efficient, high-quality and value-for-money public services in different and varied locations, made the Chancellor's and Deputy Prime Minister's request both timely and appropriate. It is not surprising that those technological developments and new working methods have contributed to the possibility of more widely and evenly spread public services. They now provide greater opportunities for many different parts of the UK to contribute to the efficient running of our country.
Sir Michael Lyons's report provides a sound basis for the future dispersal of public sector activity and the creation of a more rational distribution of public sector services outside London. The relocation programme will be an integral part of our overall efficiency agenda, which will be driven forward by the efficiency programme, about which I shall say more in a moment. Sir Michael's recommendations chime well with the Government's commitment to the prosperity and development of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as to the prosperity and development of the regions of England. Once they are implemented, they will strengthen our objective to create a modern, more responsive and regionally based public sector that is closer to the people whom it serves.
The Lyons recommendations provide us with a clear blueprint for achieving the important goals of improved public service delivery, greater efficiency and better value for money for the taxpayer. Sir Michael confirmed that 20,000 posts could be relocated to other parts of the UK as a first tranche. He estimated that more than 2 billion could be saved for the taxpayer over 15 years as a result of dispersing those posts. Those are significant prizes by any standard. We accept that it is our duty to ensure that we win them, and we will.
In his report, Sir Michael recognised that the current pattern of locations of Government business is no longer consistent with the Government's objectives for the regions or the development of regional economies. He acknowledged that London, as a capital, needs a governmental core supporting Ministers in order to set the strategic policy framework, but that the status quo is open to challenge in every other respect. The Government accept that challenge and will work to implement Sir Michael's main recommendations in taking forward our public sector relocation agenda.

363WH
As the Chancellor pointed out in his Budget statement this March, the Government shall respond to those recommendations as part of the forthcoming 2004 spending review. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot say at this stage what our response in the spending review will be to the recommendations, as the review is still being completed. Nevertheless, I will say a few words about certain aspects of the report and about what has been happening since it was published on 15 March.
We fully accept Sir Michael's main recommendation that 20,000 jobs could be relocated from London and the south-east as part of the efficiency agenda. He also made several other important recommendations, including that the Government must be prepared to make the necessary investment in relocation, that departmental headquarters should be slimmed down, and that Departments should implement relocation alongside their efforts to align pay with local conditions. Those important recommendations and themes will very much inform the Government's response to the Lyons report. Indeed, Departments are already addressing those issues as part of their efficiency programmes. In addition, with the advances made in telecommunications and more flexible working patterns, Departments are fully alert to the possibilities of locating services outside London and the south-east in order to take advantage of the often more favourable market conditions elsewhere.
Sir Michael said that there should be a strongly enforced presumption against London and the south-east for new activities such as back-office work and call centres. I assure my hon. Friend that we have already acted in that respect, in that Departments and bodies that are seeking to acquire new properties, to operate lease-backs and to sign or renew property leases in London and the south-east must now consult the Treasury on the appropriateness and cost effectiveness of staying in London in light of the potential opportunities that relocation could provide. That requirement has been in place since September. We also accept the case for a more tightly managed and coordinated approach to the civil estate generally, and we are actively considering how that might be achieved without unduly impairing or interfering with Departments' business needs and priorities.
Sir Michael rightly proposed that there should be continuing political and departmental leadership of the Government's relocation agenda. Their new efficiency programme will take that agenda forward under the leadership of John Oughton. It will also help to integrate relocation into the efficiency programme, assist Departments in realising their relocation plans, and ensure that they are fully co-ordinated with each other, as far as possible.
My hon. Friend raised a specific point about the role of the Treasury in promoting his constituency and Ayrshire. We maintain that it will be for Departments to choose their new locations on the basis of their business needs. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will provide central locational guidance to Departments and organisations that are planning relocation. The guidance will advise them on the factors that they should take into account when considering relocation.
364WH
The ODPM will ills seek to ensure that Departments across Whitehall, and other public bodies, are fully up to date with the various attributes and advantages of particular locations and that they work closely with each other and with local interests where possible. Those responsible for relocating activities will no doubt read the Hansard report of this debate and take into account the particular attributes of my hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. Donohoe: I cannot stress this point enough: unless the area is in the top 100, the chances of any Department of state deciding, on the basis of preference, to relocate to somewhere such as Ayrshire is lessened. That is the very nub of my argument.
Ruth Kelly: Let me turn directly to the King Sturge report on the assessment of locations, which accompanied the Lyons report recommendations. Sir Michael commissioned independent research into possible sites for relocated activity, which was carried out by the property consultants, King Sturge. As my hon. Friend pointed out, King Sturge limited its assessment to towns and cities with populations of 100,000 or more, in order to limit the size of the sample. I emphasise that that list was not intended to be exhaustive, and it certainly was not intended to be prescriptive. I assure him that Departments will be expected to consider the widest possible range of locations.
Mr. Donohoe: There have been changes since that specification was included in the consultants' terms of reference. As I understand it, the list now includes Carrick in Cornwall, whereas it did not before.
Ruth Kelly: What more can be said about departmental plans will be set out in the spending review, which will shortly be announced. Clearly, I cannot add any more about which locations will feature in the departmental spending plans, but I can say that the King Sturge list was purely illustrative, and was not intended to underlie the business cases of individual Departments.
Mr. Donohoe: Does the Minister concede that, regardless of its position, a location that is not on the list is at a disadvantage to those that are, as they can pursue work with vigour, and that there are advantages to being on the list?
Ruth Kelly: I do not accept that it is intended to be a definitive guide for Departments. However, they may subtly choose to relocate activity to areas that do not meet the 100,000 population mark that was examined in the King Sturge report, which was independent. Indeed, when he commissioned that independent research, Sir Michael Lyons had no control over what King Sturge subsequently did with its report.
Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister concede that in the original report the towns had to have populations of 100,000 or more, that there have been changes subsequently?
Ruth Kelly: I certainly accept that King Sturge, which was commissioned to carry out the independent

365WH
research, selected a minimum population size of 100,000. Naturally, it wanted to control the amount of work to be carried out in response to the Lyons request. However, as I hope I have made clear to my hon. Friend, that was purely to illustrate the fact that there could be locations outside London and the south-east that would be attractive to Departments. However, it is not for Departments to base their business plans on the King Sturge report; they have to make an underlying business proposal, which will inform spending review announcements. Of course it is for them to consider all possible locations. My hon. Friend makes his case eloquently, and I am sure that they will take notice of what he says in forming their plans.
The relocation of activities is firmly on the Government's efficiency agenda. As I have said, during the spending review, Departments will come forward with plans to move activities and functions out of London and the south-east. The Government support Sir Michael Lyons's recommendation that relocation should be mainstreamed as part of Departments' normal business planning, and they are considering ways to ensure that that happens. As the Lyons review made clear, central co-ordination is also important, to ensure that Departments and organisations do not operate in their own silos, but work together to the benefit of the public good.
Although at the end of the day the Departments will make the final decisions on what activities should move and where, we shall put in place mechanisms to ensure that they implement their relocation plans in a coordinated way that is fully consistent with their efficiency programmes and with the best outcome for the public and taxpayers.
As I have made clear to my hon. Friend, the relocation decisions are not just about England, but about Scotland. He underlines the fact that Ayrshire unemployment levels remain above chose of the south-
366WH
east of England, and are among the highest in the United Kingdom. Unemployment will obviously be one factor taken into account when the decisions are made.
Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister concede that that will be the major issue? If anything is to be done to change what has been a trend for a great number of years, it would be common sense to make that a major factor in considering the reallocation of jobs. I am talking about the areas in which it has been clearly identified that unemployment is 1.5 to 2 per cent. above the national average.
Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. However, it would clearly be for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to outline the guidance that should apply, and for Departments to make a business case for moving jobs outside London and the south-east. We firmly believe that efficiency gains could accrue to Departments by relocating jobs, and clearly unemployment will be one factor that they will take into account. It will inform the business case that they make—for example, how it might affect recruitment and retention levels in the area.
My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot give any commitments in an Adjournment debate shortly before the spending review in which some of the proposals will be examined in more detail. I am sure that he will accept that in his constituency the unemployment count has fallen by about 30 per cent. since 1997. We both share the objective of making sure that that continues in future.
We are at the beginning of a major relocation programme, and Departments have been asked to consider as wide a range of destinations as possible to establish what workforce skills, accommodation and communication are available.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chamber congratulates the Financial Secretary on her reply and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South on his persistence.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Electoral Fraud
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission how many allegations of electoral fraud in the elections on 10 June have been notified to the Electoral Commission. [179225]

  Mr. Viggers
  The investigation and prosecution of allegations of electoral fraud are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and these are not required to be notified to the Electoral Commission. However, I understand that the Commission is aware of a number of such allegations, and will be liaising with the Crown Prosecution Service to obtain details of all allegations of electoral fraud reported to the Service in the four regions where all-postal pilots were held, as part of its statutory evaluation of those pilots. The Commission will also examine issues of electoral fraud in its wider statutory report on the administration of the European parliamentary elections.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Environment
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to meet the requirement in Article 6.1( b) of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in relation to decisions on proposed activities which may have a significant effect on the environment; and if she will make a statement. [179556]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 June 2004]: Appropriate steps have already been taken. The obligations under Article 6.1 of the Aarhus Convention primarily concern activities in relation to which environmental impact assessment may be required. At EC level, environmental impact assessment is governed by Directive 85/337/EC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, which has been implemented in the UK by a number of statutory instruments. The criteria, thresholds and procedures for such activities are set out in legislation and explained in guidance published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister ("Environmental Impact Assessment: Guide to Procedures").

  Directive 2003/35/EC made further provision for alignment between the Convention and Community law in relation to public participation and access to justice, in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment. The
  1288W
  Government will take all steps necessary to ensure transposition of this Directive into UK law by the required date of 25 June 2005.

  Radon Gas
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what surveys she has undertaken to investigate radon in homes in Cornwall; and what those surveys have concluded. [179462]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 June 2004]:Since 1987 successive Governments have run radon measurement programmes to identify the extent of the radon problem in the UK. Initially, these focused on areas of England such as Cornwall, Devon and Somerset where dwellings were most likely to be at risk from the naturally occurring radioactive gas. By 1998, every home in England with a greater than 5 per cent. probability of radon levels being at or above the National Radiological Protection Board's (NRPB) recommended radon 'Action Level' (200 becquerels per cubic metre of air By m-3) had been offered a free radon test. In accordance with NRPB's recommendation, we advise that remedial action is taken to reduce radon levels in any home at or above the Action Level.

  The measurement campaigns have revealed and confirmed that Cornwall is an area that is significantly affected by radon. Data published in the NRPB's "Radon Atlas of England and Wales" (NRPB-W26) in December 2002 showed that 97 per cent. of dwellings in Cornwall are likely to be in radon-affect areas. Of the 220, 500 homes in the county, some 67,640 had been measured, mostly from Government-funded tests. Nearly 16,000 homes had been found to have radon concentrations at or above the Action Level. At that time, the highest level recorded in the UK of 10,000 Bq m-3 had been found in the district of Kerrier. It is estimated that up to 41,000 dwellings in Cornwall may have radon levels exceeding the Action Level.

  Defra's latest programme continues to offer free radon measurements to the most at risk households in England. However, the initiative places greater emphasis on helping home owners to take action to reduce radon levels in their homes. This is being achieved in partnership with 27 local authorities who joined the initiative when it commenced in July 2000. In Cornwall, we started work with Kerrier district council at the end of 2003 to roll out a programme of action designed to raise awareness and promote radon remediation in the community. This has included over 31,000 invitations sent to householders offering free tests and retests (upon completion of satisfactory remedial work); and workshops providing information and advice on remediation for those householders recommended to take action to reduce radon levels in their homes.

  Over 11,000 householders have accepted the offer and to date results from around 4,000 measurements are available. Some of the results reveal particularly high radon levels, and measurements taken in three dwellings are well above the previously highest recorded level of 10,000 Bq m-3 Kerrier district council, together with NRPB and the Building Research Establishment (BRE), are providing the support to the occupants

  1289W
  of these dwellings that is available under Defra's programme, to enable prompt remedial action to be taken to reduce the risk to their health.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the then Under-Secretary of State's letter 167650/MM of 26 June 2002, what the latest evaluation is of the work done to establish the relationship between badgers and bovine TB; and if she will make a statement. [177891]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) carried out an interim analysis of Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT) data collected up to the end of August 2003. The analysis revealed that there was an increased risk of TB breakdowns in cattle herds occurring in trial areas where "reactive" culling had taken place, compared to the related "survey only" (control) areas1.

  As a result of this finding, Ministers suspended culling operations in the "reactive" treatment areas of the RBCT from November 2003, because to continue would have meant the unnecessary culling of badgers, leading to an increased risk of TB in cattle herds. Such reactive culling has effectively been ruled out as a TB control option.

  Culling operations continue in "proactive" treatment areas, where more widespread and repeated trapping takes place. The ISG has given assurances that Ministers will be informed as soon as the data yield a scientifically significant result. The ISG estimate that the RBCT will be completed in 2006.

  On 6 April, a report was published from an Independent Review Panel, which reviewed the progress of the RBCT and associated research, as part of a wider review of Defra's science. The ISG do not agree with all aspects of this report, and Ministers are considering its recommendations, particularly where the ISG does not concur.
  1 The increase, compared to survey-only areas, was estimated to be 27 per cent. with 95 per cent. confidence that the increase lies between 4.8 per cent. and 53 per cent. A more conservative analysis would give would give confidence limits of between a 2.4 per cent. decrease and 65 per cent. increase. The ISG's most recent analysis of data collected to mid-February indicated an increase of 28 per cent. with confidence limits of between 1.1 per cent. and 62 per cent. using the wider confidence limits recommended by the Independent Review Panel.

  Departmental Administration Budget
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) staffing and (b) staff costs for her core Department, excluding executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies are for 2004–05, in respect of (i) the environment protection strategy, (ii) environment quality and waste, (iii) climate, energy and environmental risk, (iv) water, (v) European Union and international policy, (vi) economics and statistics, (vii) food industry and crops, (viii) sustainable agriculture and livestock products, (ix) fisheries, (x) land management and rural development, (xi) the rural delivery review, (xii) wildlife, countryside, land use and better regulation, (xiii) Haskins policy
  1290W
  implementation, (xiv) rural policy, (xv) Government Offices of the Regions, (xvi) veterinary, (xvii) Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy and zoonoses, (xviii) animal health and welfare planning, (xix) animal health, (xx) policy and corporate strategy, (xxi) finance, planning and resources, (xxii) delivery strategy, (xxiii) the State Veterinary Service, (xxiv) e-Business, (xxv) e-enabling DEFRA programme, (xxvi) communications, (xxvii) corporate services, (xxviii) the Rural Development Service, (xxix) the Science Directorate, (xxx) Legal Directorate A and (xxxi) Legal Directorate B. [176406]

  Alun Michael
  The following table shows the number of staff in full-time equivalents as at 1 April 2004 and the expected staff costs for 2004–05 for each current Defra directorate. This list differs slightly from the information requested due to recent organisational changes in the Department.

  Directorate

  Staff numbers (FTE)

  Staff costs (£000)

  Environmental Protection Strategy

  134.80

  6.734

  Environment Quality and Waste

  126.25

  6,961

  Climate, Energy and Environmental Risk

  142.60

  6,615

  Water

  196.37

  8,346

  EU and International Policy

  45.00

  2,078

  Economics and Statistics

  165.51

  6,365

  Food Industry and Crops

  344.39

  11,964

  Sustainable Agriculture and Livestock Products

  123.10

  4,365

  Fisheries

  196.67

  3,400

  Land Management and Rural Development

  161.58

  5,250

  Wildlife, Countryside, Land Use and Better Regulation

  195.33

  7,876

  Rural Economies and Communities

  61.72

  4,002

  Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer

  320.36

  11,387

  TSE and Zoonoses Directorate

  115.25

  4,385

  Animal Health and Welfare DG

  62.24

  1,480

  Animal Health

  178.54

  5,706

  Policy and Corporate Strategy Unit

  79.63

  1,528

  Finance, Planning and Resources

  256.88

  9,649

  State Veterinary Service

  1,218.73

  41,155

  e-Business Directorate

  292.01

  15.096

  Communications

  86.80

  3,716

  Corporate Services and Secretariat

  596.15

  18,815

  Rural Development Service

  1,372.50

  40,189

  Science

  54.53

  2,613

  Legal Services

  157.64

  8,600

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who provides a fallen stock service free of charge to the farming industry. [176781]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  One would normally expect those providing such a service to make a charge. However, there may be examples where charges are waived or are negligible for certain types of livestock and where farmers and those providing the service have other informal arrangements, e.g. some hunt kennels may collect calves at no cost in return for farmers allowing hunts to use their land.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to(a) farmers and (b) the Government are of the fallen stock disposal scheme; whether the deadline for the scheme has been met; and if she will make a statement. [179596]
  1291W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]: The cost to farmers will be a small annual subscription fee to cover administration costs, likely to be around £25 in the first year, and thereafter will depend on their usage of the Scheme. The Government, including devolved administrations has said it will put £20 million into the Scheme over its first three years. The Scheme is scheduled to start in the autumn of this year.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for the pre-testing of fallen stock; and if she will make a statement. [179597]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to plans for testing of fallen stock that enter the proposed National Fallen Stock Scheme in which case the government has no plans to do so. There are already arrangements in place for testing for TSEs in fallen cattle and sheep.

  Fish Stocks
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the impact on fish stocks of the rise in sea water temperature; and if she will make a statement. [179404]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Changes in sea temperature could potentially affect stock distribution spawning, migratory patterns and survival of very young fish but the effect of long term temperature trends on fish stocks is not easy to predict. Defra has commissioned a range of science to improve our understanding of the processes and predictions. Our monitoring of sea fish stocks allows for an appropriate management response as we begin to observe changes. Fishing rates on many stocks remains high, and if those stocks are also under pressure due to ecosystem change, then this reinforces the need for effective fisheries management.

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 24 May; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [176229]

  Margaret Beckett
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I represented the United Kingdom at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 24 May 2004.

  The first agenda item, held as a public debate, was the Council Decision for the establishment of Regional Advisory Councils (RACs). RACs will enable the fishing industry and other stakeholders to have an input in the Common Fisheries Policy management process. The Council Decision provides the basic principles and guidelines for setting up RACs, and should enable interested parties to take forward their proposals quickly. We in common with most other member states stressed the importance of RACs as a key part of CFP reform, marking a step change towards more inclusive and regionally-focused fisheries management. There was unanimous support for the Decision, which incorporated important amendments on transparency,
  1292W
  increased Community funding for RACs and provision for a seventh RAC to cover stakeholder interests in non-EC waters. The other six RACs will cover the North Sea, Mediterranean, Baltic, South Western Waters, North Western Waters and the pelagic fishery (species such as herring and mackerel).

  We explained to colleagues in the Council that the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit had recently published a report of recommendations for a sustainable and profitable UK fishing industry. We noted that the report was relevant at EU level, and indicated that we were looking to engage with colleagues on these issues.

  The Council agreed a number of changes to the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) to make funding available at the discretion of member states: for the implementation of the strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture (part of CFP reform); to increase support to those in the catching sector subject to stock recovery plans, and to support the fitting of acoustic devices (pingers) on fishing nets to reduce by-catches of small cetaceans.

  The Council received a report from Commissioner Fischler on developments in the Doha Development Agenda negotiations following the recent Lamy-Fischler letter to WTO Trade Ministers amplifying the EU's negotiating position, and on the negotiations on a possible EU-Mercosur free trade agreement. A number of Ministers stressed the importance of the Commission playing its hand carefully in these talks, avoiding the risk of giving concessions that were unreciprocated. I and several other colleagues endorsed the Commission's negotiating strategy and emphasised the importance of securing a framework DDA agreement before the summer break if at all possible.

  Slaughter (Regulation)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the regulation of animal slaughter in respect of(a) Halal and (b) Shechita practices in order to improve animal welfare. [179451]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our draft response to the 94 recommendations in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of red meat animals at slaughter was issued for public consultation on 1 April. We will carefully consider all the comments received before issuing our formal response. This will include our response to the recommendation on slaughter without prior stunning.

TREASURY

  Civil Service Relocation
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants and what percentage of the total Civil Service workforce in his Department will be relocated over the next five years(a) outside the M25, (b) to the West Midlands and (c) to Staffordshire. [180171]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Lyons report gives details of Department's relocation plans, which are being taken forward and refined as part of the Spending Review. The
  1293W
  Government will announce proposals for implementing and monitoring the dispersal plans in the review. It will be for departments themselves to determine their own dispersal strategies in the light of their particular business needs and priorities.

  Corporate Taxation
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the potential impact on UK corporate taxation of European Court of Justice decisions relating to the profits and losses of UK companies operating in other EU countries. [179403]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government closely monitors all cases referred to the ECJ that might affect the UK taxation of corporate profits. Where decisions have affected the UK position, the Government have always taken swift action to address the issues and will do so in the future.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will establish(a) new performance indicators and (b) a table of performance rankings for (i) Departments and (ii) Ministers. [179605]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. Spending Review 2002 set Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets for all main Departments, which set out the key performance priorities for each area of Government. Ministers are publicly accountable for the delivery of PSAs, and Departments report progress on PSAs regularly. However, the measures in PSAs are specific to each policy area, and as such are not comparable between Departments.

  Tax Credits
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons for the methods of payment of back payments for(a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit. [179774]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Payment of any tax credits arrears is made direct into bank, building society or Post Office card accounts—or, where that is not possible, by cheque.

  This minimises delay and follows the normal method of payment of awards for child tax credit and the child care element of working tax credit. Paying direct into accounts assures a safe, modern and efficient way of paying tax credits that meets people's needs. Where account details have not yet been provided to the Inland Revenue—perhaps while an account is still being set up—payments are initially made by cheque to help minimise any delay.

  Currently the non child care elements of working tax credit are paid indirectly by employers alongside wages, wherever possible; although, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget, the Government are currently consulting with a view to moving to direct payment.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many awards of child tax credit in respect of 2003–04 have(a) been finalised and (b) not yet been finalised. [172898]
  1294W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on 19 November 2003,Official Report, columns 1099–1100W.

  Third-world Debt
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking towards the cancellation of debt in the world's poorest countries.[179524]

  John Healey
  The UK is fully committed to the cancellation of debt in the world's poorest countries through the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative.

  The UK has provided commitments of £2.3 billion of debt relief to eligible countries and has pledged a total of US$474 million through multilateral institutions to provide further support for debt relief to the world's poorest countries. The UK goes even further than is required under the HIPC Initiative, and is committed to providing 100 per cent. debt relief to eligible HIPC countries.

  The HIPC Initiative is delivering real benefits to participating countries. Debt relief of over $70 billion has already been agreed for 27 countries under the Initiative. Total social spending has increased by around $4 billion since 1999—equivalent to 2.7 per cent. of GDP.

  However, the Government also recognises that we need to do more if we are to deliver a long-term exit from unsustainable debt for HIPCs. Last week, G8 Heads of State discussed proposals to enhance debt relief for the world's poorest countries. The UK successfully pushed for the extension of the HIPC Initiative by another two years, potentially allowing 10 more countries to benefit from debt relief in excess of $30 billion.

  Heads of State also tasked Finance Ministers to consider further both reforms to the HIPC Initiative, and new and innovative mechanisms to deliver a longterm exit from unsustainable debt for the world's poorest countries. The UK will push for the granting of additional assistance (topping up) for all countries whose debt profiles have worsened after Decision Point as a result of factors beyond their control. We will also continue to press for additional bilateral assistance to be excluded from the calculation of this topping-up assistance at Completion Point, to ensure that every dollar benefits the recipient. The UK will also seek a firm commitment on financing the G7's share of costs for the HIPC Trust Fund, which we estimate at up to $1 billion.

  Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will made adequate resources available for a programme fully to meet the requirements of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. [179294]

  John Healey
  The Government is committed to reaching the targets in our Fuel Poverty Strategy. Decisions on future programmes and Government spending to meet these targets are currently being taken in the context of this year's Spending Review.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women when the Women and Equality Unit will publish the full findings of the investigation into economic and social costs of domestic violence. [178816]

  Ms Hewitt
  Interim findings relating to the homicide of women were published in 2002. These showed that the cost of each female domestic homicide in England and Wales was £1.1 million. Additional interim findings can be found at http ://www.womenandequalityunit. gov.uk

  The methodology used is based on the new Home Office framework for costing crime. The data are drawn from the Inter-personal Violence (IPV) module of the British Crime Survey 2001. The research on the economic costs of domestic violence will be published after the publication of "Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey".

PRIME MINISTER

  Environmental Objectives
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the environmental objectives he has set for the UK, in terms of tackling climate change, for the UK presidencies of(a) the EU and (b) the G8. [179976]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK wishes to see new momentum injected into international dialogue on climate change and this will be a priority for the Government in 2005.

  The European Spring Council in 2005 is due to consider medium and long-term European targets and strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The UK will play an active role in driving this forward and ensuring that the EU is in a strong position to play a constructive role in the international climate change negotiations in November 2005.

  Under our Presidency of the G8 in 2005, climate change, along with Africa, will be our top priorities. The Government aims, in particular, to advance work on the development and uptake of cleaner energy technologies, building on the Action Plan agreed by Heads of Government in Evian in June 2003.

DEFENCE

  UN Operations
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations the Government have received since May 2003 from Amnesty International in respect of the shooting of or other injuries to Iraqi civilians. [173343]
  1296W
  Mr. Ingram
  I am aware of four reports from Amnesty International since May 2003 which refer to the shooting of or other injuries to Iraqi civilians. These are:"Preliminary findings by Amnesty International alleging abuses at the hands of United Kingdom military personnel in Iraq" dated 29 May 2003;
  "Memorandum on concerns relating to law and order" dated 23 July 2003;
  "One Year on the human rights situation remains dire" dated 18 March 2004; and
  "Killings of civilians in Basra and al-Amara" dated 11 May 2004.

  Additionally, Amnesty wrote to the Prime Minister on 14 May 2004 with allegations concerning a further two incidents not covered by previous reports.

  We receive a number of communications from Amnesty International regarding Iraq, including letters from different officers and officials, and letters received as a result of Amnesty campaigns and reports.

  In addition, with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I met with officials of Amnesty International on 14 June.

  I will be providing a comprehensive response to the key issues raised by Amnesty International involving UK armed forces, as soon as the allegations have been fully researched. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) ships, (b) Royal Marines and (c) Royal Air Force aircraft will take part in the 300th anniversary celebrations of British sovereignty of Gibraltar; and what role they will play; [179284]

  (2) what types of (a) ships and (b) aircraft will take part in the 300th anniversary celebrations of British sovereignty of Gibraltar. [179346]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans, one Frigate and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships are visiting Gibraltar in a ceremonial role as part of the tercentenary commemorations. 10 aircraft in all, comprising Pumas, C130 Hercules, Falcons and Hawks are visiting Gibraltar in the course of this year either to conduct a ceremonial flypast or for the Gibraltar Battle of Britain Open Day.

  40 Royal Marines attended the recent Queen's Birthday Parade. 30 Royal Marines and 35 bandsmen from the Scottish Band of Royal Marines are currently planned to attend the Royal Navy Freedom of the City of Gibraltar on 4 August.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships have called at Gibraltar since 1 May, broken down by type. [179290]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been four visits by Royal Navy ships to Gibraltar since 1 May 2004 up until 16 June 2004 comprising two Type 42 Destroyers and two Fleet Submarines (SSNs).

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) Royal Navy ships that call at Gibraltar may then call at Spain and (b) Royal Navy ships that call at

  1297W
  Spain may then call at Gibraltar; and whether Royal Navy aircraft may fly over Spain and land at Royal Air Force base Gibraltar. [179352]

  Mr. Ingram
  NATO Standardisation Agreement (STANAG) 1100, sets out the procedures for visits to NATO and non-NATO ports by naval ships of NATO nations. This Agreement contains a reservation, inserted by the previous Spanish Government, which prevents visits by NATO ships to or from Gibraltar directly from or to Spanish ports

  Any request to overfly Spanish airspace by military aircraft from NATO (or other) nations, which has Gibraltar as a departure or arrival airfield, is routinely denied by the Spanish authorities.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission a Gibraltar service medal to commemorate the 300 years of British Gibraltar, to be given to armed forces personnel who have served in Gibraltar. [179555]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not the practice in this country to institute commemorative medals other to recognise The Sovereign's Coronation and Jubilees. The Government acknowledges the forthcoming 300th anniversary of the capture of Gibraltar by British forces in 1704, but there are no plans to mark the occasion with the institution of a medal.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will instruct his Department and other relevant Government Departments to offer support and cooperation to the Royal British Legion's inquiry into illnesses suffered by UK troops who served in the 1991 Gulf War. [179292]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 17 June 2004]: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the investigation that the right hon. Lord Morris of Manchester has announced he is setting up under the chairmanship of the right hon. Lord Lloyd of Berwick. At this stage we have insufficient detail about the investigation to form a decision about the approach the Ministry of Defence might take.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his written statement of 8 June 2004,Official Report, columns 4–5WS, on Iraq, what the (a) names of the individuals and (b) dates of the incidents concerned are in the new investigations into deaths in Iraq started since 4 May. [179035]

  Mr. Ingram
  Of the new investigations started since 4 May, five relate to incidents where it was reported that Iraqi civilians probably died. These incidents occurred on 3, 8 (two incidents), 10 and 14 May 2004. All these incidents occurred when UK soldiers were attacked and returned fire. It has not yet been possible to ascertain the identities of those believed killed or to confirm the numbers of dead owing to the situation on the ground.

  Memorial Services (Sponsorship)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) in what years his Department proposes 1298W
  to discontinue official sponsorship or support for memorial services for veterans of (a) the Battle of Britain, (b) the Battle of the Atlantic and (c) other notable engagements of United Kingdom forces in the Second World War, [177950]

  (2) for what reason memorial services for veterans of some notable engagements of United Kingdom forces in the Second World War are being sponsored or supported for longer periods after the event concerned than others. [177951]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence will work with organisers and veterans with a view to providing representation at commemorative services for as long as they themselves request such participation.

  There are no plans to discontinue official support, other than as a result of the above process.

  Race Hate Literature
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has taken to prohibit the possession and distribution of race hate literature in the armed services; and under what regulations disciplinary action may be taken against(a) a commissioned officer and (b) a non-commissioned officer if found in possession of such materials on army facilities. [179120]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces demand high standards of conduct from all personnel and do not tolerate harassment, discrimination or bullying in any form. Policies, practices and procedures within the framework of the law exist to combat unacceptable behaviour. All complaints are taken seriously, investigated thoroughly and, in cases where discrimination or harassment is proven, dealt with robustly.

  Any service person suspected of having committed a criminal offence under the Public Order Act 1986 or a military offence as a result of being found in possession of racially inflammatory material may be charged under the appropriate section of the Service Discipline Acts or subject to administrative action in accordance with service regulations.

  SABR Helicopter Project
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what formal linkage there is between jobs in the UK defence industry and the SABR helicopter project. [179254]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no formal linkage between United Kingdom jobs and the Support, Amphibious and Battlefield Rotorcraft (SABR) helicopter project. The SABR project could offer an excellent opportunity for UK industry to secure future business and, in line with the Defence Industrial Policy, the benefit to the UK economy will be taken into account in determining our procurement strategy.

  Saudi Arabia
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 24 May 2004,Official Report, column 1346W, on Al-Yamamah contracts,

  1299W
  what the name was of the successor to the Al-Yamamah project within the Royal Saudi Air Force to whom he was introduced. [178757]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is confidential between the two Governments, and I am therefore withholding it under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Spanish Ports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy ships have called at Spanish ports since 1 May, broken down by type.[179291]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been seven visits by Royal Navy ships to Spanish ports since 1 May 2004 until 2004 until 16 June 2004 comprising one Type 22 Frigate, two Type 23 Frigates, three Type 42 Destroyers and one Hunt Class Mine Countermeasure Vessel (MCMV).

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Gaelic (Broadcasting)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to promote Gaelic television and radio broadcasts. [179466]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government are keen to see a better deal for the future of Gaelic broadcasting, and will ensure that this informs discussions on the BBC Charter Review and the future of digital broadcasting more widely. We will co-ordinate fully with Scottish Ministers, given their responsibility for funding the Gaelic Media Service.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many hours of Gaelic programmes were broadcast by(a) BBC1 Scotland, (b) BBC2 and (c) Radio Scotland in each of the last three years. [179467]

  Estelle Morris
  The number of hours of Gaelic programmes broadcast per year is shown in the table.

  Number of hours

  BBC1 Scotland

  2001–02

  62.34

  2002–03

  22.67

  2003–04

  0.00

  BBC2

  2001–02

  86.32

  2002–03

  116.20

  2003–04

  162.48

  Radio nan Gaidheal1

  2001–02

  2,496.46

  2002–03

  3,042,64

  2003–04

  3,300.6

  1 No Gaelic programmes were broadcast on Radio Scotland

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many hours of Gaelic children's programmes were broadcast on television channels in each of the last three years. [179468]
  1300W
  Estelle Morris
  The number of hours of Gaelic children's programmes broadcast on television in the last three years is shown in the table:

  Number of hours

  Scottish and Grampian TV

  2001

  13

  2002

  13

  2003

  7

  BBC

  2001–02

  63.5

  2002–03

  65.03

  2003–04

  79.4

  TeleG

  2001

  64

  2002

  65

  2003

  103

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received from Gaelic groups concerning Gaelic television and radio broadcasting. [179469]

  Estelle Morris
  This year the Department has received a representation from the Celtic Film and Television Festival concerning Gaelic television and radio broadcasting. In addition, the Minister for Media and Heritage recently met with the Chairman of the Gaelic Media Service.

  We also received four responses from Gaelic groups to the BBC Charter Review consultation.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money the New Opportunities Fund was allocated in 2003–04; and whether any of this money has not been committed. [179942]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund receives one third of money raised by the National Lottery, and distributes it to projects benefiting health, education and the environment. It also receives interest on money raised for the Fund, until it is passed on to project operators.

  In the financial year 2003–04, the Fund received £432,951,952.49 from the Lottery and £24,571,088.29 in interest.

  At the end of the year, the Fund held a total balance of £737,229,804 and had outstanding commitments of £1,144 billion. The Fund was therefore over-committed by £407 million, or 55.2 per cent.

WALES

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many /,(a) hunt kennels, (b) knacker's yards and (c) renderers are approved under the EU Animal By-products Regulation to collect and process fallen stock in each county in Wales. [176779]
  1301W
  Mr. Touhig
  The figures in the following table show the number of hunting kennels and knacker's yards approved under the Animal By-products (Wales) Regulations 2003.

  The National Assembly for Wales currently have three applications for rendering plants. These plants (if approved) will not process fallen stock.

  County

  Knacker's yards

  Hunt kennels1

  Blaenau Gwent

  0

  0

  Bridgend

  0

  2

  Caerphilly

  0

  0

  Cardiff

  0

  1

  Carmarthenshire

  1

  5

  Ceredigion

  1

  2

  Conwy

  0

  0

  Denbighshire

  0

  1

  Flintshire

  0

  0

  Gwynedd

  1

  3

  Merthyr Tydfil

  0

  1

  Monmouthshire

  0

  2

  Neath Port Talbot

  0

  1

  Newport

  1

  0

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  0

  Powys

  1

  2

  Rhonnda Cynon Taff

  0

  0

  Swansea

  0

  0

  Torfaen

  0

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  0

  0

  Wrexham

  1

  0

  Ynys Mon

  0

  0

  1 Hunt kennels that accept fallen stock.

  Source:

  Statistics provided by the National Assembly for Wales.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Solicitors
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General which solicitors do pro bono work in Leyton and Wanstead; how much they did in 2003; what it covered; and if she will make a statement. [179335]

  The Solicitor-General
  Details of which solicitors do pro bono work in Leyton and Wanstead can be found on the national pro bono website, www.probonouk.net, using the postcode locator facility. At present, the website does not provide information on how much pro bono work is undertaken by solicitors or what areas are covered.

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Bodies
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to make public bodies more representative of the community. [179606]

  Mr. Alexander
  The 2003 publication "Delivering Diversity in Public Appointments" outlines the action being taken by each department to increase diversisty on the boards of their public bodies and the targets they have set for 2006.

  Regulations (Reduction)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress he has made in reducing regulation across Government. [179607]

  Mr. Alexander
  Progress in reducing regulation includes delivering over 300 of the measures in the Government's Regulatory Reform Action Plan, published in December 2003. Recent surveys by the World Bank, OECD and others show regulatory burdens in the UK to be among the lowest in the industrialised world.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were prosecuted for fraudulent benefit claims in each year since 1997. [179437]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1588W.

  Benefits (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were claiming(a) working age benefits and (b) benefits in addition to the state pension in the Battersea constituency in each year since 1997. [178675]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the tables.

  Number of people claiming working age benefits in Battersea

  Thousand

  As at November

  Income support

  Jobseeker's allowance

  Incapacity benefit

  1997

  7.6

  3.1

  2.7

  1998

  7.2

  2.6

  2.7

  1999

  7.1

  2.1

  2.8

  2000

  6.9

  1.9

  2.7

  2001

  6.5

  2.1

  2.5

  2002

  6.5

  2.1

  2.6

  2003

  3.7

  2.2

  2.6

  Number of people receiving benefits in addition to state pension in Battersea

  Thousand

  As at November

  State pension with minimum income guarantee

  State pension with pension credit

  1999

  1.2

  —

  2000

  1.3

  —

  2001

  1.3

  —

  2002

  1.3

  —

  2003

  —

  1.4

  Notes

  1. Prior to 1999, a split by parliamentary constituency for state pension is not available.

  2. Income support (IS), incapacity benefit and state pension (SP) figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to sampling variation. JSA is based on 100 per cent. count.

  1303W
  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  4. JSA claimants includes income-based JSA, contribution-based JSA claimants and those persons not receiving benefit but signing for national insurance credits only.

  5. Income support parliamentary constituencies are allocated by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory, and represent constituency boundaries as at May 1997.

  6. November 2003 IS figures are affected by the introduction of pension credit (PC), which replaced MIG on 6 October 2003.

  7. The number of people receiving housing benefit and/or council tax benefit in addition to the state pension is not available below a national level.

  Sources:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample.

  100 per cent. count of Jobcentre Plus computer systems for jobseeker's allowance (JSA).

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints from Child Support Agency users were received in each year since the establishment of the Agency. [177971]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: 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 Doug Smith to Mr. Frank Field, dated 22 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.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many complaints from Child Support Agency users were received in each year since the establishment of the Agency.

  The figures you requested are summarised in the following table:

  Total written complaints

  1996–97

  23,588

  1997–98

  27,875

  1998–99

  28,073

  1999–2000

  21,015

  2000–01

  19,634

  2001–02

  27,735

  2002–03

  21,734

  From April 2003 we changed our complaints handling processes. This has ensured the more accurate recording of complaints and in particular count, for the first time, telephone complaints. In 2003–04 we received a total of 49,215 complaints.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in how many Child Support Agency cases where money has been collected from the absent parent money(a) has not been paid over to the parent with care and (b) has been paid back in error to the absent parent. [177972]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: 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 Doug Smith to Mr. Frank Field, dated 22 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.
  1304W
  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in how many Child Support Agency cases where money has been collected from the absent parent money (a) has not been paid over to the parent with care and (b) has been paid back by accident to the absent parent.

  I do not have the information that you seek. However, I can say that in the period 3 March 2003 to 29 April 2004, nearly 600,000 payments were made automatically by the new computer system to parents with care. In the same period 3,544 payments were made manually because of system difficulties.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Child Support Agency cases there are in which the non-resident parent is in receipt of the child tax credit element of the new tax credit which cannot be progressed to a decision; and if he will make a statement. [177973]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: 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 Doug Smith to Mr. Frank Field, dated 22 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.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many Child Support Agency cases there are in which the non-resident parent is in receipt of the child tax credit element of the new tax credit which cannot be progressed to a decision; and if he will make a statement.

  I regret to say that the Agency does not have the information that you seek.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases the Child Support Agency has on its files that were enrolled(a) under the old rules and for which the old system operates, (b) under the old rules and for which the new system should operate and (c) under the new rules to which the new system applies. [177975]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: 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 Doug Smith to Mr. Frank Field, dated 22 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.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many cases the Child Support Agency has on its files that were enrolled (a) under the old rules and for whom the old system operates, (b) under the old rules and for whom the new system should operate and (c) under the new rules to whom the new system applies.

  We do not have the information in the format that you require. However, I can tell you that around 1.3 million cases are currently being dealt with by the Child Support Agency. Of these cases over 425,000 have been registered on the new computer system; approximately 235,000 of these cases are being dealt with under the new legislation and 190,000 under the old legislation. In addition 890,800 are currently old scheme cases on the old computer system.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many compensatory or special payments have been made by the Child Support Agency in each of
  1305W
  the last five years; what the total value of these payments was in each of the last five years; and what proportion of these (a) have been and (b) will be reclaimed from companies providing services or support to the CSA where a problem with the services or support necessitated the compensatory or special payment. [178602]

  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 Doug Smith to Mr. Bill Tynan, dated 22 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.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many compensatory or special payments have been made by the Child Support Agency in each of the last five years; what the total value of these payments was in each of the last five years; and what proportion of these (a) have been and (b) will be reclaimed from companies providing services or support to the CSA where a problem with the services or support necessitated the compensatory or special payment.

  The following payments have been made to clients of the Child Support Agency in accordance with the Department for Work and Pensions consolatory and redress payments guidance:

  £

  Amount

  1998–99

  4,351,000

  1999–2000

  3,075,000

  2000–01

  3,053,000

  2001–02

  2,590,000

  2002–03

  2,478,000

  None of the payments have been directly reclaimed from companies providing services or support to the Child Support Agency where a problem with the services or support necessitated the compensatory or special payment. The Department continues to discuss with EDS the provision of their computer service to the Agency and it is possible that some part of these payments may form one element in these commercial discussions.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to resolve delays in processing cases by the Child Support Agency. [178904]

  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 Doug Smith to Mr. Ian Taylor, dated 22 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.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps he is taking to resolve delays in processing cases by the Child Support Agency.

  The Agency is continuing to work closely with EDS to remove the defects within EDS's computer service and which are causing many of the current delays in processing cases. It is also providing further guidance, advice and coaching to members of teams handling new applications with a view to increasing their productivity even within the constraints of the existing computer service.
  1306W
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the rescue package for the Child Support Agency which EDS is to implement by August of this year. [179498]

  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 Doug Smith to Mr. Frank Field, dated 22 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.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will make a statement on the rescue package for Child Support Agency which EDS is to implement by August of this year.

  EDS commenced work on remedying defects within their IT system providing support to the Child Support Agency, in November 2003. They have subsequently implemented a number of software releases and hardware upgrades that are progressively improving that service. There are plans for further releases later this year and in the early part of next year. The activity plan for August refers to enhancements to the telephony service.

  Health and Safety Executive (Industrial Dispute)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he is taking to settle the industrial dispute affecting the Health and Safety Executive and its staff. [179741]

  Jane Kennedy
  Responsibility for the management of the Health and Safety Executive, including conducting its pay negotiations. is a matter for the Executive of the HSE. I am aware that HSE is very concerned about the dispute and has met with the trade unions and ACAS to try and reach an agreement, resulting in two revised offers to the trade unions. These offers were not accepted and negotiations to resolve the dispute are continuing.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what uses his Department plans to make of identity cards; and what information would be required through the National Identity database to fulfil these roles. [177850]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department is currently conducting feasibility work to establish the full impact that the introduction of a national identity card will have on its business; however, by providing a single, effective, national system of establishing identity, an identity card scheme will allow us to simplify several of the Department's current business processes.

  For example, we want all people who are eligible for benefits to take up their entitlement, and information on the National Identity Register may allow us more easily to identify those people who may be entitled to claim benefit. In addition, use of an identity card will ensure that the process of establishing identity for benefit claims is both more secure and more convenient for the customer, and we also envisage that the national identity card and its supporting database will be a useful tool in countering identity fraud.
  1307W
  The detail of the information the Department would require will emerge as the National Identity Register is developed. However, as with existing powers relating to exchange of information, the Department will be stringent in the way that any new powers appropriate to the ID card and supporting register are applied.

  Income Support
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of people who refuse work because they would receive more on income support. [178229]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: The information requested is not available.

  Lone parents and sick and disabled people can qualify for income support. We have introduced work-focused interviews enabling everyone on income support to take advantage of the increasing opportunities to move into work by, for the first time, offering everyone of working age advice and guidance on the full range of employment programmes.

  The national minimum wage and tax credits encourage people to start work by making it pay for them. Together they guarantee a minimum income in work and provide much improved gains through work. The improvements in gains through work have made a substantial contribution to improving labour market outcomes; for example the employment rate for lone parents has increased from 46 per cont. in 1997 to 53 per cent. this year.

  We have announced recent measures in the Budget to further improve gains through work for part time workers. We have introduced a disregard in housing benefit and council tax benefit for all tenants working part time (typically lone parents and disabled people) who are eligible for working tax credit which will make them around £10 per week better off.

  We have also introduced a child care disregard in housing benefit which is fully aligned with the child care element of working tax credit. This will improve gains through work for families receiving housing benefit who have child care costs.

  New Deal
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women in Manchester Central have benefited from(a) the New Deal for Lone Parents and (b) the New Deal for Partners since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [177740]

  Jane Kennedy
  Through the New Deal we have introduced a wide range of initiatives to help individuals improve their employment prospects by giving them the skills, support and confidence they need to move into work. From 12 April we enhanced the New Deal for Partners in order to offer partners taking part in that programme the same level of help and support as our successful New Deal for Lone Parents programme. Also from this April we have started to roll out Work Focused Interviews for Partners, offering greater support to partners of benefit recipients.
  1308W
  1,320 women have started New Deal for Lone Parents in Manchester, Central since the beginning of the programme in October 1998, of whom, 680 have gained a job: Information on the number of women who have benefited from the New Deal for Partners is not available.

  Pensions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost in each of the next 10 financial years from 2006–07, net of savings in means-tested benefits and additional income tax revenues, of paying from April 2006,(a) regardless of contribution record, (b) on the current basis, a basic state pension to (i) all single people aged 80 or above at the rate of the guarantee credit for single people and (ii) all couples where one or both partners is aged 80 or above at the rate of the guarantee credit for couples, with that pension being indexed to earnings in subsequent years, and assuming that the savings credit is abolished for those aged 80 or above. [174110]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. However such information as is available is in the table.

  £ billion

  (a) Net cost (before Tax) regardless of contribution record

  (b) Net cost (before Tax) on current system of entitlement

  2006–07

  1.6

  1.5

  2007–08

  1.7

  1.7

  2008–09

  1.9

  1.8

  2009–10

  2.0

  2.0

  2010–11

  2.2

  2.1

  2011–12

  2.4

  2.3

  2012–13

  2.5

  2.5

  2013–14

  2.7

  2.6

  2014–15

  2.9

  2.8

  2015–16

  3.1

  3.0

  Notes:

  1. The net cost includes all savings except for additional Income tax revenue, (see note (5). Figures are for Great Britain in 2004–05 price terms, using the GDP deflator index, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. Basic State Pension (BSP) costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department, consistent with Budget 2004 assumptions, made using 2002 based population projections.

  3. The savings credit is abolished for those aged 80 and over from April 2006 with no payments to existing pensioners and no new recipients after 2006.

  4. The savings from savings credit and other income related benefits (guarantee credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit) are calculated using the Department's policy simulation model for 2006–7. It is assumed that the proportion of savings calculated for the first year is constant for subsequent years.

  (a) The net cost including tax revenues regardless of contribution record in 2006–07 is £1.3 billion. For illustrative purposes, we have assumed income tax revenue to be a fixed percentage of the gross cost for this option in 2007–08 and 2008–09. Therefore, the illustrative total net cost in 2007–08 is £1.5 billion and in 2008–09 is £1.6 billion. Estimates for later years would be subject to a greater degree of uncertainty.

  (b) The net cost including tax revenues on the current system of entitlement in 2006–07 is £1.2 billion. Again we have assumed income tax revenue to be a fixed percentage of the gross cost for this option in 2007–08 and 2008–09. Therefore, the illustrative total net cost in 2007–08 is £1.4 billion and in 2008–09 is £1.5 billion.
  1309W
  (c) Tax revenues have been calculated using the Department's policy simulation model, as this provides information at a household level.

  (a) All single over 80 year olds have been given the single rate of the guarantee credit and all couples have been given the couples rate of the guarantee credit, split equally between the two, regardless of contribution records.

  (b) Category A pensions are increased under existing rules (i.e. relative to the single rate of the guarantee credit) except that in a couple where one person is in receipt of a category B pension, the combined category A and category B pension is increased pro rata relative to the couples rate of the guarantee credit.

  (c) In both scenarios couples with only one person over 80 years old are treated identically to those where both are over 80.

  7. The State Second Pension is assumed to be unchanged.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost in each of the 10 financial years from 2006–07, net of savings in means-tested benefits and additional income tax revenues, of paying from April 2006 a basic state pension to all single people aged 70 or above at the rate of the guarantee credit of single people regardless of contribution record and a basic state pension to all couples where one or both partners is aged 70 or above at the rate of the guarantee credit for couples, with that pension being indexed to earnings in subsequent years, and assuming that the savings credit is abolished for those aged 70 or above. [175189]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: The information is not available in the format requested. However such information as is available is in the table.

  Net cost (before tax) regardless of contribution record

  2006–07

  6.3

  2007–08

  5.8

  2008–09

  6.3

  2009–10

  6.7

  2010–11

  7.2

  2011–12

  7.7

  2012–13

  8.3

  2013–14

  9.0

  2014–15

  9.7

  2015–16

  10.4

  Notes:

  1. The net cost includes all savings except for additional Income tax revenue, (see note 5). Figures are for Great Britain in 2004–05 price terms, using the GDP deflator index, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. Basic state pension costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department, consistent with Budget 2004 assumptions, made using 2002 based population projections.

  3. The savings credit is abolished for those aged 70 and over from April 2006 with no payments to existing pensioners and no new recipients after 2006.

  4. The savings from savings credit and other income related benefits (guarantee credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit) are calculated using the Department's policy simulation model for 2006–07. It is assumed that the proportion of savings calculated for the first year is constant for subsequent years.

  5. The net cost including tax revenues regardless of contribution record in 2006–07 is £4.6 billion. For illustrative purposes, we have assumed income tax revenue to be a fixed percentage of the gross cost for this option in 2007–08 and 2008–09. Therefore, the illustrative total net cost in 2007–08 is £5.0 billion and in 2008–09 is £5.4 billion. Estimates for later years would be subject to a greater degree of uncertainty. Tax revenues have been calculated using the Department's policy simulation model, as this provides information at a household level.

  6. The state second pension is assumed to be unchanged.
  1310W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 4 May 2004,Official Report, column 1461W, on pensions, if he will estimate for each year the gross cost of the reform before taking account of offsetting savings in lower benefit expenditure and higher tax revenues. [175191]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: The information is provided in the table.

  £billion

  2006–07

  5.7

  2007–08

  6.2

  2008–09

  6.7

  2009–10

  7.2

  2010–11

  7.8

  2011–12

  8.4

  2012–13

  9.0

  2013–14

  9.7

  2014–15

  10.4

  2015–16

  11.1

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for Great Britain in 2004–05 price terms, using the GDP deflator index, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. Gross basic state pension costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2004 assumptions and use 2002 based population projections. Basic state pension costs refer to the additional costs after allowing for consequential changes to National Insurance Fund benefits and non-means tested vote benefits.

  3. The state second pension is assumed to be unchanged.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost in each of the next 10 financial years from 2006–07, net of savings in means-tested benefits and additional income tax revenues, of paying from April 2006 a basic state pension to all single people aged 75 or above at the rate of the guarantee credit for single people regardless of contribution record, and a basic state pension to all couples where one or both partners is aged 75 or above at the rate of the guarantee credit for couples, with that pension being indexed to earnings in subsequent years, and assuming that the savings credit is abolished for those aged 75 or above. [170649]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [pursuant to the reply, 4 May 2004, Official Report, c. 1461–62W]: The information is not available in the format requested. However such information as is available is in the table.

  £billion

  Net cost (before tax)

  2006–07

  3.1

  2007–08

  3.4

  2008–09

  3.7

  2009–10

  4.0

  2010–11

  4.3

  2011–12

  4.7

  2012–13

  5.0

  2013–14

  5.4

  2014–15

  5.8

  2015–16

  6.2

  Notes:

  1. The net cost includes all savings except for additional income tax revenue, (see note 5) Figures are for Great Britain in 2004–05 price terms, using the GDP deflator index, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  1311W
  2. Basic state pension costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department, consistent with Budget 2004 assumptions, made using 2002 based population projections.

  3. The savings credit is abolished for those aged 75 and over from April 2006 with no payments to existing pensioners and no new recipients after 2006.

  4. The savings from savings credit and other income related benefits (guarantee credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit) are calculated using the Department's policy simulation model for 2006–07. It is assumed that the proportion of savings calculated for the first year is constant for subsequent years.

  5. The net cost including tax revenues regardless of contribution record in 2006–07 is £2.7 billion. For illustrative purposes, we have assumed income tax revenue to be a fixed percentage of the gross cost for this option in 2007–08 and 2008–09. Therefore, the illustrative total net cost in 2007–08 is £3.0 billion and in 2008–09 is £3.2 billion. Estimates for later years would be subject to a greater degree of uncertainty. Tax revenues have been calculated using the Departments policy simulation model, as this provides information at a household level.

  6. The state second pension is assumed to be unchanged.

  Private Rental Sector
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the range of options available in private sector rented accommodation in the local authority areas in which the new housing benefit rules are being tested. [179664]

  Mr. Pond
  The new local housing allowance is being tested in nine local authority areas, for tenants in the private rented sector. The intention is that by paying tenants a flat rate sum of money, based on family size, it will help increase the options open to tenants and provide a much clearer system from the outset for both tenants and landlords.

  The nine pathfinders started between November 2003 and February 2004, and therefore it is too early to make any firm assessment about the impact on the choices made by tenants. This will be assessed by the comprehensive and independent evaluation that is in place, to consider the overall impact of the local housing allowance. The first interim evaluation report is due by early 2005.

TRANSPORT

  Acoustic Barriers (M1)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of acoustic barriers on the M1 near Junction 21. [179619]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A recent report into noise from this section of motorway confirmed that noise levels could be reduced by the installation of acoustic barriers. However, the carriageway here is nearing the time when it needs to be resurfaced and the Highways Agency considers that the use of lower noise surfacing would provide a sufficient reduction in noise levels in this location.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has held with stakeholders in Wales on the future of the Strategic Rail Authority. [179621]
  1312W
  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I hosted a seminar about our review of the structure and organisation of the railway industry in Cardiff on 28 April, which the National Assembly for Wales and other Welsh stakeholders attended. We will announce the conclusions of the review in July.

  Transport Connections
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to ensure that changes in the frequency of intercity rail services are accompanied by matching changes in connecting local(a) rail and (b) bus services. [179622]

  Mr. McNulty
  Connections between intercity rail services, local rail services and buses depend on passenger demand and operational practicability. The majority of bus services are provided on a commercial basis and the timetabling of those services is a matter for the operators.

  Road Safety (Derby)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will increase the funding to Derby city council(a) to relieve traffic congestion and (b) to increase road safety in Derby. [179623]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The amount of capital transport funding which will be made available to Derby city council for the next financial year will depend upon my Department's assessment of the Derby Joint Local Transport Plan Annual Progress Report to be submitted by the Council on 30 July.

  Transport (Leigh)
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the need for better transport in the Leigh area. [179627]

  Mr. McNulty
  A general assessment of public transport need in the Leigh area is made as part of the Local Transport Plan process by the Greater Manchester Public Transport Executive. As a consequence of this notable projects are:the £4.8 million Leigh—Bolton corridor, which has seen patronage in 2003–04 rise by 15 per cent.
  the night bus services with its 1,700 passengers a week
  the successfully piloted Yellow School Bus Scheme.

  Transport (EU)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed transport issues with his EU counterparts; and what subjects were discussed. [179716]

  Dr. Howells
  The Secretary of State last discussed transport issues with his EU counterparts at the Transport Council in Luxembourg on 11 June. Topics on the agenda for debate were: port security; sanctions for ship-source pollution offences; the Galileo satellite navigation project; charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure; weekend lorry bans; drivers hours legislation applying to certain drivers of large commercial vehicles, and enforcement of those hours; EU/US air transport negotiations; and aviation safety standards (EU-OPS).

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made on reducing transport delays after road traffic incidents. [179624]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency has introduced Incident Support Units across most of the strategic road network which, with the new Traffic Officer service, will help clear blocked lanes quicker. The new National Traffic Control Centre will provide improved traffic signing and information on incidents and delays.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the proportion of road traffic accidents primarily caused by excessive speed in the last year for which figures are available. [179487]

  Dr. Howells
  Routine statistics do not record the primary cause of a road accident. However, under a pilot scheme 14 police forces have provided information on contributory factors to accidents. The latest year for which pilot data are available is 2002. Accidents for which "excessive speed" was deemed by the police to be one of the contributory factors, though not necessarily the primary factor, accounted for 13 per cent. of all injury road accidents recorded in the police areas taking part in the pilot scheme. The proportion of accidents where 'excessive speed' is coded as a factor rises with the severity of the accident; it applied to 12 per cent. of slight accidents, 19 per cent. of serious accidents and 30 per cent. of fatal accidents in the pilot areas in 2002.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his latest estimate is of the date of the completion of the refurbishment of the West Coast Main Line. [179625]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority's progress report on The West Coast Route Modernisation Scheme, published in April, said that the project (other than Stafford remodelling) is expected to be completed by the end of 2008.

  National Forest Line
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the potential(a) economic, (b) environmental and (c) social benefits of the reinstatement of passenger rail services to the National Forest Line in Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement. [179626]

  Mr. McNulty
  Studies by the local authority, Leicestershire county council, were carried out in the early 1990s into the National Forest Line; the "Ivanhoe Line" scheme. Passenger services on Section 1, between Leicester and Loughborough, are currently operating under a subsidy from Leicestershire county council.

  A business case has not been made for the reinstatement of passenger services on Section 2, between Leicester and Burton-on-Trent, but it is likely that it will require considerable investment in infrastructure and additional subsidy to the train operator. Any appraisal will need to be considered against other priorities and in the context of the financial constraints on the industry at the present time.

  Road Congestion (South-east)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to relieve road congestion in the South East. [179628]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The road programme is on track to address major bottlenecks on the strategic road network. The Traffic Management Bill will give far greater powers to the Highways Agency and local authorities to minimise the disruption caused by road works. We are also working closely with local authorities on the next five year Local Transport Plan to develop effective strategies and measures to address local congestion in including the need to improve public transport and widen travel choice.

  Air Conditioning
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require all vehicles carrying fare-paying passengers to be fitted with air conditioning. [179358]

  Dr. Howells
  No.

  Aircraft Emissions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to(a) the Prime Minister's statement to the hon. Member for Lewes on 14 June 2004, Official Report, column 530 and (b) his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), on 16 June 2004, Official Report, column 769, what he assesses to be the maximum reduction that can he achieved in average aircraft emissions by 2020 from technological advances. [179973]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government's Air Transport White Paper published in December 2003 notes (para. 3.38) that the research targets agreed by the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) suggest that a 50 per cent. reduction in CO2 production by 2020 can be achieved. This target has been adopted by the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team (AeIGT), a joint government and industry initiative which aims, among other things, to promote and deliver technological advancement. The target, which applies to aircraft entering service by 2020 relative to a 2000 base, comprises improvements in engine and aircraft design, air traffic management systems and flight operations.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his policy to secure an EU agreement on aircraft emissions trading before the end of the UK presidency of the EU. [179974]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are pursuing vigorously the commitment in "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper to press for aviation joining the EU emissions trading scheme in 2008, or as soon as possible thereafter. The proposal is subject to consensus with other member states, and we aim to secure early EU agreement. We will make this a priority for the UK presidency of the EU in 2005.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the steps he has
  1315W
  taken since the publication of the White Paper on aviation (a) to make progress on an emissions trading scheme and (b) to seek agreement within the EU for a tax on aviation fuel. [179975]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is as follows.

  (a) We are pursuing vigorously the commitment in "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper to press for aviation joining the EU emissions trading scheme in 2008, or as soon as possible thereafter. We are working inter-departmentally to resolve the issues that we have already identified (summarised in Annex B of the White Paper), and have held constructive discussions with officials from the European Commission and other member states.

  (b) The White Paper recognises the importance of ensuring that aviation meets its external costs, including its environmental costs. An analysis by the European Commission in 1998–99 suggested that an EU-wide tax would deliver minimal environmental benefit, and could create competitive distortions. The Government remain committed to applying the "polluter pays" principle to aviation, building on the work in the March 2003 report, "Aviation and the Environment: Using Economic Instruments". Further details are set out in the White Paper.

  Biofuels (UK Target)
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the closing date is for his consultation on the UK target for biofuels; and when he proposes to submit the UK target to the EU. [179707]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 21 June 2004]: The closing date for the UK's public consultation on the Government's biofuels strategy is Friday 16 July. The EU directive requires annual progress reports from member states on implementation of the directive to be submitted to the European Commission by 1 July, and the UK intends to meet that deadline. As we will still be consulting at this point, we will make clear to the European Commission that the indicative target proposed in our report is only a provisional one. We will confirm our target for 2005 by the end of the year, in the light of the responses to our consultation paper.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the Answer of 16 June to Question 179048, when he replied to Mrs. Bingham's letter, addressed to the Minister for Roads by name, of 20 March. [179977]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My office has been unable to trace a letter of 20 March, addressed to me from Mrs. Bingham. If the hon. Gentleman would like to send me a copy of the letter I will gladly consider it. A letter of the same date from Mrs. Bingham, addressed to the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, was replied to on 8 April.

  'O' Licence Entitlement
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department permits a haulage firm to employ a part-time transport manager in order for it to qualify for an 'O' licence. [179260]
  1316W
  Dr. Howells
  The Department is not responsible for approving the employment conditions of transport managers. They are required to have continuous and effective responsibility for the transport operations of a business. It is for the licensing authority, a traffic commissioner, to decide if this requirement is being met.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to expand rail freight. [179491]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to achieving a competitive freight distribution industry that benefits the economy and the environment. The SRA's Freight Strategy provides a framework for a significant shift from road to rail. Rail freight is up nearly a quarter since 1997.

  Railways
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many regulatory bodies are responsible for railway activity. [179486]

  Dr. Howells
  There are three public bodies whose work is, or includes, regulation of railway activity. They are the Office of the Rail Regulator, the Health and Safety Executive and the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve rail transport in London. [179618]

  Mr. McNulty
  London rail users will benefit from £2.7 billion investment programme to upgrade rail transport in London and the South East. This includes more than 2,000 new carriages and modernisation of the power supply infrastructure. Other investment will provide increases in passenger services and station improvements, including CCTV and information points. Over the next 15 years, £16 billion will be spent on modernising and upgrading London Underground to provide new signalling and trains, as well as track renewal. The British Transport Police continue to play a key role in helping to ensure the security of passengers in London whether on the rail network or the Underground. TfL have provided an additional £4.5 million this year including funding for a further 100 police officers on the Tube.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his oral answer of 18 May 2004,Official Report, column 809, on the rail safety regulator, what steps he is taking towards a more streamlined system of responsibility in relation to health and safety on the railways. [179789]

  Mr. McNulty
  The rail review is continuing to look at the regulation of safety. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, said in his statement to the House on 19 January, the Government will publish their proposals in the summer.

  Surveys
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what surveys of public perceptions of his Department and of its areas of responsibility have taken place over the last 12 months; what the(a) title and

  1317W
  (b) nature of these surveys was; what the findings of each survey were; where these findings have been published; what the cost of such surveys was; and if he will make a statement and place copies of the surveys in the Library. [176949]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are a number of surveys that explore public perceptions of the Department, and its areas of responsibility. The following annex provides information on each of the main surveys undertaken by

  Title of survey

  Nature

  Where are findings published?

  Cost of survey (£)

  ONS Omnibus Survey, July 2003. Module covered attitudes to congestion charging and knowledge of speed limits

  A multi-purpose survey run by ONS eight times per year

  A summary of recent attitudinal work on speed and other road safety issues was published on the DfT website in February 2004. This can be found at http:// www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/ documents/page/dft_transstats_028383.hcsp

  23,700 for the module

  Coverage—Great Britain

  Random sample

  ONS Omnibus Survey, October 2003. Module covered attitudes to road safety and speeding issues

  Face to face interviews, in-home

  35,100 for the module

  Sample size—around 1,800 each wave

  A summary of attitudinal work on congestion charging is expected to be completed and published on the DfT website during the summer.

  ONS Omnibus Survey, November 2003. Module covered attitudes to rail line closures on Bank Holidays

  Response rate—approx 60 per cent.

  7,100 for the module

  Data from the November 2003 questions of rail line closures will be included within a series of thematic factsheets to be released in autumn 2004.

  All findings will be available on the DfT website at http://www.dft gov.uk/stellent/ groups/dft_transstats/documents/ sectionhomepage/dft_transstats_page.hcsp

  ONS Omnibus Survey, March 2004-attitudes to road pricing

  Will be published on the DfT website in July (at the same address as that provided above).

  38,200 for the module

  ONS Omnibus Survey, April 2004. Small module on satisfaction with travel information services

  Will be published early in 2005 as part of the evaluation of Transport Direct.

  7,400 for the module

  Bus Passenger Satisfaction Survey— a survey of bus users' satisfaction with bus services. Respondents provide satisfaction ratings on 22 key service attributes.

  A quarterly survey of bus users.

  Data are published quarterly on the DfT website, within the Bus Quality Indicators bulletins. The 2003–04 bulletins can be found at: http://www.dft.gov.uk stellent/groups/ dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/ dft_index.hcst?n=8624&=5

  250,000 per annum

  Coverage—England.

  Quota sample, involving around 1,500 interviews per quarter.

  Face to face interviews undertaken at bus stops.

  Copies will also be placed in the Library.

  BMRB Omnibus Survey, October 2003. Covers use of and attitudes towards public. transport in the UK

  DfT uses this survey around two or three times per year.

  Findings from the October 2003 module were published on DfT website on 11 March 2004 at http://www.dft.gov.uk/ research/ programmes/index.htm, where findings from other modules can also located (i.e. November 2002 and April 2003).

  24,480 plus VAT per wave, to a maximum of three waves a year

  2,000 interviews per wave

  Quota sample (random location sampling)

  Face to face interviews, in home

  Copies will also be placed in the Library.

  Coverage—Great Britain

  British Social Attitudes Survey—the survey is carried put on an annual basis, and the Department currently part funds a transport module

  Annual survey

  Results from the survey are published by NatCen in their annual BSA Book. This is a priced publication, which costs £40.00. Most recent findings were published in December 2003, 'British Social Attitudes: the 20th Report—Continuity and change over Two Decades'. Press releases providing headline results are available on NatCen's website at http://www.natcen.ac.uk/natcen/pages/ news_and_media_docs/2003bsa pr.pdf

  DfT contributes 36,000 per annum

  Coverage—Great Britain

  Sample size approximately 1,100

  Random sample

  Face to face f interviews in - in-home

  Response rate—approx 60 per cent.

  Department also has a full electronic dataset for the transport data from each survey.

  The Strategic Rail Authority's National Passenger Survey. Covers satisfaction with train services— overall and across 27 specific aspects of service

  Carried out every six months.

  Findings are published as part of 'National Rail Trends', and are available on the Internet at the following address: http:// www.sra.gov.uk/publications/ national_rail_trends

  SRA funds the survey

  Self-completion of survey of rail-users with approximately 25,000 completed questionnaires being returned every wave.

  Questionnaires distributed at around 950 stations

  Copies will also be placed in the Library.

  Coverage—Great Britain

  1318W
  the Department, its Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies. Many are regular surveys, and others are more ad hoc in nature.

  Findings from most of the surveys referred to in the annex are available on the internet, and therefore are not summarised here. The annex provides full details on where findings can be obtained. In addition, copies of a number of the reports referred to will be placed in the Libraries of the House.
  1319W

  Title of survey

  Nature

  Where are findings published?

  Cost of survey (£)

  Highway Agency's Road Users'Satisfaction Survey

  A continuous survey, with an annual sample of around 2,500 road-users

  Findings are published every two years.

  HA funds the survey.

  Results are published on the HA website, and can be found at http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/corpdocs/road_user/2002/index.htm

  Coverage—England

  Quota sample

  Face to face interviews, in-home

  Copies will also be placed in the Library.

  Findings for 2004 will be published on the HA website in around December 2004.

  Learners Survey. A survey undertaken by the DVO Group on satisfaction/perceptions to DVO services

  An annual survey of 1,000 motorists that have applied for a provisional licence in the past six months

  The survey was first conducted in August 2003. The findings have been distributed throughout the DVO Group.

  The survey was funded by the DVO Group and cost 60,000.

  Coverage—Great Britain

  Copies will also be placed in the Library.

  Telephone interviews

  Private Motorists survey. A survey undertaken by the DVO Group on satisfaction/perceptions to DVO services

  An annual survey of 1,000 motorists

  The survey was first conducted in July 2003.The findings have been distributed throughout the DVO Group.

  The survey was funded by the DVO Group and cost 110,000.

  Coverage—Great Britain

  Quota sample

  Copies will also be placed in the Library.

  The 2004 survey is budgeted at 100,000.

  Face-to, face interviews

  MOT study. A study on how the MOT is perceived by private motorists

  A survey, of 1,000 MOT customers

  The survey was first conducted in September 2003. The findings have been distributed throughout the DVO Group

  The survey was funded by DVO Group(55,000) and VOSA(21,000). The next survey is planned for 2005

  Coverage—Great Britain

  Quota sample

  Face-to face interviews

  Copies will also be placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 7 June 2004,Official Report, columns 25–6W, on business regulation, what the estimated (a) benefits and (b) costs to business were from each of the six regulatory impact assessments listed. [178664]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Information it, relation to the estimated benefits and costs to business is provided in the regulatory impact assessment and is best read in the context of each individual RIA.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people have left employment in her Department because of(a) anxiety, (b) stress, (c) depression and (d) other mental health reasons in each year since 1997. [175669]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI does not collect and hold information in the form requested.

  E-mail Spam
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the volume of spam sent to(a) UK business and (b) private citizens by e-mail in each of the last two years. [179497]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have not made an estimate of the amount of spam e-mails sent to UK businesses and private citizens over the past two years. Industry sources estimate that 37 per cent. of UK e-mails were spam in June 2003 and 60.1 per cent. in April 2004.

  Electricity Generation/Supply
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what duty she has to ensure security of electricity supply; what powers she has to carry out that duty; and what steps she has taken in the last three years in respect of that duty. [R] [178316]

  Mr. Timms
  Security of supply is one of the four goals of the Government's energy policy, as set out in the Energy White Paper, published in February 2003. Energy security is a shared responsibility. Ofgem and the Government have duties, in carrying out their primary function of protecting the interests of consumers, to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are met and to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply.

  The Electricity Act 1989 requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take security of supply into account in exercising her functions under Part I of the Act. These include:
  her powers to grant exemptions from the need for a licence for electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply;
  her powers to veto modifications to the conditions of electricity licences;
  the making of regulations relating to regular, safe and efficient supplies of electricity, and the appointment of electricity inspectors;
  the making of legislation relating to the renewables obligation; and
  the giving of directions in relation to fuel stocks at generating stations.

  The Government have worked to create and maintain competitive energy markets in the UK, Europe, and internationally, in particular successfully negotiating an agreement on the principles that are currently being incorporated into a new Framework Treaty for future cross-border oil and gas co-operation with Norway, which will help to secure gas supplies including for electricity generation, and agreeing measures to liberalise EU energy markets. We have also established

  1321W
  mechanisms to monitor developments and provide information to the market, particularly through the Joint Energy Security of Supply Working Group (JESS); investigated power failures in the UK to ensure that the lessons are learnt for the future; promoted energy efficiency; and further developed our plans for dealing with emergency situations.

  Energy Suppliers
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households in the UK have switched gas and electricity supplier in each year since the competitive market was introduced, broken down by(a) local authority and (b) constituent country of the UK. [179256]

  Mr. Timms
  Information about transfers of gas and electricity supply is collected and held by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM). I understand that the Chairman of OFGEM will write to hon. Member directly with the information he has requested.

  Government Online Services
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she next expects to meet representatives of the small firms sector to discuss ways of assisting small businesses to access information provided by Government online services. [179608]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I met with the five key representative bodies separately recently as part of my regular meetings with stakeholders, including the CBI SME Council who praised businesslink.gov (www.businesslink.gov.uk) for pulling together all Government info in one place. The website provides free and easy access to Government information, advice, funding and training and has been enthusiastically received by small business users.

  The Government target of getting 1.5 million SMEs online by 2002 was exceeded in 2000.

  The UK is one of the most connected economies in the world with 90 per cent. of businesses with internet access, thanks to in large part in the 100 per cent. tax allowances that the Government made available to SMEs for connecting to the internet.

  Graduate Businesses
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many graduates between the ages of 21 and 25 have set up small businesses in each year since 1997. [179249]

  Nigel Griffiths
  These statistics are not available for publication. However statistics are available on the number of graduates aged 21 to 25 inclusive who are self-employed and those that went into self-employment as a first destination after graduaton for each year since 1997. This information is provided in tables 1 and 2 as follows.
  1322W

  Table 1: Graduates aged 21 to 25 inclusive who are self-employed

  thousands

  Number

  1997

  13

  1998

  14

  1999

  12

  2000

  17

  2001

  12

  2002

  14

  2003

  20

  Note:

  The above figures are estimates, and are subject to sampling errors. These estimates have approximate 95 per cent. confidence intervals of up to 5 thousand.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey, Spring (March-May) of each year.

  Figures in thousands.

  Table 2: Graduates going into self-employment as a first destination after graduation

  Year of graduation

  Under 25 years

  25 years and over

  Total

  1996–97

  1,650

  1,040

  2,690

  1997–98

  1,730

  1,170

  2,900

  1998–99

  1,830

  1,150

  2,990

  1999–2000

  1,530

  860

  2,390

  2000–01

  1,595

  740

  2,340

  2001–02

  1,810

  765

  2,575

  Note:

  Students of unknown age are included in totals but not in the breakdown. Figures rounded up or down to the nearest 5.

  Source:

  The Higher Education Statistics Authority: First Destination Survey.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what mechanisms she reviews strategic oil and gas reserves held by the Government. [179767]

  Mr. Timms
  The UK does not have a strategic oil or gas reserve. It does hold oil stocks for use in a supply disruption. Under a EU Directive the UK is currently required to hold stock equivalent to 67.5 days' annual consumption. It meets this obligation by imposing compulsory oil stocking obligations on commercial companies. These holdings are the subject of regular reports to my Department and to the European Commission. My Department is also involved in the International Energy Agency's monitoring of world oil markets, and discussion of any action needed to respond to disruption or threatened disruption. There are no relevant international obligations in relation to gas.

  Power Dialling
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with companies regarding power dialing; and if she will make a statement. [179572]

  Mr. Timms
  I have had no such discussions. The matter raised is the responsibility of the Office of Communications (Ofcom), and my officials have asked
  1323W
  the Chief Executive of Ofcom to reply directly to the hon. Member. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Racial Discrimination
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to tackle racial discrimination in employment; and if she will make a statement. [176732]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Race Relations Act 1976 prohibits racial discrimination in employment (as well as education and the provision of goods and services) and established the Commission for Racial Equality to enforce the Act and provide advice and support to victims of discrimination. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 strengthened the Race Relations Act by prohibiting racial discrimination in almost all public functions not covered by the Race Relations Act and by placing a statutory duty on public authorities to promote racial equality, including in the field of employment. We have further strengthened the law on discrimination by transposing the EU Race Directive into domestic law in the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003. These improve the protection to employees by, for example, reversing the burden of proof in race discrimination cases, introducing a definition of harassment and narrowing the permissible exemptions to the employment provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976.

  In addition to the legislative changes, the Government are also implementing the recommendations of the Strategy Unit report— Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market. This report makes 11 recommendations to improve equal opportunities in the workplace which are being taken forward by the Home Office and the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), but also by Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Implementation of these recommendations will result in better advice and support for employers; increased effectiveness of existing mechanisms to ensure race equality; and increased transparency and awareness.

  Radio Frequency Identifier Devices
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to commission research into the use of radio frequency identifier devices in retail goods. [177390]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Trade and Industry has no plans to commission research specific to the use of radio frequency identifier devices (RFID) in retail goods. However, DTI supports research into commercially and socially useful applications of RFID as an increasingly significant business technology.

  DTI's response to the IT and Retail Crime Adjournment debate, 27 January 2004, Official Report, column 284 outlined the steps we are taking with industry and organisations such as the National Consumers Council to keep abreast of developments.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the training provided to judges in understanding and correctly applying part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [179673]

  Mr. Leslie
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), an independent body chaired by Lord Justice Keene.

  The JSB provides guidance to judges, via its Equal Treatment Bench Book, on all aspects of fair treatment in courts and tribunals. The Equal Treatment Bench Book contains a section on the needs of people with disabilities and includes the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It is publicly available on the JSB's website. In addition, the JSB provides training on the Disability Discrimination Act and proceedings brought under part 3, for District Judges who sit in the county court. The most recent training session on this topic was in March 2004. The supporting training materials are available to judges in hard copy and electronic form. The JSB keeps all of its training under regular review.

  Environmental Cases
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs on how many occasions interim relief has been(a) applied for and (b) granted in cases relating to environmental matters in (i) the High Court, (ii) the Court of Appeal, (iii) the House of Lords and (iv) the Privy Council in each year since 1997. [179530]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Administrative Court Office (High Court), the Court of Appeal and Privy Council do not keep statistical information on applications for interim relief relating to environmental matters.

  The House of Lords does not receive applications for interim relief on environmental issues.

  Uncollected Fines
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many and what percentage of fines are uncollected, broken down by magistrate area, in descending order, according to region. [180033]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on fines imposed and collected is provided by the 42 Magistrates's Courts Committees (MCCs) in England and Wales. The attached table shows the number of live accounts outstanding as at the end of March 2004 and the payment rates for the last quarter of 2004. The figures for the number of live accounts are shown by descending order.
  1325W

  Number of live accounts as at end of March 2004, in descending order

  MCC

  Number of live accounts as attend of March 20041,2

  Payment rate for quarter 4 (January-March 2004)2 (Percentage)

  Greater London

  250,000

  82

  Merseyside

  113,518

  51

  West Midlands

  105,422

  54

  West Yorkshire

  85,816

  69

  Greater Manchester

  78,690

  72

  Northumbria

  77,330

  81

  South Wales

  67,061

  76

  Lancashire

  64,724

  90

  Thames Valley

  59,659

  63

  Devon and Cornwall

  52,539

  55

  Avon and Somerset

  52,252

  77

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  49,147

  68

  Cheshire

  49,110

  78

  Leicestershire

  41,577

  73

  Staffordshire

  39,348

  67

  South Yorkshire

  38,942

  101

  Cleveland

  36,027

  114

  North Wales

  35,816

  75

  Gwent

  35,396

  84

  Humberside

  34,018

  87

  Kent

  32,309

  78

  Derbyshire

  31,583

  89

  Lincolnshire

  31,297

  75

  Nottinghamshire

  27,316

  68

  Dyfed Powys

  26,644

  102

  Cambridgeshire

  25,127

  110

  Dorset

  23,265

  69

  Suffolk

  22,699

  71

  Surrey

  19,366

  77

  Essex

  18,385

  109

  West Mercia

  18,211

  74

  Wiltshire

  18,156

  92

  Hertfordshire

  14,865

  63

  Northamptonshire

  14,421

  81

  Cumbria

  11,086

  91

  Gloucestershire

  10,993

  61

  Bedfordshire

  10,721

  84

  Durham

  8,885

  93

  Warwickshire

  8,871

  80

  North Yorkshire

  8,569

  138

  Norfolk

  8,002

  85

  Sussex (d)

  —

  95

  England and Wales

  1,757,163

  76

  Notes:

  1. The number of Accounts may include more than one fine per offender. MCCs have the option of consolidating a number of fines for the same person under one fine account. Those MCCs (and it can vary within that MCC) that choose this facility are unable to state how many fines are held in total under each consolidated account.

  2. This includes Fines, Legal Aid, Costs, Community Penalty Costs and Compensation.

  3. Sussex MCC operate a unique collection system and are consequently unable to provide this information.

  NB: The payment rate can not be directly compared to number of live accounts to show what percentage of fines is uncollected. The number of accounts provides a snapshot of the number of live fines on a given day, and can include outstanding accounts from previous years. The payment rate shows the amount of money collected by an MCC as a percentage of that imposed within the time period. All figures shown are inclusive of Fines, Legal Aid, Costs, Community Penalty Costs and Compensation.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Government-owned Land (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much land is owned by the Government in the Chorley constituency; and what its present use is. [180053]
  1326W
  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  Other than by approaching each individual government department in the Chorley constituency, it is not possible to provide information on the amount of unregistered land owned by them. Land Registry holds information on land ownership relating to registered titles but, under Rule 11 of the Land Registration Rules 2003, it is only possible to search for ownership by name if the applicant can satisfy the registrar that he is interested generally (for instance, as trustee in bankruptcy or personal representative). Land Registry does not hold information on land use.

  Homeless Households
  Matthew Green: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the expenditure in 2004–05 arising as a result of the use of temporary accommodation to house homeless households in priority need. [179948]
  Yvette Cooper
  Expenditure on the use of temporary accommodation to house homeless households in priority need is not separately identifiable in the returns made to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by local authorities.

  Opinion Sampling
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of total expenditure by his Department on(a) focus groups and (b) opinion polls in each year from 1995–96 to 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [162755]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. Since then the Office has spent approximately £750,000 on focus groups and opinion polls, in support of the Fire Safety advertising campaign, the information campaign for the Elected Regional Assemblies and to inform other publicity and marketing activity carried out by the Office.

  The figures broken down by focus groups and opinion polls could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  African Union (Peacekeeping Force)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposals of the African Union to set up a permanent peace-keeping force. [179326]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government welcome the African Union's plans to set up an African Standby Force. As we have seen in the past year in Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire and Liberia, African-led peace support missions have an important role to play in promoting peace and security in Africa. The African Standby Force, once established, will give the African Union and African sub-regional organisations the capacity to play this role more effectively. We will continue to actively encourage international partners, including those in the G8 and EU, to support the African Union's plans in this area.

  Burma
  Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to urge European Union partners to strengthen the EU common position on Burma, with particular reference to the banning of investment by EU companies in Burma. [179531]
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our policy remains as set out in the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 21 May 2004,Official Report, columns 1356–57W. If the situation changes we will look again at our policy.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Freign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to lobby the UN Security Council for(a) a global embargo on investment in and (b) a ban on arms sales to Burma; and if he will make a statement. [179536]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have raised our concerns about the situation in Burma with our Security Council partners. Not all of them take the same view as this country. However, binding UN sanctions can only be imposed by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter in response to a threat to international peace and security. There is no consensus at present to bring Burma before the Security Council.

  The Government have a long standing policy to discourage trade with, or investment in Burma. The UK and other European Union countries maintain an embargo on arms to Burma as part of the EU common position on Burma.

  Cyprus
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 7 June 2004,Official Report, column 55W, on Cyprus, when he expects direct flights between Northern Cyprus and United Kingdom airports to commence; and whether the Government have safety concerns about direct flights of commercial aircraft to Ercan airport. [179540]

  Mr. MacShane
  There are a number of factors that will determine if, and when, direct flights between the UK and northern Cyprus might begin. Many of these are not in the gift of HMG. Nevertheless, we will continue to work with our international partners to promote the EU's goal of ending the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, including by better transport links of all kinds.

  If direct flights did commence between northern Cyprus and the UK then Ercan airport would of course have to meet the required standards in safety and security.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 7 June 2004,Official Report, column 55W, on Cyprus, what financial assistance (a) the Government and (b) the European Union is providing to Northern Cyprus; and for what specific purpose. [179542]

  Mr. MacShane
  The EU agreed to the allocation of €259 million EU structural funds to the Turkish Cypriots. The UK's share of that figure will be broadly in line with its contribution to the total EU budget of approximately one fifth.
  1328W
  We await the Commission proposals aimed at ending the international economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. Our High Commission in Nicosia will work closely with Cypriot officials to ensure that aim is achieved, and will continue to run projects aimed at strengthening administrative capacity and economic governance.

  The fundamental goal at the heart of this assistance is to improve prospects of agreement to a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem in the future.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo, with specific reference to action he intends to take at the UN to try to restore order to that region. [179302]

  Mr. Mullin
  Bukavu is now under the control of Congolese Government forces and the town is reported to be calm. We fully support the work of the UN Mission in the DRC (MONUC). We are working with the UN and our partners in the Security Council to ensure that MONUC is as effective as possible in carrying out its mandated tasks. I hope to visit Bukavu in the week of 21 June.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Banyamulenge, Democratic Republic of Congo, with specific reference to their actions in the Bukavu region; and what discussions he has had with the Rwandan authorities on their support for the Congolese rally for democracy in a military situation. [179303]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have had no discussions with the Banyamulenge communities in South Kivu regarding their actions in the Bukavu area of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Both my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn) have spoken with President Kagame of Rwanda to reiterate how unacceptable the international community would find support for any renegade Congolese element.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with President Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo since the latest attempted coup; and if he will make a statement. [179322]

  Mr. Mullin
  The last coup attempt took place in the early hours of 11 June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last talked to President Kabila on 4 June. I remain deeply concerned by the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and will continue to work with international partners to support the Transitional National Government and the Congolese peace process.

  Edinburgh Military Tattoo
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the policy of the Government is with regard to the invitation by the Edinburgh Military Tattoo to the band of the Chinese
  1329W
  People's Liberation Army to play at this year's event; what discussions the Government has had on this invitation; and if he will make a statement. [179336]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Edinburgh Military Tattoo is a private concern. The Tattoo organising board consulted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. The decision to invite musicians from the People's Liberation Army to participate in the Tattoo is a matter for the Tattoo organising board.

  Eritrea
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he will make to the Eritrean Government concerning(a) the arrest of Haile Naizgi, Chairman of the Full Gospel Church and Dr. Kifle Gebremeskel, Chairman of the Eritrean Evangelical Alliance, (b) the arrest of Pastor Tesfatsion Hagos of the Rema Evangelical Church, (c) the arrest and incarceration of Helen Berhane and (d) the detention of members of minority Christian churches. [179342]

  Mr. Mullin
  We raise the issue of religious freedom with the Eritrean Government regularly. I raised the matter with President Isaias in Asmara on 15 January and our charge d'affaires in Asmara raised it most recently on 18 May. We will continue to make clear our concerns.

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amendments he has tabled to the Draft EU constitution on(a) the UK's competence in relation to borders and asylum, (b) the EU's competence in taxation matters and (c) the UK's competence in relation to foreign policy. [179485]

  Mr. MacShane
  Individual member states did not table amendments to the draft EU Constitutional Treaty. Instead, the Italian and subsequently Irish Presidencies of the EU tabled amendments on the basis of discussions with all member states. The new constitutional treaty satisfies the conditions laid down in the White Paper on the Intergovernmental Conference (CM5934).

  General Affairs and External Relations Council
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs and External Relations Council held on 14 to 15 June; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [179780]

  Mr. MacShane
  The information is as follows:Outcome of the 14 June 2004 General Affairs and External Relations Council

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) in Luxembourg on 14 June 2004.
  1330W
  Conclusions were agreed on Iraq, Middle East Peace Process, Western Balkans, ESDP, WMD, Afghanistan, European Neighbourhood Policy, Moldova, Sudan, and the Africa/Great Lakes region.

  General affairs session

  Progress of work in other council configurations

  The Council took note of a progress report from the Presidency on work under way in other Council configurations since the last report on 17 May (Education Youth and Culture Council, Economic and Financial Affairs Council, Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council, Agriculture and Fisheries Council).

  Preparation for the 17 and 18 June European council

  The Council worked on the draft Conclusions for the 17 and 18 June European Council meeting in Brussels. These covered issues such as: EU enlargement; EU financial perspective for the 2007–13 period; and external relations issues, including Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).

  External relations session

  Iraq

  Ministers welcomed the medium term strategy on Iraq, which had been prepared jointly by High Representative Solana and the Commission. Partners underlined the need to engage with the new Iraq Authorities as well as with Iraq's neighbours and also stressed the importance of Iraqi ownership of the transition process.

  Burma/ASEM enlargement

  Ministers discussed the issue of ASEM enlargement. The Council agreed that the EU would continue to work closely with its Asian partners to try and secure a decision on enlargement before the 8 to 9 October Hanoi Summit. The Council also agreed to postpone two ASEM senior officials meetings scheduled for this summer.

  Middle East peace process

  Partners discussed current plans for Israeli withdrawal from Gaza but debate was limited as more detailed discussion was expected by Heads of Government at the European Council later that week.

  Iran

  The GAERC took place in parallel to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) Board of Governors meeting on the Iranian nuclear programme. The Council reiterated earlier calls for Iran to co-operate proactively with the IAEA, with a view to resolving all outstanding concerns in relation to its nuclear programme. Ministers also repeated their full support for the work of the IAEA and for the efforts of its Director General, Dr. El Baradei.

  Western Balkans

  The Council discussed the situation in the Western Balkans, including the first round of the Serbian presidential elections. Conclusions were agreed on Serbia and Montenegro; Kosovo; the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe; and European Partnerships.

  ESDP

  The Council approved Conclusions on ESDP, which covered issues such as ESDP support in Africa, the Georgia Rule of Law mission, and preparation for the operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  1331W
  EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

  High Representative Solana gave a short summary of work to date and the Council agreed draft Conclusions.

  Any other business

  Ministers also discussed the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the situation in Nepal.

  Iraq
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Iraqi oil(a) production and (b) exports have been in each month since December 2003; what the average price paid for Iraqi oil exports was in each month; and if he will make a statement. [178942]

  Mr. Straw
  Information on Iraq's oil production can be found on the CPA website at www.cpa-iraq.org, which produces weekly reconstruction status reports.

  Since December 2003 Iraqi oil production has averaged between a high of 2.595 million barrels per day (mbpd) on 16 April and a low of 1.85 mbpd during the period 14 to 20 May 2004. Average production for December 2003 was 1.953 mbpd; January 2004: 2.103 mbpd, and February 2003: 2.004 mbpd.

  Average crude oil exports from Iraq for each month since December 2003 to May 2004 are shown in the following table.

  Monthly average crude oil exports from Iraq

  Million barrels per day

  December 2003

  1.541

  January 2004

  1.537

  February 2004

  1.382

  March 2004

  1.825

  April 2004

  1.804

  May 2004

  1.380

  The Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) is the body responsible for the sale of Iraqi oil on the international market. Given the relatively low number of contracts that have been awarded, information on the price paid for Iraqi oil exports has not been released by the SOMO in order to protect commercial confidentiality.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much Iraqi oil has been sold domestically in Iraq in each month since May 2003; and if he will make a statement. [178943]

  Mr. Straw
  On average around 0.6 million barrels per day of Iraq's daily oil production is reserved for domestic consumption. This is used for both industrial purposes, for example in Iraq's power stations, and for refining to produce fuel for commercial and domestic use in Iraq.

  Pastor Gong Shengliang
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conditions of imprisonment of Pastor Gong Shengliang in China. [179537]
  1332W
  Mr. Rammell
  We are aware of a recent NGO report on the prison conditions of Pastor Gong and raised our concerns with the Chinese authorities in May. We also supported an EU demarche on this, and other cases, on 17 June. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted our concerns about Pastor Gong but said they had nothing to add to what had been said in the past. The EU previously made a demarche about allegations of mistreatment against Pastor Gong in July last year. The Chinese responded at the time that the allegations were untrue and said that he was in good health, and had been given the proper medicines and treatment for his stomach problems. We plan to petition the Chinese authorities again, with our EU colleagues, within the next few days.

  Reverend Damanik (Indonesia)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia on the imprisonment of Reverend Ribnaldy Damanik; and if he will make it his policy to recognise Reverend Damanik as a prisoner of conscience. [179538]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British embassy in Jakarta followed the trial of Reverend Damanik closely and is in contact with a number of NGOs and community groups connected to his case. We last discussed Reverend Damanik's case with the Indonesian ambassador in November 2003. We will continue to remind the Indonesian Government of their human rights obligations and stress to them the importance of a fair and transparent judicial system.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the proposed Anti Conversion Bill in Sri Lanka constitutes an infringement of religious liberty; and if he will make a statement. [179345]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A member of the Sri Lankan Parliament has gazetted a motion expressing his intention to request that Parliament bring in an Anti Conversion Bill. We understand that this is to be an anti-unethical conversion bill. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the Sri Lankan Constitution, which states that every person is entitled to the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice. As no bill has yet been drafted, we are unable to assess at this stage whether such a bill would contravene Sri Lanka's international obligations.

  We condemn all instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith or belief, wherever they happen and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned. We urge all states to pursue laws and practices which foster tolerance and mutual respect and protect religious minorities from discrimination.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to urge the Government of Vietnam to allow diplomats from(a) the UK and (b) other EU embassies

  1333W
  to visit the Central Highlands in order to investigate the human rights situation with regard to the Degar people. [179532]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly raise our concerns on human rights in Vietnam with the Vietnamese Government, both bilaterally and with our EU partners. Most recently, on 25 May, I raised the situation in the Central Highlands of Vietnam with the Vietnamese President. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also raised our general concerns over human rights the same day with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister.

  We will continue to press the Vietnamese Government to allow unrestricted access at all times to the Central Highlands by diplomats, international press, UN agencies and international NGOs. In May, a group of several diplomatic missions comprising the Swiss, Norwegian, New Zealand and Canadian ambassadors visited the Central Highlands, as did a group of UN agency heads. An EU Troika delegation visited the region for the fourth time since 2001 on 16 to 19 December 2003. Further EU missions are planned in the future. EU ambassadors, including the British ambassador regularly raise the issue of access to the Central Highlands in the context of the EU-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue; the next meeting is on 22 June.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Academic Selection
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the level of support for retaining academic selection in replies to the Household Response Form. [179785]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Household Response Form was one element of a multi-stranded consultation on the recommendations of the Burns Report. While a majority of those who responded to the Household Response Form were in favour of retaining academic selection, there was also a majority in favour of removing the Transfer Test, which is the present method of selection. The Government's approach will ensure the continuation of schools with an academic ethos.

  Juvenile Justice Centre
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what methods of restraint are used in controlling young offenders at the Juvenile Justice Centre; and what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of these methods of restraint. [179488]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational responsibility of the Acting Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland (Artie O'Neill). He has advised me that physical control in care is the method of restraint used within the Juvenile Justice Centre. It has been approved by the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Social Services Inspectorate as being effective in restraining young people safely.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contact hours per week young offenders have with teaching staff in the Juvenile Justice Centre in Bangor, County Down. [179489]
  1334W
  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational responsibility of the Acting Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland (Artie O'Neill). He has advised me that young people have 20 hours contact time in a classroom setting each week and four hours informal contact in their house units.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what management staff are on duty during the night at the Juvenile Justice Centre; and what qualifications the have in(a) social work and (b) management. [179490]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational responsibility of the Acting Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland (Artie O'Neill). He has advised me that the Director of the Juvenile Justice Centre and the Duty Manager, who are on call at night, are qualified social workers. All managers on duty have the necessary managerial skills, competences and experience to carry out their roles effectively. There is no requirement for them to hold a formal managerial qualification.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the maximum period of lock-up imposed on young offenders at the Juvenile Justice Centre has been; how often this maximum has been applied; and to what percentage of offenders it has applied since its opening. [179495]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational responsibility of the Acting Chief Executive of the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland (Artie O'Neill). He has advised me that the Juvenile Justice Centre Rules (Section 30) define the circumstances for temporary confinement. While these do not specify a maximum period (unless the confinement is ordered by the medical officer when a maximum of 24 hours is stipulated), the centre has adopted best practice from other secure centres and has drafted additional guidance for confinement (single separation). This states that confinement should be for the shortest period possible and procedures are in place to prevent excessive use of single separation. As no maximum period is specified, it is not possible to answer the other parts of the question.

  Kilmaine Primary School
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason the Department for Education has yet to reach a decision on whether or not to approve the commencement of building the new Kilmaine Primary School in Bangor, County Down. [179897]

  Mr. Gardiner
  A new school for Kilmaine Primary was included in my Department's Capital Programme announced by my predecessor in February 2003. Planning for the school was progressed by the South Eastern Education and Library Board. The board and my Department have been working closely on the project and I can confirm that an agreed overall maximum cost should be finalized shortly and this will enable a contractor to be appointed. Once the contractor is in place, this will allow the design to be finalised and it is hoped to commence work on site, subject to Planning Approval, by around the end of summer 2004.

  Police Service (Correspondence)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many administrative staff are available within the office of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Headquarters specifically to deal with correspondence. [179898]

  Mr. Pearson
  The details necessary to respond fully to this question have been sought from the Chief Constable. I will reply to the hon. Lady shortly.

  Queen's Festival
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the benefit of the Queen's Festival to the Northern Ireland tourist industry. [178526]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Government do not collect this information and are therefore not in a position to assess the benefit of the Queen's Festival to the Northern Ireland tourism industry.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of pupils left school in Northern Ireland with no formal qualifications in each of the last 10 years; and what the figures are for the UK. [179787]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The information requested is only available for Northern Ireland and Scotland and is as follows:

  Northern Ireland

  Scotland

  Number and percentage of leaves from grant aided post-primary schools who obtained no formal qualifications

  Number and percentage of leavers from publicly funded schools who obtained no National Qualification at SCQF level 3 or better

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1992–93

  1,099

  4.9

  n/a

  n/a

  1993–94

  878

  3.8

  n/a

  n/a

  1994–95

  823

  3.4

  n/a

  n/a

  1995–96

  397

  11.5

  n/a

  n/a

  1996–97

  929

  3.6

  n/a

  n/a

  1997–98

  797

  3.1

  n/a

  n/a

  1998–99

  683

  2.7

  3,189

  5.5

  1999–2000

  899

  3.6

  3,069

  5.4

  2000–01

  1,220

  4.8

  3,319

  5.7

  2001–02

  1.308

  5.2

  3,085

  5.4

  n/a = not available.

  1 Qualification data were missing for 3 per cent. of school leavers in 1995–96.

HEALTH

  Alert Letter System
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to date has been of the alert letter system to warn trusts about NHS staff who have caused concern. [179157]

  Mr. Hutton
  The alert letter system is administered by the regional directors of public health. The Department does not collect information on the costs involved.

  Allergies
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist doctors and clinicians there are in the NHS dealing specifically with the care and treatment of allergies. [179000]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of hospital medical staff specialising in allergy is shown in the table.

  Hospital medical staff within the allergy specialty by grade

  England at 30 September 2003

  Number

  Whole-time equivalent

  All staff

  24

  15

  Of which:

  Consultant

  20

  13

  Registrar group

  2

  1

  Hospital practitioner/clinical assistant

  2

  1

  Source:

  Department of Health 2003 medical and dental workforce census.

  The number of general practitioners and other healthcare professionals specialising in the care and treatment of allergies is not collected centrally.

  Anti-depressants
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the drugs(a) mirtazapine and (b) bupropion are included in the review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors anti-depressants and related drugs; and whether either carries a risk of inducing suicidal behaviour comparable with that of the drugs now under review. [178295]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Mirtazapine (Zispin) is included in the review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and related antidepressants. The risks and benefits of mirtazapine in children and adolescents have been considered by the expert working group on SSRIs and the committee on safety of medicines. Analysis of controlled clinical trials did not find an increased risk of suicidal behaviour or self harm in the mirtazapine treated group compared to those treated with a placebo. A summary of the paediatric clinical trial data for mirtazapine was published on the website of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in April 2004. The review of a possible risk of suicidal behaviour in adults treated with mirtazapine is ongoing.

  Bupropion (Zyban) has not been included in the review by the expert working group as it is licensed in the United Kingdom as an aid to smoking cessation. Bupropion has recently undergone a Europe wide review of its risks and benefits. The product information for prescribers states that, depression, rarely including suicidal ideation, has been reported in patients undergoing a smoking cessation attempt. These symptoms have also been reported during Zyban treatment and generally occurred early during the treatment course. Clinicians should be aware of the possible emergence of significant depressive symptoms in patients undergoing a smoking cessation attempt and should advise patients accordingly.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the current review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related anti-depressants includes investigation of the risk of such drugs inducing violent and dangerous behaviour in some users. [178300]
  1337W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Part of the remit of the Committee on Safety of Medicines' expert working group on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) is to consider the currently available evidence with regard to behavioural disorders, which includes violent behaviour, with a particular focus on suicidal behaviour, suicide attempt and suicide and a possible causal association with SSRIs.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related anti-depressants includes an assessment of possible risks that such drugs may induce violent and dangerous behaviour in some users; [178441]

  (2) whether mirtazapine and bupropion are included in the review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and related drugs; [178469]

  (3) what advice he has received on whether mirtazapine and buproprion carry a risk of inducing suicidal behaviour. [178567]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and related anti-depressants includes investigation of whether such drugs may induce violent and dangerous behaviour in some users; [178337]

  (2) whether the drugs (a) mirtazapine and (b) bupropion were included in the review of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor anti-depressants and related drugs; and if he will conduct an assessment of whether each drug carries a risk of inducing suicidal behaviour. [178338]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) today.

  Arm's Length Bodies
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation is taking place between the Department and representatives of patients and the public about the current review of arm's length bodies. [178446]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation is taking place as part of his Department's review of arms' length bodies on the future of(a) the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Healthcare and (b) patients' forums; and if he will make a statement. [178877]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A report on the review of the Department's arm's length bodies will be published in the near future and following this detailed discussions with interested parties will take place on implementation.

  Cancer Treatment
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for cancer radiotherapy(a) in England and (b) across Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust was during (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04. [179426]
  1338W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data on waiting times for radiotherapy are not collected centrally. The NHS Cancer Plan set out maximum waiting time targets for cancer treatment, which may include radiotherapy where this is given as a first definitive treatment. From December 2001, there is a one month maximum wait from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer and a one month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment for children's cancers, testicular cancer and acute leukaemia. From 2002, there is a maximum two month wait from urgent referral to treatment for breast cancer. By 2005, there will be a maximum two month wait from urgent referral to treatment and a maximum one-month wait from diagnosis to first treatment for all cancers.

  To tackle radiotherapy waiting times we are increasing the numbers of therapy radiographers in post and in training, making better use of existing staff, making unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy equipment, and streamlining the patient journey.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist drug treatment places in respect of the misuse of cannabis are available. [179253]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Community Care (Delayed Discharge) Act
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of the Community Care (Delayed Discharge) Act 2003 with regard to changes in(a) re-admission levels and (b) mortality levels since the Act was enacted. [177675]

  Dr. Ladyman
  No change in readmission levels or mortality levels, which could be considered a direct result of the reduction in delayed discharges, has been noted since October 2003. Furthermore, the available data shows no link between the level of delayed discharges and the late of readmission. However, there is a need to look at these, and a range of other potential impacts of the policy, in more detail and the Department will therefore be advertising shortly to commission an independent evaluation of the effects of the policy.

  Correspondence
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter dated 2 April concerning the late Ms R. Forber of Warrington. [179263]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 17 June 2004] : I replied to the hon. Member on 17 June.

  Delayed Discharges Reimbursement Scheme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what payments the NHS received from local authority social services departments under the delayed discharges reimbursement scheme for each month for which figures are available. [178213]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Figures for payments made by individual councils will be collected centrally at the end of the first six months of the scheme. The majority of
  1339W
  councils have arranged local investment agreements with the national health service and will only pay actual charges for delays falling outside this agreement

  Dentistry
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), of 11 May 2004,Official Report, column 22WH, on dentists, if he will list the primary care trusts assessed as having the most acute dental access problems. [178271]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have established a central national health service dentistry support team to assist primary care trusts (PCTs) having the most acute access problems. The 16 PCTs they are currently working with are listed. We are now considering with strategic health authorities, which PCTs will need similar assistance in phase 2 of the team's work.

  Fareham and Gosport PCT

  Isle of Wight PCT

  New Forest PCT

  West Gloucestershire PCT

  North East Lincolnshire PCT

  Scarborough, Whitby and Rydedale PCT

  Craven, Harrogate and Rural District PCT

  Northumbria Care Trust

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT

  Hyndeburn and Ribble PCT

  Blackburn with Darwen PCT

  Morecambe Bay PCT

  Shropshire County PCT

  Telford and Wrekin PCT

  South West Staffordshire PCT

  Central Cheshire PCT

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he or ministerial colleagues are planning to meet the British Dental Association to discuss the results of its consultation with the dental profession on the new NHS dental contract. [178276]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Ministers meet the British Dental Association (BDA) and other representative bodies of the dental profession on a regular basis, as do senior departmental officials. I have already met the BDA to discuss interim responses to its consultation on our "Framework proposals for Primary Care Dental Services in England", which concluded on 30 April.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the amount of money which the Adur, Arun and Worthing Primary Care Trust has saved in each of the last seven years from dental patients being treated privately. [178308]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Eating Disorders
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people with eating disorders have been treated in private facilities in each of the last five years; [179239]
  1340W
  (2) what percentage of people that are diagnosed with an eating disorder received treatment from a private facility in the last five years. [179240]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Excessive Drinking
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost to the NHS of(a) alcohol-related illness and (b) accidents caused by excessive drinking was in the last year for which figures are available. [179648]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Prime Minster's strategy unit estimated that the national health service in England incurred an annual cost of up to £1.7 billion as a result of alcohol misuse. This estimate did not include a breakdown of the estimated costs of alcohol-related illnesses or accidents.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce charges for those who attend hospital as a result of excessive drinking. [179649]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government do not intend to do so.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to reduce the impact on the NHS of binge drinking. [179749]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy for England contains a number of measures to tackle the harm caused by binge drinking and the impact this harm has on individuals, communities and public services.These measures include:
  The revision of the sensible drinking message.
  The development of new health promotion messages for binge drinkers.
  Pilots of targeted screening and brief interventions, which will help to identify people with alcohol problems, including binge drinkers, and offer them help and advice to cut their alcohol consumption.
  Improvements in tackling alcohol-related crime and disorder, which can often be associated with binge drinking.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were hospitalised as a result of accidents caused by excessive drinking in each of the last 10 years. [179750]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, in order to achieve foundation status, hospital trusts will be required(a) to be fully compliant with the (i) European Working Time Directive and (ii) New Deal for Junior Doctors and (b) to allocate protected time and funding for junior doctors' training on the same basis as non-foundation trusts. [179118]

  Mr. Hutton
  As part of the national health service foundation trust application process, applicants are required to demonstrate that the organisation will continue to meet prevailing employment law, including
  1341W
  the European Working Time Directive, and relevant legislation enacted in the future. Applicants must also retain three star performance ratings throughout the application process. The percentage of junior doctors complying in full with the new deal on junior doctors' hours is an indicator used as part of the performance ratings. The approval arrangements for junior doctors' training posts will be the same in both NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assigned patients were given to each general practitioner on average in(a) England, (b) each strategic health authority and (c) each primary care trust in each year since 1996. [177821]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally by the Department.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner surgeries there were in(a) England, (b) each region and (c) each strategic health authority in each year since 1996. [179159]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Health Service Finance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) England, (b) each strategic health authority and (c) each primary care trust the initial (i) capital and (ii) resource allocations announced last year for three years and the latest revised allocations; if he will set out the reasons for differences between the two; and whether the latest revisions represent the final budget allocations. [178883]

  Mr. Hutton
  Capital allocations to national health service organisations for the three year period 2003–04 to 2005–06 were announced on 8 January 2003. Revenue allocations to primary care trusts for 2003–04 to 2005–06 were announced on 11 December 2002.

  There have been no revisions to these allocations.

  Information on capital and revenue allocations in England to strategic health authorities and primary care trusts has been placed in the Library.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the oral answer from the Minister for Public Health of 8 June and the written answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 192W, on infection rates for hepatitis C, if he will clarify how many individuals in England are estimated to be suffering from hepatitis C who are undiagnosed. [178197]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of cumulative hepatitis C laboratory reports (38,000) is lower than the estimate for the overall population prevalence. This suggests that the majority of hepatitis C infections have not been diagnosed. The number of individuals who have been infected with hepatitis C is 250,000, but the figure for those who have gone on to develop chronic hepatitis C infection in England is 200,000, as in some cases, the infection clears spontaneously.

  Heroin
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the work of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Hounslow in combating heroin smoking in young people, especially in the Asian community. [176093]

  Mr. Hutton
  Services to reduce the harm caused by drugs and alcohol to people in Hounslow are provided primarily by the Hounslow substance misuse team and Hounslow drug and alcohol action team (DAAT). The DAAT has undertaken projects specifically targeting Asian men with the aim of creating a model of excellence in raising the awareness of drugs and pathways of treatment and to increase the number of Punjabi people accessing advice, information and treatment.

  Hospital Infections
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of infections with the bacteria acinetobacter there were in the NHS in each year since 1996. [179162]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data on hospital acquired acinetobacter infections are not collected centrally. However, the Health Protection Agency has a voluntary reporting system for blood stream (bacteraemia) infections and the available data are shown in the table.

  Laboratory reports of acinetobacter bacteraemias, England and Wales, 1996 to 2002

  Number

  1996

  593

  1997

  668

  1998

  773

  1999

  783

  2000

  777

  2001

  937

  2002

  987

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency.

  Hospital Training Posts
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many recognised hospital training posts were available last year; [178264]

  (2) what plans his Department has to increase the number of recognised hospital training posts. [178266]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at September 2003, there were 14,619 staff within the registrar group, 18,698 senior house officers (SHOs—this may include a proportion of doctors who are on local terms and conditions) and 4,003 pre-registration house officers (PRHOs).

  The number of PRHO posts has been increasing since the mid 1990s to accommodate the increasing numbers of medical school graduates requiring PRHO posts. As a result of the increases in medical school places announced between 1999 and 2001, we plan to increase the number of PRHO posts by over 2,250, or 56.7 per cent. between the current number and that required in August 2008.
  1343W
  We have achieved and exceeded the NHS Plan target of increasing the number of specialist registrars (SpRs) by 1,000 by March 2004. Central funding to support the implementation of a further 119 SpR posts is being distributed in 2004–05. Funding has also been identified for a further 42 posts in 2005–06.

  In addition, strategic health authorities have been given the freedom to agree as many additional specialist registrar training places as are necessary to achieve European Working Time Directive compliance, subject to obtaining educational approval.

  Numbers of SHO posts are not planned centrally.

  However, the structure of postgraduate training will change over the next few years with the implementation of the "Modernising Medical Careers" initiative. This will include:
  the introduction of two-year foundation programmes to replace the existing PRHO year and first year of SHO training. This will be introduced from August 2005;
  the development of "run-through" training programmes to replace the existing SHO and SpR grades from August 2007.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the expected benefits to his Department would be of the proposed identity card; and what information would need to be recorded on the National Identity Register in order to achieve those benefits; [177872]

  (2) what information would be necessary on the National Identity Register for the NHS to assess whether an individual should be paying for treatment; and what information he expects to be available to the NHS on the National Identity Register in order for the identity card scheme to achieve its health-related aims. [178893]

  Mr. Hutton
  A more effective enforcement of the rules determining access to free national health service and social care services is crucial in ensuring that limited resources go to those for whom they are intended. The identity card will help front line staff to ensure that these rules are implemented by verifying that people are who they say they are and confirming information provided by individuals. Relevant information could include their nationality, United Kingdom address/es, residential status and how long ago they registered for an identity card. Final decisions on what information will be required and how any checks will work will be made in the light of the feasibility studies and studies of user requirements which are currently underway.

  Information Management Technology
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the secretary of State for Health what training is being provided for health care staff in new information management technology. [179069]

  Mr. Hutton
  The development of professionalism in the use of health information management technology is fundamental to ensuring that specialists working in the area are able to make the best possible contribution to improving health and patient care Local health bodies in England are responsible for ensuring their staff receive training in relevant basic information 1344W
  technology skills. Much of the training is delivered in-house or has traditionally been available from local commercial providers.

  The national health service information authority (NHSIA) is responsible for national implementation in England of the European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL), a qualification recognised around the world for basic computing skills. Every person who completes the qualification will have completed the same syllabus. The ECDL was adopted as the reference standard for basic IT skills in the NHS in England in 2001. National procurement and implementation by the NHSIA means that registration, access to learning materials, and testing all come at no cost to organisations or individuals other than staff time.

  Specific training will be given to staff using new IT systems being implemented as part of the national programme for IT in the NHS in England as the systems are rolled out.

  Insulin
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance is available on the appropriate insulin to prescribe to a newly diagnosed insulin-dependent diabetic. [179550]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued advice in 2002 on the management of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes. This advice, while stating that there is no direct evidence to support the use or choice of any one insulin type or regimen over another, recognises that patient preference should form part of the choice of insulin type and regimen. Guidelines on the management of type 1 diabetes are due to be published in the near future.

  Medical Students (Assistance)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is available to facilitate medical students who wish to train part-time. [179083]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is not responsible for facilitating part-time training for medical students; that is rightly the responsibility of the independent universities and medical schools. Universities are autonomous bodies which are responsible for operating their own admission systems, but they collectively adhere to the Guiding Principles for the admission of Medical Students, issued by the council of heads of medical schools in February 1999. This guidance follows principles of fairness, diversity and equity in access.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many of the assessments of need for carers of adult mental health service users under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 resulted in(a) a care plan, (b) service provision and (c) a direct payments package in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03; [179271]

  (2) how many of the assessments of need for carers of adult mental health service users under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 were (a) sole assessments

  1345W
  by social services departments and (b) joint assessment with health service partners or by joint authorities in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [179272]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not held centrally.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority social services departments provided assessments of need for carers of adult mental health service users under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and how many assessments were completed in each year. [179273]

  Dr. Ladyman
  146 of the 150 councils with social service responsibilities provided data on provision of carers assessments in 2001-–02 and 2002–03. This information is not broken down by primary client group of the cared-for person. There were 243,000 carers' assessments in 2001–02 and 287,000 in 2002–03.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assessments of need to adults with mental health needs under section 47 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 resulted in(a) a care plan, (b) service provision and (c) a direct payments package in (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03. [179274]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Following an assessment, the number of clients with mental health needs receiving direct payments in 2001–02 and 2002–03 was 200 and 300 respectively for England.

  In each of the years 2001–02 and 2002–03 an estimated 73,000 adults aged 18 and over with mental health needs received services following a community care assessment.

  Information on the number of assessments of adults with mental health needs that resulted in a care plan is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority social services Departments provided assessments of need to adults with mental health needs under section 47 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and how many assessments were completed in each year. [179275]

  Dr. Ladyman
  All 150 councils with responsibility for social services provided assessments for people aged 18 and over with mental health needs. There were 129,000 such assessments in 2001–02 and 121,000 in 2002–03.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the assessments of need to adults with mental health needs under section 47 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 were sole assessments by local authority social services departments in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and how many joint assessments were carried out with health service partners or by joint authorities in each year. [179276]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patient deaths there were in each of the mental health hospital trusts in each of the past five years. [179824]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not available in the requested format.
  1346W
  Information on the number of episodes under mental illness specialities ending in death by provider in each of the last five years has been placed in the Library.

  Multiple Limb Disability
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many occupational therapists have been specifically trained to work with those with multiple limb disability; [179079]

  (2) how many occupational therapists are capable of providing those with multiple limb disability with support and advice on (a) daily living and (b) home adaptations. [179080]

  Dr. Ladyman
  All occupational therapists are trained to assess and treat patients temporarily or permanently disabled by a variety of medical conditions. It is for primary care trusts, in partnership with strategic health authorities, local authorities and other stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services. This process provides the means for addressing local needs within the health community including the provision of specialist occupational therapy services.

  Myeloma
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the increase in funding for cancer was allocated to haematology, with particular reference to myeloma; and what proportion of this sum was spent on staff training. [178828]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2003–04 an additional £570 million was made available for cancer services. Data are not collected centrally on spending of this investment against individual cancer tumour sites. It is for primary care trusts in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national priorities for cancer services.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) the cost of setting up and (b) the annual running costs of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence are. [179068]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Set up costs for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) were included as part of the Institute's annual running costs for 1999–2000 and were not separately identified.

  The annual budget for NICE'S running costs since its establishment in April 1999 has been as follows:

  Amount (£)

  1999–2000

  10,511,000

  2000–01

  11,215,000

  2001–02

  12,680,000

  2002–03

  14,774,000

  2003–04

  16,770,000

  2004–05

  18,204,000

  1347W
  NICE is jointly funded by the Department and the Welsh Assembly Government and these figures are for the Institute's total funding. Funding has increased to reflect NICE'S expanded work programme.

  NHS Dental Workforce Review
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations his Department has received in the last six months from(a) hon Members, (b) Peers and (c) members of the dental profession regarding the NHS dental workforce review. [178261]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There have been a number of representations over the last six months regarding plans to increase dental workforce capacity four parliamentary questions and two pieces of correspondence have been received from right hon. and hon. Members; one letter has been received from a member of the dental profession. We intend to make an announcement about dental workforce issues shortly.

  Organ Donation
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure that people who wish to donate their hearts for transplant are able to do so; and if he will make a statement.[178092]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department's plans for ensuring that all those who wish to donate organs and tissues, if suitable, for transplantation after their death, are set out in "Saving Lives, Valuing donors—A Transplant Framework for England". Examples include encouraging units to confirm whether a potential donor had registered on the organ donor register before approaching relatives and providing funding through UK transplant for national health service trusts to employ donor liaison nurses to raise awareness of the benefits of organ donation provide the link between critical care teams and donor transplant co-ordinators.

  Overseas Dentists
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what incentives overseas dentists are being offered to relocate to the UK. [178275]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is for the national health service locally to decide whether to offer financial support to overseas recruits to relocate to the United Kingdom. Initiatives are under way to recruit dentists from the European Union (Denmark, Poland and Spain) and more widely.

  Pregnant Mothers (Smoking)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mothers smoked during pregnancy in(a) 1997 and (b) 2004. [178348]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data are not available in the form requested.

  In England, the proportion of women who smoked during pregnancy was 23 per cent. in 1995 and 19 per cent. in 2000.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the private finance initiative and public private partnership schemes his Department has entered into where there has been an onward sale of the private sector stakeholding into a secondary market; what the(a) book value of the stakeholding and (b) onward sale price were in each case; and how any windfall gains from subsequent refinancing arrangements are shared. [179004]

  Mr. Hutton
  Records are not held centrally for private finance and public private partnerships schemes where there has been an onward sale of the private sector equity stakeholding.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the private finance initiative and public private partnership schemes his Department has entered into that have been subject to refinancing deals; and how much of the windfall gain has been repaid to the Government in each case. [179005]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), on 31 March 2004,Official Report, column 1412W. This answer contains details of all refinanced private finance initiative projects up to 31 March 2004. Since then there has been one further NHS scheme as follows:

  The gains are not repaid to the Government but directly to the trust.

  Bromley hospital NHS trust

  Original funding value (£. million)

  118

  Date refinanced

  23 February 2004

  Total refinancing gain (£ million)

  42.3

  Net refinancing share (percentage)

  32

  Refinancing share to Trust (£ million)

  13.4

  Programme Budgeting Project
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made with the Programme Budgeting Project; and if he will make a statement. [175315]

  Mr. Hutton
  During 2003, three pilot site primary care trusts (PCTs) tested the programme budgeting methodology agreed with the National Audit Office, Her Majesty's Treasury, the Audit Commission and the national health service. This has led to the development of detailed guidance issued to the NHS in December 2003.

  From financial year 2003–04 onwards, PCTs and strategic health authorities will report within their annual accounts the totality of their expenditure on a programme basis each year.

  Radiotherapy (Waiting Times)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received from the Royal College of Radiologists about waiting times for radiotherapy; [179211]
  1349W
  (2) what proportion of patients needing (a) radical radiotherapy, (b) palliative radiotherapy for cancer and (c) radiotherapy after surgery have waited for treatment for longer than the recommended maximum. [179212]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answers 21 June 2004]: We have not received any direct representations from the Royal College of Radiologists recently about radiotherapy waiting times. The national cancer director is working closely with officers of the college to ensure that the times patients wait for radiotherapy are minimised.

  Data on waiting times for radiotherapy are not collected centrally. The NHS Cancer Plan set out maximum waiting time targets for cancer treatment, which may include radiotherapy where this is given as a first definitive treatment. From December 2001, there is a one month maximum wait from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer and a one month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment for children's cancers, testicular cancer and acute leukaemia. From 2002, there is a maximum two month wait from urgent referral to treatment for breast cancer. By 2005, there will be a maximum two month wait from urgent referral to treatment and a maximum one month wait from diagnosis to first treatment for all cancers.

  To tackle radiotherapy waiting times we are increasing the numbers of therapy radiographers in post and in training, making better use of existing staff, making unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy equipment, and streamlining the patient journey.

  Screening Programmes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when electronic patient records will have the functionality to enable general practitioner surgeries to call up patients for screening tests. [178882]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service care records service will include the basic patient information capable of identifying patients for the purposes of existing prevention and screening processes. The NHS care records service is being implemented incrementally by adding functionality in three phases and by rolling out the information technology systems geographically to meet local needs. The functionality to support screening is currently expected to be implemented in Phase 2, starting in 2006.

  Smoking
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population smoke, broken down by(a) sex, (b) age, (c) region and (d) social class; and if he will make a statement. [178932]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Our comprehensive tobacco control programme is aimed at all smokers, to discourage people from starting to smoke and encourage and help those who do smoke to stop.

  The information requested is shown in the following tables.
  1350W

  Table 1: Prevalence of smoking cigarettes among adults aged 16 and over, by age and sex—England, 2002

  Percentage

  Men

  Women

  All persons

  16–19

  22

  28

  25

  20–24

  38

  38

  38

  25–34

  36

  33

  34

  35–49

  29

  27

  28

  50–59

  26

  24

  25

  60 and over

  16

  14

  15

  Total

  27

  25

  26

  Source:

  Office National Statistics (ONS) Living in Britain: Results from the 2002 General Household Survey.

  Table 2: Prevalence of smoking cigarettes among adults aged 16 and over, by Government Office Region—England, 2002

  Percentage

  North East

  27

  North West

  28

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  27

  East Midlands

  24

  West Midlands

  23

  East of England

  25

  London

  24

  South East

  26

  South West

  25

  Total

  26

  Source:

  ONS Living in Britain: Results from the 2002 General Household Survey.

  Table 3: Prevalence of smoking cigarettes among adults aged 16 and over, by socio-economic-classification (NS-SEC)—England, 2002

  Percentages

  Managerial and professional

  19

  Intermediate

  26

  Routine and manual

  31

  Total

  26

  Note:

  Persons whose head of household/household reference person was a full time student, in the armed forces, had an inadequately described occupation or had never worked are not shown as separate categories but are included in the total. The total also includes some missing cases.

  Source:

  ONS Living in Britain: Results from the 2002 General Household Survey.

  Treatment Costs
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS of treating the symptoms of(a) alcohol, (b) cannabis, (c) heroin, (d) cocaine and crack and (e) ecstasy abuse was in the last year for which figures are available. [179959]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The estimated annual cost of alcohol misuse to the national health service is up to £1.7 billion in England.

  Information regarding the cost of drug misuse to the NHS is not available. However, in 2003–04, the Government's pooled budget totalled £243.6 million for the treatment of drug misusers. In addition, it is estimated that a further £200 million of mainstream funds was spent on the treatment of drug misuse.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Overseas Doctors
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the requirement for overseas doctors to pay visa renewal fees for employment within the NHS. [179082]

  Mr. Browne
  Overseas doctors here for postgraduate training do not require work permits but must meet the requirements of the immigration rules for leave to remain in this capacity. Charging for general leave to remain applications was introduced on 1 August 2003 and individual applicants must pay the requisite fee. The fee is £155 for a postal application and £250 for personal callers who wish to apply at one of the four Public Enquiry Offices.

  Overseas doctors who seek employment other than post-graduate training require work permits. Charging for leave to remain in connection with work permits was introduced on 1 April and individuals now apply for their own leave to remain. The £121 fee is the responsibility of the individual. However the employer may wish to pay on the individual's behalf.

  Application Registration Cards
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Application Registration Cards have been issued since January 2002. [170333]

  Mr. Browne
  Up to the end of March 2004, approximately 200,000 Application Registration Cards (ARCs) had been issued. This figure includes cards issued to new asylum seekers and their dependants as well as replacements where, for instance, the original has been lost or damaged.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether a scheme of transitional support will be offered to asylum seekers from EU accession countries from 1 May; [168693]

  (2) what the status will be of asylum seekers from EU accession countries who are sick or medically unfit for work from 1 May. [168697]

  Mr. Browne
  From 1 May 2004 nationals of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta, are no longer be eligible for support from the National Asylum Support Service or a local authority under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999. This is because of the effect of paragraph 5 schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
  1352W
  There is no scheme of transitional support for asylum seekers from the EU accession states. Asylum seekers from the eight Eastern European accession countries, namely the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia ("the A8 countries"), will generally be able to take up employment in the UK, providing they register under the Worker Registration Scheme, which will become operational from 1 May 2004. Once they have secured employment and registered under the scheme, asylum seekers from the A8 countries may become eligible for family tax credit and child benefit. If they are on low incomes they can also access housing benefit and council tax benefit. Part time workers may also be eligible for income based job seeker's allowance or income support, provided they meet the usual conditions for those benefits.

  Maltese and Cypriot nationals will have the same rights as existing EEA nationals. If they are seeking work they have the right to reside and look for work for six months. If they satisfy the Habitual Residence Test they will be eligible to apply for income related benefits and for social housing and homelessness assistance. Maltese and Cypriot nationals who are not economically active will only have a right to reside if they are self sufficient and are not placing an unreasonable burden on UK social assistance funds.

  Support will continue for unaccompanied asylum seeking children until their 18th birthday.

  An asylum seeker who is sick or medically unfit for work will be able to remain in the UK if he can become self supporting, for example if he can stay with friends or relatives.

  If an accession state national wishes to return to his country of origin, he can seek assistance from the local authority who have a power under the Withholding and Withdrawal of Support (Travel and Assistance and Temporary Accommodation) Regulations 2002 to arrange travel. Local authorities also have the power to provide short-term accommodation and support for families pending return. For the cases that were formerly supported by NASS or by a local authority under the Interim Provisions the Government will reimburse local authorities' reasonable costs in implementing these arrangements. Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) can make arrangements for their return.

  Schedule 3 of the 2002 Act does not prevent the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty if, and to the extent that, its exercise or performance is necessary for the purpose of avoiding a breach of a person's Convention rights or a person's rights under the Community Treaties. Some asylum seekers who are sick or medically unfit for work may be provided with support by NASS or the local authority under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999 if support is considered necessary to avoid a breach of a person's Convention rights.
  1353W
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied children sought asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom, broken down by(a) UK entry point and (b) originating country in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [175951]

  Mr. Browne
  Data on the number of unaccompanied asylum seeking children that arrive at specific ports of entry are not collated centrally (additionally some

  Unaccompanied 1,2,3 children, aged 17 or under, applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality, 2001 to 2003, principal applicants only

  20014

  20025,6

  20036

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Albania

  85

  10

  75

  300

  25

  275

  145

  5

  140

  Czech Republic

  20

  20

  —

  10

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  SAM7

  475

  20

  460

  725

  35

  690

  15

  *

  15

  Maccdonia

  100

  5

  95

  110

  5

  105

  55

  5

  50

  Moldova

  35

  10

  30

  145

  20

  125

  5

  —

  5

  Poland

  25

  25

  —

  10

  5

  5

  60

  5

  60

  Romania

  50

  15

  35

  130

  20

  110

  5

  —

  5

  Russia

  5

  *

  5

  10

  5

  10

  170

  5

  170

  Turkey

  95

  85

  10

  85

  30

  55

  85

  55

  35

  Ukraine

  *

  *

  *

  5

  —

  5

  5

  —

  5

  Other Former USSR

  10

  5

  5

  10

  5

  10

  5

  —

  5

  Other Former Yugoslavia

  80

  *

  75

  5

  *

  *

  *

  —

  *

  Europe Other

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  *

  *

  —

  *

  Europe Total

  985

  195

  790

  1,545

  155

  1,390

  560

  70

  490

  Colombia

  5

  5

  *

  5

  *

  5

  5

  *

  *

  Ecuador

  5

  5

  *

  5

  *

  5

  5

  *

  5

  Jamaica

  *

  —

  *

  15

  5

  15

  5

  —

  5

  Americas Other

  5

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  *

  Americas Total

  20

  10

  10

  30

  5

  20

  15

  5

  10

  Algeria

  20

  5

  15

  40

  10

  35

  20

  *

  20

  Angola

  145

  30

  115

  210

  15

  195

  115

  10

  110

  Burundi

  20

  5

  15

  30

  10

  25

  60

  10

  55

  Cameroon

  20

  10

  15

  30

  5

  25

  20

  *

  20

  Congo

  30

  10

  20

  25

  10

  20

  15

  *

  15

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  80

  30

  55

  145

  40

  105

  95

  10

  85

  Eritrea

  110

  25

  85

  220

  80

  140

  125

  55

  70

  Ethiopia

  140

  25

  120

  140

  60

  80

  100

  30

  70

  Gambia

  *

  *

  *

  5

  5

  *

  5

  —

  5

  Ghana

  5

  5

  *

  5

  *

  5

  5

  *

  5

  Ivory Coast

  5

  —

  5

  5

  —

  5

  10

  *

  10

  Kenya

  15

  5

  10

  30

  5

  25

  25

  *

  25

  Nigeria

  35

  30

  10

  55

  35

  20

  35

  20

  15

  Rwanda

  40

  5

  35

  65

  10

  55

  20

  5

  15

  Sierra Leone

  130

  80

  50

  110

  70

  35

  35

  20

  15

  Somalia

  200

  55

  140

  345

  40

  305

  255

  40

  215

  Sudan

  5

  5

  5

  15

  5

  15

  30

  5

  25

  Tanzania

  *

  —

  *

  5

  *

  5

  5

  —

  5

  Uganda

  45

  5

  45

  105

  *

  100

  125

  *

  125

  Zimbabwe

  35

  30

  5

  90

  70

  15

  10

  5

  10

  Africa Other

  25

  5

  20

  70

  25

  50

  105

  25

  80

  Africa Total

  1,115

  360

  755

  1,745

  490

  1,255

  1,225

  235

  990

  Iran

  25

  20

  5

  50

  20

  35

  65

  15

  50

  Iraq

  180

  130

  55

  1,310

  125

  1,190

  220

  15

  205

  Middle East Other

  20

  10

  10

  50

  15

  35

  30

  10

  20

  Middle East Total

  225

  160

  65

  1,410

  155

  1,255

  310

  40

  270

  Afghanistan

  675

  620

  55

  720

  175

  545

  235

  90

  145

  Bangladesh

  15

  *

  15

  60

  *

  60

  50

  *

  50

  China

  135

  85

  55

  260

  120

  135

  145

  60

  85

  1354W
  unaccompanied minors may arrive in the UK and subsequently apply for asylum in country). Information on the originating country of applicants is not available. The information requested could be obtained from individual case files only at disproportionate cost.

  The table presents data on asylum applications from unaccompanied children broken down by year, location of application and nationality.
  1355W

  Unaccompanied 1,2,3 children, aged 17 or under, applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality, 2001 to 2003, principal applicants only

  20014

  20025,6

  20036

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  India

  20

  15

  5

  60

  25

  35

  60

  20

  35

  Pakistan

  25

  20

  5

  40

  15

  25

  45

  10

  35

  Sri Lanka

  140

  100

  35

  125

  55

  70

  15

  5

  10

  Vietnam

  90

  55

  35

  180

  35

  145

  125

  10

  115

  Asia Other

  5

  *

  5

  15

  —

  15

  10

  5

  10

  Asia Total

  1,100

  895

  205

  1,460

  430

  1,035

  685

  200

  480

  Nationally not known

  25

  25

  —

  5

  5

  *

  5

  5

  *

  Grand Total

  3,470

  1,645

  1,820

  6,200

  1,240

  4,955

  2,800

  555

  2,245

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Unaccompanied at point of arrival, aged (or if no proof) determined to be 17 or under and not known to be joining relative or guardian in the United Kingdom.

  3 Figures exclude disputed age cases.

  4 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices.

  5 Not comparable with manual counts data prior to 2002.

  6 Provisional figures.

  7 Serbia and Montenegro (SAM) replaced Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) from 5 February 2003. SAM comprises the Republic of Serbia, the Republic of Montenegro, and the Province of Kosovo (administered by the UN on an interim basis since 1999).

  Information on applications from unaccompanied asylum seeking children and other asylum statistics are published in quarterly web pages, the most recent covering the first quarter of 2004, and in the annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom". Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds immigration 1.html

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unaccompanied children

  Applications received for asylum

  Unaccompanied1,2,3 children, aged 17 or under, applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality, 1999 to 2003

  Number of principal applicants

  19994

  20004

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Albania

  125

  115

  10

  95

  25

  70

  Czech Republic

  30

  30

  —

  20

  20

  —

  SAM

  1,520

  190

  1,335

  665

  70

  595

  Macedonia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moldova

  *

  —

  *

  5

  *

  5

  Poland

  45

  45

  —

  15

  15

  —

  Romania

  85

  *

  85

  40

  10

  30

  Russia

  5

  —

  5

  *

  —

  *

  Turkey

  115

  105

  10

  155

  135

  15

  Ukraine

  *

  —

  *

  5

  *

  5

  Other former USSR

  25

  20

  5

  20

  15

  5

  Other former Yugoslavia

  30

  20

  10

  35

  *

  35

  Europe Other

  10

  10

  —

  5

  *

  *

  Europe Total

  1,995

  535

  1,460

  1,055

  290

  765

  Colombia

  20

  15

  *

  5

  5

  —

  Ecuador

  15

  10

  *

  5

  5

  *

  Jamaica

  5

  5

  —

  5

  5

  —

  Americas Other

  5

  5

  —

  *

  *

  —

  Americas Total

  40

  35

  5

  15

  15

  *

  Algeria

  10

  5

  5

  25

  10

  15

  Angola

  40

  25

  20

  100

  35

  70

  Burundi

  10

  *

  10

  20

  10

  10

  Cameroon

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  *

  1356W
  have applied for asylum in the UK in each year since 1979, broken down by nationality. [177027]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: The table shows the number of applications received for asylum from unaccompanied asylum seeking children in the United Kingdom, by nationality, for 1999–2003, the latest published data. The available information for earlier years is published in successive editions of the Home Office annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", copies of which are available from the Library of the House, and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.
  1357W

  Applications received for asylum

  Unaccompanied1,2,3 children, aged 17 or under, applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, by nationality, 1999 to 2003

  Number of principal applicants

  19994

  20004

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Congo

  5

  5

  *

  10

  5

  10

  Democratic Republic Congo

  35

  30

  5

  45

  35

  10

  Eritrea

  95

  50

  45

  85

  35

  50

  Ethiopia

  55

  30

  25

  60

  25

  35

  Gambia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ghana

  *

  —

  *

  10

  10

  *

  Ivory Coast

  *

  *

  —

  5

  *

  5

  Kenya

  10

  5

  5

  10

  5

  5

  Nigeria

  45

  40

  5

  5

  20

  5

  Rwanda

  35

  10

  25

  50

  5

  45

  Sierra Leone

  65

  55

  10

  5

  60

  15

  Somalia

  190

  155

  35

  175

  100

  80

  Sudan

  5

  5

  *

  10

  10

  *

  Tanzania

  *

  *

  —

  5

  *

  *

  Uganda

  10

  —

  10

  25

  *

  25

  Zimbabwe

  5

  5

  —

  35

  30

  *

  Africa Other

  10

  10

  —

  25

  20

  5

  Africa Total

  630

  435

  200

  800

  415

  380

  Iran

  15

  15

  *

  65

  50

  15

  Iraq

  60

  50

  5

  110

  85

  25

  Middle East Other

  15

  15

  —

  15

  10

  5

  Middle East Total

  90

  80

  10

  19O

  145

  45

  Afghanistan

  215

  195

  20

  300

  265

  35

  Bangladesh

  5

  5

  *

  5

  *

  5

  China

  165

  45

  120

  115

  60

  60

  India

  15

  10

  *

  15

  15

  *

  Pakistan

  20

  15

  5

  25

  20

  5

  Sri Lanka

  125

  105

  25

  10

  140

  30

  Vietnam

  5

  *

  5

  20

  10

  10

  Asoa Other

  5

  —

  5

  5

  *

  *

  Asia Total

  550

  370

  180

  655

  510

  145

  National not known

  40

  40

  —

  20

  20

  —

  Grand Total

  3,350

  1,500

  1,850

  2,735

  1,395

  1,340

  20014

  20025.6

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Albania

  85

  10

  75

  300

  25

  275

  Czech Republic

  20

  20

  —

  10

  5

  5

  SAM

  475

  20

  460

  725

  35

  690

  Macedonia

  100

  5

  95

  110

  5

  105

  Moldova

  35

  10

  30

  145

  20

  125

  Poland

  25

  25

  —

  10

  5

  5

  Romania

  50

  15

  35

  130

  20

  110

  Russia

  5

  *

  5

  10

  5

  10

  Turkey

  95

  85

  10

  85

  30

  55

  Ukraine

  *

  *

  *

  5

  —

  5

  Other former USSR

  10

  5

  5

  10

  5

  10

  Other former Yugoslavia

  80

  *

  75

  5

  *

  *

  Europe Other

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  *

  Europe Total

  985

  195

  790

  1,545

  155

  1,390

  Colombia

  5

  5

  *

  5

  *

  5

  Ecuador

  5

  5

  *

  5

  *

  5

  Jamaica

  *

  —

  *

  15

  5

  15

  Americas Other

  5

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Americas Total

  20

  10

  10

  311

  5

  20

  Algeria

  20

  5

  15

  40

  10

  35

  Angola

  145

  30

  115

  210

  15

  195

  Burundi

  20

  5

  15

  30

  10

  25

  Cameroon

  20

  10

  15

  311

  5

  25

  Congo

  30

  10

  20

  25

  10

  20

  Democratic Republic Congo

  80

  30

  55

  145

  40

  105

  Eritrea

  110

  25

  85

  220

  80

  140

  Ethiopia

  140

  25

  120

  141

  60

  80

  Gambia

  *

  *

  *

  5

  5

  *

  Ghana

  5

  5

  *

  5

  *

  5

  Ivory Coast

  5

  —

  5

  5

  —

  5

  Kenya

  15

  5

  10

  30

  5

  25

  1358W 1359W

  20014

  20025,6

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Nigeria

  35

  30

  10

  55

  35

  20

  Rwanda

  40

  5

  35

  65

  10

  55

  Sierra Leone

  130

  80

  50

  110

  70

  35

  Somalia

  200

  55

  140

  345

  40

  305

  Sudan

  5

  5

  5

  15

  5

  15

  Tanzania

  *

  —

  *

  5

  *

  5

  Uganda

  45

  5

  45

  105

  *

  100

  Zimbabwe

  35

  30

  5

  90

  70

  15

  Africa Other

  25

  5

  20

  70

  25

  50

  Africa Total

  1,115

  360

  755

  1,745

  490

  1,255

  Iran

  25

  20

  5

  50

  20

  35

  Iraq

  180

  130

  55

  1,310

  125

  1,190

  Middle East Other

  20

  10

  10

  50

  15

  35

  Middle East Total

  225

  160

  65

  1,410

  155

  1,255

  Afghanistan

  675

  620

  55

  720

  175

  545

  Bangladesh

  15

  *

  15

  60

  *

  60

  China

  135

  85

  55

  260

  120

  135

  India

  20

  15

  5

  60

  25

  35

  Pakistan

  25

  20

  5

  40

  15

  25

  Sri Lanka

  140

  100

  35

  125

  55

  70

  Vietnam

  90

  55

  35

  180

  35

  145

  Asia Other

  5

  *

  5

  15

  —

  15

  Asia Total

  1,100

  895

  205

  1,460

  430

  1,035

  Nationality not known

  25

  25

  —

  5

  5

  *

  Grand Total

  3,470

  1,645

  1,820

  6,200

  1,240

  4,955

  20036

  Nationality

  Total

  Applies at port

  Applied in country

  Albania

  145

  5

  140

  Czech Republic

  —

  —

  —

  SAM

  15

  *

  15

  Macedonia

  55

  5

  50

  Moldova

  5

  —

  5

  Poland

  60

  5

  60

  Romania

  5

  —

  5

  Russia

  170

  5

  170

  Turkey

  85

  55

  35

  Ukraine

  5

  —

  5

  Other former USSR

  5

  *

  5

  Other former Yugoslavia

  *

  —

  *

  Europe Other

  *

  —

  *

  Europe Total

  560

  70

  490

  Colombia

  5

  *

  *

  Ecuador

  5

  *

  5

  Jamaica

  5

  —

  5

  Americas Other

  5

  5

  *

  Americas Total

  15

  5

  10

  Algeria

  20

  *

  20

  Angola

  115

  10

  110

  Burundi

  60

  10

  55

  Cameroon

  20

  *

  20

  Congo

  15

  *

  15

  Democratic Republic Congo

  95

  10

  85

  Eritrea

  125

  55

  70

  Ethiopia

  100

  30

  70

  Gambia

  5

  —

  5

  Ghana

  5

  *

  5

  Ivory Coast

  10

  *

  10

  Kenya

  25

  *

  25

  Nigeria

  35

  20

  15

  Rwanda

  20

  5

  15

  Sierra Leone

  35

  20

  15

  Somalia

  255

  40

  215

  Sudan

  30

  5

  25

  Tanzania

  5

  —

  5

  Uganda

  125

  *

  125

  Zimbabwe

  10

  5

  10

  Africa Other

  105

  25

  80

  Africa Total

  1,225

  235

  990

  Iran

  65

  15

  50

  Iraq

  220

  15

  205

  Middle East Other

  30

  10

  20

  Middle East Total

  310

  40

  270

  Afghanistan

  235

  90

  145

  Bangladesh

  50

  *

  50

  China

  145

  60

  85

  1360W

  20036

  Nationality

  Total

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  India

  60

  20

  35

  Pakistan

  45

  10

  35

  Sri Lanka

  15

  5

  10

  Vietnam

  125

  10

  115

  Asia Other

  10

  5

  10

  Asia Total

  685

  200

  480

  Nationality not known

  5

  5

  2,

  Grand Total

  2,800

  555

  245

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 with*=1 or 2.

  2 Unaccompanied at point of arrival, aged (or if no proof) determined to be 17 or under and not known to be joining a relative or guardian in the United Kingdom.

  3 Figures exclude disputed age cases.

  4 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices.

  5 Not comparable with manual counts data prior to 2002.

  6 Provisional figures.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum seekers detained at Campsfield during the last year(a) were detained at ports and airports before going through immigration, (b) were detained when they first applied for asylum, (c) were detained before receiving a response to their claim from the Home Office, (d) were detained before exhausting all their appeal rights, (e) had been given removal directions, (f) were overstayers and (g) were detained for more than (i) one month, (ii) three months and (iii) a year. [178109]

  Mr. Browne
  The latest available information shows that at 27 March 2004 75 people were detained at Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre, 60 of whom had claimed asylum at some stage.

  Information on the number of people who were detained over the course of a year and details of their cases is not available, except by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.
  1361W
  Information on the length of detention of the 75 people who were detained at Campsfield House at 27 March 2004 is shown in the table.

  People recorded as being detained at Campsfield House IRC as at 27 March 20041,2

  Length of detention

  Total detainees

  Of whom, asylum seekers

  14 Days or less

  10

  5

  15 to 29 days

  10

  10

  One month to less than two months

  25

  20

  Two months to less than three months

  10

  10

  Three months to less than four months

  5

  5

  Four months to less than six months

  5

  5

  Six months to less than one year

  10

  10

  One year or more

  3—

  3—

  Total

  75

  60

  1Figures are rounded to nearest 5, with 3 denoting 1 or 2. Figures may not sum to total due to rounding.

  2Two months is defined as 61 days; four months is defined as 122 days; six months is defined as 182 days.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being introduced to improve the quality of initial asylum decisions. [177932]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave her on 17 May 2004,Official Report, column 751W.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were living in the Greater London area on the most recent date for which figures are available. [177828]

  Mr. Browne
  The following table shows the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) who were supported in National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation, and those who were in receipt of subsistence only support, in Greater London as at the end of March 2004.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS is published in the quarterly web pages and in the annual statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", available from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  In receipt of subsistence only support1

  Supported in NASS accommodation1

  Greater London

  19,920

  2,985

  Of which:

  Barking and Dagenham

  395

  55

  Barnet

  615

  80

  Bexley

  80

  5

  Brent

  1,385

  70

  Bromley

  80

  20

  Camden

  430

  45

  Croydon

  615

  105

  Ealing

  1,305

  115

  Enfield

  1,250

  385

  Greenwich

  500

  45

  Hackney

  1,040

  195

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  325

  90

  Haringey

  1,910

  585

  Harrow

  530

  70

  Havering

  40

  5

  Hillingdon

  460

  15

  Hounslow

  625

  45

  Islington

  605

  170

  Kensington and Chelsea

  175

  20

  Kingston upon Thames

  120

  25

  1362W

  In receipt of subsistence only support1

  Supported in NASS accommodation1

  Lambeth

  880

  95

  Lewisham

  620

  75

  Merton

  390

  25

  Newham

  1,810

  200

  Redbridge

  595

  60

  Richmond upon Thames

  70

  15

  Southwark

  835

  65

  Sutton

  110

  20

  Tower Hamlets

  265

  30

  Waltham Forest

  940

  145

  Wandsworth

  590

  60

  Westminster

  325

  55

  Other

  *

  —

  1Including dependants

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what criteria a decision to raise the resettlement quota for asylum seekers would be based. [177931]

  Mr. Browne
  The Gateway Protection Programme brings refugees to the UK, not asylum seekers. This is the first year in which we have operated the Programme. It is a complex operation and our current priority is ensuring the policy and procedures are working satisfactorily. We will be reviewing the scope for extending the Programme in future years in light of our initial experiences, including the available caseloads and identified needs, the contribution resettlement is able to make to refugee protection and the availability and costs of placements in the UK.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are being held in each prison in England and Wales. [177833]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of persons who had claimed asylum at some stage and were detained in prison establishments in England and Wales on 27 March 2004 is shown in the table.

  A recent assessment of figures supplied by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on immigration detention has highlighted an undercount of detainees held in prisons. The cases concerned are those immigration detainees who had completed their criminal sentence and had either been court-recommended for deportation or on conducive grounds but were still held in a prison pending deportation. At the end of March 2004 it is thought that there were approximately 200 such cases, some of whom may have claimed asylum at some stage. This issue is currently being looked into, and any necessary revisions to the regular statistics will be considered once we are satisfied that the issue has been resolved.

  Asylum seekers1 recorded as being in detention in prisons in England and Wales solely under Immigration Act powers as at 27 March 20042,3

  Prison establishment

  Wormwood Scrubs

  10

  Norwich

  5

  Wandsworth

  5

  Belmarsh

  5

  Chelmsford

  5

  Manchester

  5

  1363W

  Asylum seekers1 recorded as being in detention in prisons in England and Wales solely under Immigration Act powers as at 27 March 20042,3

  Prison establishment

  Pentonville

  5

  Blakenhurst

  5

  Dorchester

  5

  Durham

  5

  Hull

  5

  Other prison establishments4

  35

  Total

  85

  1Persons detained under Immigration Act powers who are recorded as having sought asylum at some stage.

  2 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 and exclude persons detained in police cells and those in dual detention.

  3 A recent assessment of figures supplied by IND on immigration detention has highlighted an undercount of detainees held in prisons.

  4 Other prison establishments with 5 or fewer detainees.

  Information on persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers is published on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the results of the pilot schemes on requiring asylum seekers to receive decisions in person. [177868]

  Mr. Browne
  The pilot exercise for the service in person of decisions was restricted to the service of appeal determinations for asylum seekers whose applications had been certified under schedule 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The pilot was discontinued as legislative measures introduced under part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 changed the point at which appeal rights became exhausted. As a consequence the pilot was curtailed and while the results were considered encouraging they were not thought conclusive.

  From 1 April 2003 only cases with an adverse statutory review decision were considered suitable for service in person as that was the point at which all appeal rights were exhausted. Since then the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has received notification of 1,145 statutory review cases of which 848 have been dismissed. Of these 143 have been served in person of which 31 have been removed from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly those with children, who cannot be removed and returned to their country of origin at the present time are not becoming destitute. [170038]

  Mr. Browne
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) may provide support to eligible asylum seekers who still await a final decision on their claim for asylum. Asylum seekers who receive a positive decision on their claim are able to receive income support if they are unable to be self-supporting. With the exception of families including children under the age of 18 support for asylum seekers whose claims are unsuccessful must end no later than 21 days after the receipt of the final decision on the asylum claim. Families currently remain 1364W
  supported until either they leave the country, the youngest child reaches the age of 18 or they fail to comply with directions for their removal.

  Unsuccessful asylum seekers whose support has stopped who are unable to leave due to circumstances entirely beyond their control may be provided with accommodation under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

  The Home Office has not taken any decision to suspend enforced returns to Iraq. We recognise that action by insurgents has created difficult problems in some areas, but we do not accept that this applies to all areas. Returns will be taken forward on a case by case basis and we will only return to particular areas assessed as sufficiently stable, where we are satisfied that the individuals concerned will not be at risk. The situation will be kept under constant review and we are still working with the coalition authorities to return those who are not at risk of persecution and do not need humanitarian protection.

  The voluntary return route to Iraq used by the IOM is not open at this time but the IOM continues to process applications for voluntary return and will assist those who wish to return voluntarily as soon as it is practical to do so. Iraqi nationals who are willing to register with the IOM for a voluntary departure would be eligible for section 4 support while they are waiting for their voluntary return to be arranged.

  Both enforced and voluntary returns are possible for failed asylum seekers from Afghanistan and accommodation under section 4 will be provided only where they are seeking to return but cannot immediately do so.

  Asylum System (Funding)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of funding of the asylum system in this financial year. [177894]

  Mr. Browne
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorates (IND) resource budget for 2004–05 is £1,684 million (Main Estimates after technical adjustments) and the capital budget is £127 million (Main Estimates adjusted for the final SR 2002 settlement). However, the final IND budget is subject to revision, particularly when the final allocation of the Single Asylum Budget between IND and the Department of Constitutional Affairs is agreed.

  Beckett House Reporting Centre, Bermondsey
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what purpose police in Thurrock were advised by G. Mehmet of Beckett House Reporting Centre's administration team in a letter of 25 May that all reportees other than those on police bail were in future to report to Beckett House in Bermondsey as part of their reporting restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [177749]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]: Becket House has been involved in a project recalling immigration reportees who are still reporting to Police stations within the area of the Metropolitan Police

  1365W
  District for which Becket House provides operational coverage. As part of this process, Becket House has written to police stations instructing them to advise such persons to report, in future, to Becket House. Unfortunately, on 21 May 2004, such a letter was sent by Miss Mehmet, in error, to Thurrock Police station which borders Becket House's operational area but is, in fact, outside the Metropolitan District. This error has now been rectified and the persons involved informed that they should continue to report to Thurrock.

  Bulgaria
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the 2003 Agreement for Readmission between British and Bulgarian authorities is in effect. [178851]

  Mr. Browne
  The readmission agreement between Bulgaria and the United Kingdom came into force on 6 June 2004.

  Compacts
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Compacts with the voluntary sector which are now in place. [176115]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  A list showing where Local Compacts between the voluntary and community sector and local public sector bodies are now in place and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance is available from central Government for the setting up and operation of Compacts. [176116]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Assistance from central Government for the setting up and operation of Compacts is available through:guidance including publication of the Local Compact Guidelines and supporting the development of the Compact website
  a revision of the Local Compact Guidelines planned this year, which will encourage Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) to take a leading role, and a toolkit is also being developed for evaluating Local Compacts by local public bodies
  funding the Compact Working Group Secretariat to promote and help with Compact implementation focusing on work with the voluntary and community sector
  encouragement of Compact engagement in the work of central Government Departments, including through their local delivery agencies (—all Departments are producing strategies on working with the voluntary and community sector)
  the Department of Health's work to target Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and NHS Trusts asking these organisations to engage in Local Compacts, and its Strategic Health Agreement which will support the Compact, including partnership working at local level
  the Active Community Unit's work in partnership with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Local Government Association to encourage and incentivise Local Compact engagement, for example through targeting the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) refresh process for 2005–06
  the work of Government Offices to promote Local Compacts across the regions
  setting targets for the coverage and effectiveness of Local Compacts in the Compact Action Plan (2004–05) agreed through the annual meeting to review the Compact
  1366W
  the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Community Empowerment Fund as a source of assistance for building partnerships with the voluntary and community sector in neighbourhood renewal areas
  building on Local Compacts with Community Empowerment Networks (CENs)—which enable the voluntary and community sector to get involved in LSPs—which are in the process of setting out detailed working arrangements with their LSPs in protocol agreements.

  Convention Plus
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Government in supporting the UNHCR Convention Plus initiative. [177870]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government strongly support United Nations High Commission for Refugee's Convention Plus initiative. Convention Plus aims to improve refugee protection worldwide and to facilitate the resolution of refugee problems through multilateral special agreements. The Government are assisting in all three work strands in Convention Plus: the strategic use of resettlement; addressing irregular secondary movements of refugees and asylum seekers; and targeting development assistance to achieve durable solutions.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many right hon. and hon. Members who have written to Ministers in his Department have waited(a) 12 months, (b) 11 months, (c) 10 months, (d) nine months, (e) eight months, (f) seven months, (g) six months, (h) five months, (i) four months, (j) three months, (k) two months and (l) one month for a reply to their correspondence. [164093]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 30 March 2004]: Figures are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Home Office is, however, achieving a steady improvement in its correspondence handling capability following the introduction in March 2003 of a new Correspondence Tracking System. In April 2003, the first complete month for which accurate performance monitoring information is available, 51 per cent. of ministerial correspondence was replied to within the 15 working day (20 days in the Immigration Nationality Directorate (IND)) published target. 12 months later, in March 2004, that overall figure had risen to 76 per cent. The aim is to achieve the target of 95 per cent. replied to on time by the last quarter of 2004.

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [169006]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Home Office expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety based on the principles set out in Government Accounting.
  1367W
  The following figures relate to the cost of entertaining non-civil servants (hospitality ) and civil servants (management entertainment). Details of such expenditure have only been held centrally since 1997–98.

  The increase in expenditure from 1999–2000 is due to an element of incorrect expenditure coding, resulting in the inclusion of accommodation and subsistence costs. It is not possible, without incurring disproportionate cost, to separate these costs and, consequently, these figures are not directly comparable with those provided in previous years.

  Total (£)

  1997–98

  37,747

  1998–99

  44,415

  1999–2000

  94,370

  2000–01

  108,925

  2001–02

  75,808

  2002–03

  70,591

  2003–04

  89,072

  Forecast figures for the year 2004–05 are not available.

  Distraction Crimes
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has conducted on the neighbourhoods that are most likely to suffer from distraction crimes; and if he will make a statement. [178417]

  Ms Blears
  Since 2000, research on distraction burglary has been conducted under the Home Office's Reducing Burglary Initiative to help practitioners understand this crime, and to identify and evaluate ways of combating it. A number of reports have already been published. Two further reports, based on projects in Cambridge and Leeds, will be published later this year.

  Recorded crimes involving firearms in England and Wales

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Shotguns

  Recorded crimes

  1,592

  1,190

  983

  933

  580

  642

  695

  608

  712

  671

  Homicides

  39

  36

  28

  17

  16

  11

  19

  13

  21

  14

  Serious injuries1

  87

  79

  67

  46

  31

  44

  53

  38

  55

  65

  Minor injuries1

  82

  62

  47

  31

  24

  18

  28

  22

  35

  28

  Rifles

  Recorded crimes1

  82

  86

  50

  62

  51

  43

  67

  36

  64

  52

  Homicides

  0

  5

  2

  0

  3

  5

  0

  1

  1

  5

  Serious and minor injuries1

  17

  15

  10

  19

  12

  6

  8

  4

  13

  4

  1Up to 1996, does not include additional late returns from one police force

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow former Gurkhas to settle permanently in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [178203]

  Mr. Browne
  Officials from the Ministry of Defence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office are reviewing immigration policy in respect of Gurkhas who have served in the British Army. Ministers
  1368W
  This research indicates that most distraction burglaries occur in inner cities. Homes within a mile of trunk roads or motorways are more likely to be targeted, as are areas with a high concentration of older persons and lower value housing. Environmental risk factors associated with an increased risk of distraction burglary include homes in an obviously poor state of repair (neglected gardens and outside maintenance), or with front doors not visible to the street or neighbours.

  EU Accession State Workers
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of new European Union states have registered under the Accession State Worker Registration Scheme since its introduction, broken down by nationality. [178595]

  Mr. Browne
  We will be making information about the effect of EU enlargement available on a regular basis, in an open and transparent way, when it is appropriate and meaningful to do so.

  Firearms Incidents
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms incidents involving(a) shotguns and (b) rifles there were in each of the last 10 years; how many incidents involving each type of weapon caused (i) fatalities, (ii) serious injuries and (iii) minor injuries; and in how many incidents involving each type of weapon (A) the user of the weapon was privately licensed to possess the weapon, (B) the user was under the age of 17, (C) the user was under the age of 14, (D) the weapon had been modified, (E) the victim was related to the user of the weapon and (F) the incident was suicide or attempted suicide. [177150]

  Caroline Flint
  The full information requested is not available. The available data which are given in the table relate to recorded crimes involving the weapon types mentioned.

  are being kept advised of progress and when the review is completed officials will report their recommendations. We will then make decisions on the best way forward.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether making identity cards compulsory is a matter requiring primary legislation. [177923]

  Mr. Browne
  The draft Identity Cards Bill published on 26 April includes a provision which would require the
  1369W
  Government to justify, by way of a formal report tabled before both Houses, the reasons for setting a date by when it would be a requirement to register with the scheme. Clause 7 of the Bill requires that any compulsion order laid before Parliament must be consistent with the views approved by both Houses on the Government's proposition for compulsion.

  The Government believe that the process set out in the draft Bill provides the right level of assurance for Parliament that any move to compulsion will be properly justified and fully debated at the time.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how clear public acceptance of the identity card scheme will be measured. [177925]

  Mr. Browne
  Before the decision to move to compulsion, we would want to be confident that there is clear public acceptance for the principle of compulsion. We are already undertaking work with focus groups and public polling to determine levels of public support for the identity cards scheme. How exactly we will judge public acceptance of compulsion has yet to be finalised. Clause 7 of the draft Identity Cards Bill provides that before a draft Order for compulsion is laid, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report setting out the reasons for compulsion.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his response is to QinetiQ's recommendation that identity cards should remain voluntary. [177929]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government have made clear that it is planning to build the base for a compulsory national identity cards scheme, but that this will be in two stages. The first will be linked to the designation of existing documents. The second stage move to compulsion would require full debate and a vote in both Houses of Parliament. The Government would only take this step after a rigorous evaluation of the first stage. In particular we would want to be confident that the scheme had rolled out to a significant coverage of the population and the Government were satisfied that the conditions set out in Identity Cards: the Next Steps (Cm 6020) were met.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether women who choose to wear the veil in public are to be required to show their face in photographs in the proposed identity cards. [178249]

  Mr. Browne
  The exact format of the identity card, including the requirement for a photograph, will be set out in regulations. We expect that these regulations will be in line with those currently in place for passports and driving licence photographs, exercising discretion as far as possible regarding head coverings due to religious beliefs or ethnic background. However, the over-riding rule, set by international standards for travel documents, is that the applicant's photograph should show a full face and that all features should be clearly distinguishable.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it will be compulsory for foreign nationals, including EU nationals, to have identity cards if they are in the UK for longer than three months from the outset of the scheme. [178890]
  1370W
  Mr. Browne
  When the scheme comes into operation, it is the Government's intention that foreign nationals, including those from the EU, who come to the UK will be required to register when they have been here for three months. They will then be issued with one of the "family" of ID cards.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the identity card will have a federated IT architecture; and if he will make a statement on the uses enabled by this type of system. [178894]

  Mr. Browne
  No decisions have been taken on the architecture of the IT systems which will support the identity cards scheme. The IT architecture will support the uses of the scheme, set out in the draft Identity Cards Bill, namely the secure identification and enrolment of people on the National Identity Register and the provision of a service which will allow organisations to verify people's identity with their consent. The architecture will also support the disclosure of information to specified persons for specified purposes without the consent of the registered person.

  Identity Fraud
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to combat identity fraud. [177836]

  Mr. Browne
  Identity fraud usually occurs when someone's personal information such as name, address or date of birth is captured without their knowledge and used by someone else to support criminal activity, which could involve deception, financial gain or obtaining other benefits and services.

  Measures have been taken to improve the procedures for issuing and checking passports and driving licences, which are the two main official documents that are used currently to confirm personal details and therefore establish identity.

  UK Passport Service has produced guidance on keeping passports safe and what to do if they are lost or stolen. The guidance emphasises that a lost or stolen passport increases the likelihood of the holder's identity being misused. It has also developed and deployed a database of lost and stolen passports, which is being shared with border authorities and police worldwide to counter identity fraud.

  DVLA is reviewing the advice that it currently provides to drivers. It is considering what guidance it can offer on looking after licences, including the fact that drivers' identity could be open to misuse if their licences are lost or stolen.

  In 2003 Home Office officials worked closely with colleagues in the UK Passport Service and DVLA to support the Association of Payment Clearing Services, CIFAS (the UK's Fraud Prevention Service) and the Finance and Leasing Association to produce "Identity Fraud—The UK Manual". The manual provides advice to staff on spotting false UK passports and driving licences and preventing identity fraud.

  We have also looked at legislative changes to make identity theft or fraud easier to prosecute or to ensure that the penalties associated with fraudulent use of documents take account of their use in creating false, or

  1371W
  stealing genuine, identities. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 changed the law to align the penalty associated with fraudulently obtaining a driving licence with that for fraudulently obtaining a passport and made these offences arrestable. This will ensure consistency of approach during prosecution so that fraudulently obtaining either document will incur a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, serving as a more effective deterrent and ensuring that neither document is considered a weak link by fraudsters.

  These measures should help to prevent fraudsters from using driving licences and passports to commit identity fraud.

  We announced in 2003 our intention to create a new offence relating to being in possession or control of false identity documents, without reasonable cause. This offence will provide the police with the means to disrupt the activities of criminals who use false identity documents such as passports and driving licences at an earlier stage of their activities. We published a consultation paper on 26 April on the legislation needed to introduce identity cards. The draft Identity Cards Bill includes the proposed false document offences.

  The Home Office has recently established a cross public-private sector work programme to tackle identity theft and identity fraud. The programme co-ordinates existing activity in the public and private sectors and identifies new projects and initiatives to reduce identity fraud.

  Illegal Workers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal workers have been discovered working in construction since the introduction of the Construction Industry Scheme. [178015]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 14 June 2004]: Information on the numbers of illegal workers detected during visits to construction sites is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the Immigration Service uses an intelligence-led approach to detecting illegal workers and operations take place in the construction industry as and when appropriate.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in countering illegal working. [177867]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government announced on 16 March 2004 that changes would be made to section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which prohibits the employment of illegal migrant workers. The new arrangements improve the security of the checks employers must carry out to avoid hiring illegal workers. These changes came into force on 1 May 2004 and form part of our continuing strategy to improve the way we tackle illegal working through tightening the legislation, improving its enforcement, engaging employer groups, stakeholders and other Government Departments.

  In addition, we have included an amendment to the current Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Bill to make the current section 8 offence
  1372W
  triable either way, effectively removing the statutory limit on financial penalties the courts can impose in the more serious cases. The Government are also strongly supporting the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), which will create a statutory licensing system for gangmasters. The Bill's objective is to drive out rogue operators and illegality from the agricultural labour provision sector altogether, by ensuring that farmers and food retailers use only reputable operators who comply with an industry code of practice, and by providing strong criminal sanctions against unlicensed gangmasters.

  The Immigration Service has also significantly increased intelligence-led enforcement action, with the police and other public bodies, against those employers and labour providers who use and supply illegal labour, including where such individuals have links to organised crime.

  Immigration
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what significant measures have been introduced to enhance the security of United Kingdom borders since 1996. [169252]

  Mr. Browne
  We have been incrementally developing and implementing policies and, where appropriate, legislative changes, to uphold and enhance border security in response to threats and abuses from 1997 onwards.

  Examples include the expansion of the Airline Liaison Officer network which offers vital support and assistance to airlines at key locations overseas and now has an enhanced response capability, and an informed visa strategy designed to consider qualification for entry before arrival and which is kept under regular review. In 2003 we significantly increased the number of countries whose nationals require Direct Airside Transit Visas in a response to an analysis of emerging risks. We have also enhanced and upgraded our intelligence capability to tackle organised immigration crime.

  Other initiatives have represented a more radical development in the approach to protecting border security. Key examples are listed as follows:
  1998—the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer" and in 1999 the Immigration and Asylum Act, set out a new approach to the management of the Immigration Control and those who seek to evade or abuse it. Key initiatives include civil penalties in relation to the transportation of clandestine entrants in road vehicles or rail freight wagons. These measures were brought into force in April 2000 and March 2001 respectively and have had a significant impact on the number of clandestine entrants detected.

  The Government's strategy for tackling specifically organised immigration crime is Reflex, the multi-agency forum established in May 2000 which brings together key law enforcement players under the chair of the National Crime Squad.

  2001 saw the initial phases of two pivotal initiatives which have fundamentally altered the way we operate border controls by moving elements of that process away from our geographical borders.
  Juxtaposed Controls—the establishment of frontier control zones in key locations overseas to enable UK Immigration Officers to consider and decide the admissibility of passengers

  1373W
  prior to embarkation for the UK. Such controls have been in operation for some time at Coquelles and Paris Gare du Nord and since 1 February 2004 UK immigration officers have also been operating in Calais and Dunkirk. A formal agreement was signed on 15 April with the Belgian authorities to establish juxtaposed controls at the Gare du Midi in Brussels.
  In Calais, New Detection Technology has capacity to screen 100 per cent. of UK bound freight and deployment of the equipment elsewhere in Europe is well under way.

  These initiatives have contributed to a significant reduction in inadequately documented and clandestine arrivals following implementation.

  We worked hard with our French partners to achieve the closure of the Sangatte centre in Northern France which had posed a threat to border security, particularly in the Dover area, and was closed at the end of 2002.

  Measures to focus the asylum system have ensured that an asylum claim is not seen as a way of circumventing controls on entry. In September 2003 asylum applications were reduced by more than half compared to October 2002 and we continue to give this area the highest priority.

  In 2004 we have begun to roll out biometric (fingerprint) technology to key visa issuing posts overseas and to some specific types of passengers on arrival. The Immigration Nationality Directorate is also working with the other border agencies over the coming months to develop more closely aligned objectives and priorities in order to ensure co-ordinated, strategically driven operational activity to protect our borders.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when officials at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will resolve the immigration status of a constituent of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, reference number O143164. [178743]

  Mr. Browne
  A decision has now been made to regularise my hon. Friend's constituent's stay in the United Kingdom. Officials will write to him shortly to advise him of his immigration status.

  Immigration Staff (Training)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on initial training for immigration officers and caseworkers. [177933]

  Mr. Browne
  Initial training for newly recruited Immigration Officers (IDs) consists of six weeks classroom based training for those serving at Ports of Entry or eight weeks for those serving on enforcement duties, which is focused on the role of the IO and covers the Immigration Act and its implementation. Training also includes asylum, human rights, race relations and equal opportunity issues. This is then followed by a period of up to four weeks operational work supervised by a more experienced IO acting as a mentor.

  Initial training for asylum caseworkers consists of an 11 day training course which covers all aspects of asylum casework and how to deal with human rights
  1374W
  allegations raised by asylum seekers. Immediately following this training, caseworkers move directly to a Mentoring Unit where they remain for at least another 11 days to develop their casework skills through the consideration of "dummy" and subsequently "live" cases.

  After formal training and mentoring, less experienced IOs and caseworkers will continue to receive support (for example from more experienced colleagues and senior officers).

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what refresher training is in place for experienced immigration caseworkers. [177934]

  Mr. Browne
  All asylum caseworkers receive refresher training to consolidate their interviewing skills after they have been in post for three months. There is also a rolling programme of workshops run by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the aim of which is to equip caseworkers better to interview asylum applicants who have been victims of torture.

  Other additional training is provided as and when required, such as in respect of changes in legislation or procedures or in response to weaknesses identified by quality assurance work. For example, all asylum caseworkers have recently been invited to attend a refresher course to better equip them to deal with human rights allegations raised alongside asylum claims.

  In addition, representatives from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) also undertake presentations to provide information about their work and to discuss the procedures and criteria for determining refugee status with asylum caseworkers.

  Induction Centres
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the programme for introducing a network of induction centres. [177928]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government are continuing with plans to establish a network of induction centres as set out in the White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with Diversity in Modern Britain" (CM 5387) which was published on 7 February 2002. The aim is to have a network of induction centres established by the end of 2004. preferred method of procurement is working in partnership with local authorities.

  Two induction centres are already operating successfully. The Dover Induction Centre opened in January 2002. The Yorkshire and Humberside Induction Centre opened in June 2003. The Home Office has also signed a contract, for induction processes and accommodation for 200–300 asylum seekers, in the Greater Manchester area. This service will be operational in the summer.

  The network of induction centres will include a broader range of models than originally defined in the White Paper. This allows local authorities to provide induction arrangements that are sensitive to local circumstances. In Greater Manchester the accommodation and resources that will be used for induction are spread across a wide

  1375W
  geographical area and wherever possible existing accommodation used to house asylum seekers will be utilised. There will be no overall increase in asylum seekers staying in the region.

  Leave to Remain
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have received

  Grants of extensions of leave to remain1, in the United Kingdom, by selected category, excluding EEA nationals, 1992 to 2002

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Spouse2

  18,270

  16,820

  17,000

  17,560

  17,060

  15,870

  15,610

  16,280

  26,410

  23,060

  18,500

  Fiancé(e)

  85

  85

  145

  110

  110

  50

  30

  35

  70

  65

  75

  1Excluding dependants of principal applicants, asylum related decisions, the outcome of appeals and withdrawn applications.

  2 Data from 1997 includes unmarried partners.

  Prior to 1992 this information was not routinely published.

  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.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been granted extended leave to remain as a work permit holder or trainee in each year since 1979, broken down by nationality. [177102]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: Information on the number of people granted extended leave to remain as a work permit holder or trainee has been provided back to 1992 and is provided in the table. Earlier data have not been published and would incur disproportionate cost to extract.

  Detailed statistics on immigration control are published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002" (cm 6053), also available on the Library, the Stationary Office and via the Home Office web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/commandpubs1.html

  Memorandum of Understanding (Somalia)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he has had with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees regarding the forced return of failed asylum seekers to Somalia. [178088]

  Mr. Browne
  The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is aware we are effecting the enforced return of failed asylum seekers to Somalia and we are in contact with the UNHCR on issues relating to this returns programme. In January 2004 UNHCR published a position paper on the return of failed asylum seekers to Somalia and this is taken into account by caseworkers considering the protection needs of individual Somali asylum seekers. As with applications from all nationalities, each asylum (and human rights) claim made by someone from Somalia is considered by the Home Office on its individual merits, in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
  1376W
  extensions of leave to remain as a spouse or financée for a limited period prior to settlement in each year since 1979. [177028]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: The latest available data on the number of people that have received extensions of leave to remain as a spouse or fiancée for a limited period prior to settlement can be found in the following table.

  Individual asylum seekers found by both the Home Office and the Independent Appellate Authority, not to be at risk of persecution and not in need of humanitarian protection are considered for removal on a case by case basis. The Home Office will not return vulnerable groups and will only enforce the return of those Somalis it is satisfied are not in need of protection.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what route, and with which airlines, failed asylum seekers are returned to Somalia; and who controls the airstrip used in Somalia. [178089]

  Mr. Browne
  Failed asylum seekers are returned to Mogadishu via Dubai on scheduled commercial flights. They travel to Dubai on Emirates Airlines and travel on to Mogadishu on Daallo or African Express Airlines. Mogadishu International Airport is currently closed so Daallo and African Express fly into a privately run airport near Mogadishu.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Somali nationals are in detention awaiting removal to Somalia. [178090]

  Mr. Browne
  The latest available information shows that at 27 March 2004 30 Somali nationals were detained under Immigration Act Powers. Information on the number of these detainees who were awaiting removal from the UK is not available except by examination of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the resourcing of the National Asylum Support Service. [177895]

  Mr. Browne
  There are no plans to increase the resourcing of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) in 2004–05.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) training and (b) level of local knowledge of National Asylum Support Service staff. [177896]

  Mr. Browne
  All National Asylum Support Service (NASS) staff receive training appropriate to their individual jobs. In 2003, NASS established offices in 11 regions. NASS regional staff are developing a wide range of local knowledge. The majority of the staff live
  1377W
  in the region where they are working. Regular meetings are held with local authorities, the police and other stakeholders that provide an insight into local issues.

  National Identity Register
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the private sector will be charged for accessing the National Identity Register. [177921]

  Mr. Browne
  There is no question of public or private sector organisations' verification of cards giving them access to the contents of the National Identity Register or the details of the biometric. With the consent of the individual, checks will simply confirm identity and other relevant details. The draft Identity Cards Bill does provide a power for fees to be levied on organisations making such checks and other Government checking services do make charges. However, no final decisions for the identity cards scheme have yet been made.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider his decision not to contribute further public funds to the National Neighbourhood Watch Association; and if he will make a statement. [178413]

  Ms Blears
  Taking account of Government accounting rules, the Home Secretary gave careful consideration to his original decision not to provide further public funds to the National Neighbourhood Watch Association.

  The financial position the National Neighbourhood Watch Association finds itself in is unfortunate but there are no grounds to reconsider.

  I am intending to meet representatives from the National Neighbourhood Watch Association.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the National Neighbourhood Watch Association to discuss(a) the use of their logo and (b) their current financial situation. [178573]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has corresponded with the National Neighbourhood Watch Association and officials from the Home Office and Treasury Solicitors have met with them to discuss, among other things, the logo and their current financial situation.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign students have been admitted to the UK in each year since 1979, broken down by nationality. [177096]

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

  To provide data for the entire period would incur disproportionate cost.
  1378W
  Detailed statistics on immigration control are published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom." is also available in the Library, and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/commandpubs1.html

  The latest edition is that for 2002 (Cm6053).

  Pakistan (Abandoned Spouses)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women whose spouses joined them in the UK from Pakistan but have subsequently been abandoned have made representations to him in the last year for which figures are available to have their spouses deported; and if he will make a statement. [178248]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of representations from women whose spouses joined them in the UK from Pakistan but have subsequently abandoned them is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, if a foreign spouse is encountered whose marriage has broken down and who no longer enjoys the support of their sponsor, then the Immigration Service would take all appropriate measures to return them to their country of origin unless these were compelling reasons for not doing so.

  Racial Equality
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reasons are for the reduction in section 44 funding for Racial Equality Councils. [172829]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Section 44 of the Race Relations Act 1976 sets out the purpose for which the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) may give financial assistance to other organisations. It does not prescribe which types of bodies may receive financial assistance and therefore does not limit such assistance to Racial Equality Councils (RECs). This year more applicants received funding under section 44 than in previous years. RECs still made up the large majority of organisations in receipt of grant from the CRE. However, a few RECs received no funding this year and some others received less funding than previously, where their applications did not fully meet the Commission's criteria.

  We warmly welcome the Commission's policy of using the Getting Results programme to support any innovative project that delivers real outcomes and makes a difference to race equality and race relations within its local community.

  Racial Harassment (Rochdale)
  Mrs. Fitzsimons:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers preventing racial harassment have been introduced since 1997; and how many times these powers have been used in Rochdale. [178494]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Prior to 1997, the Race Relations Act (RRA) 1976 already prohibited discrimination on racial grounds. The RRA did not specifically refer to harassment, but it was clear from case law that racial
  1379W
  harassment was a type of detriment capable of amounting to the kind of less favourable treatment prohibited by the Act.

  As part of its fulfilment of its obligations under the EC Race Directive, the UK amended the Race Relations Act 1976 (by virtue of the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003) so as to make it unlawful to harass a person, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, in the areas of activity covered by the 1976 Act.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created new and separate offences where the offences of causing fear and violence or of causing harassment, alarm or distress under the Public Order Act 1986, or the offences of harassment or putting in fear of violence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 were racially aggravated.

  Figures for the number of prosecutions in Rochdale for this type of offence are not centrally available. Greater Manchester police figures for harassment offences (published by the Home Office under the requirements of S95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991) show a total of 2,075 recorded offences of this type in the Greater Manchester police area over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Refugees (Assistance/Training)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in seeking the implementation of concerted pan-European policies of active assistance to refugees in or near the countries of origin. [177899]

  Mr. Browne
  In spring 2003, the UK tabled proposals for the 20–21 March Brussels European Council that were designed to achieve better management of the asylum system globally. In response, the European Commission tabled a Communication "Towards more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems" (COM(2003)315 final, 3 June 2003), which endorsed the UK's analysis of the problem and recommended a stage-by-stage approach to developing possible solutions. The Thessaloniki European Council on 19–20 June 2003 invited the Commission to present a comprehensive report, by June 2004, suggesting measures to ensure a more orderly and managed entry into the EU of persons in need of international protection and to enhance the protection capacity in the regions of origin.

  In response to its mandate from the European Council, the Commission has now tabled a Communication "On the managed entry in the EU of persons in need of international protection and the enhancement of the protection capacity of the regions of origin: Improving access to durable solutions" (COM(2004)410 final, 4 June 2004). The Government welcome this Communication and support the broad purpose of the outline proposals it contains for the development of EU Regional Protection Programmes and the setting up of an EU Resettlement Scheme. The Communication was the subject of a preliminary discussion at the Justice and Hone Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg on 8 June 2004. We now look
  1380W
  forward to engaging in constructive discussions with the Commission and member states as these ideas are considered in more detail over the coming months.

  In conjunction with some other member states and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, we are supporting two preparatory projects which are being funded principally by the EU. One will look at building effective protection capacities in four African countries (Tanzania, Kenya, Burkino Faso, Benin). The other concerns preparatory activities for a comprehensive plan for Somali refugees.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what community organisations or initiatives in Edmonton have benefited from the Government's Challenge Fund aimed at helping female refugees gain access to training and education courses. [178908]

  Mr. Browne
  In 2003–04 almost £2 million was allocated under the Refugee Challenge Fund to 43 projects throughout the United Kingdom. None of these projects, however, was based in Edmonton.

  The successful projects for 2004–05 will be announced shortly.

  Sham Marriages
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many alleged sham marriages have been reported to his Department by marriage registrars, and from which registries, in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and how many of those cases were sham marriages in respect of which enforcement action was taken by his Department. [177009]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 7 June 2004]: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate has received the following notifications of alleged sham marriages from registrar offices over the past three years;
  2001: 756 notifications from 126 Registrar districts
  2002: 205 notifications from 154 Registrar districts
  2003: 2,712 notifications from 188 Registrar districts

  In the last financial year, enforcement teams in London have conducted operations at over 60 weddings resulting in the arrest of 110 individuals. These operations have not only resulted in the removal from the United Kingdom of illegal immigrants but 37 of those arrested were charged with criminal offences.

  Following information received through existing intelligence channels and concerns raised by Registrars on the increasing number of potential sham marriages, and the limited powers of registrars to prevent them, the Government have recently announced a number of measures that are being taken to protect the integrity of UK marriage ceremonies.
  A joint team of caseworkers and immigration officers has been set up to analyse intelligence and follow up reports from Registrars more effectively.
  Extra enforcement operations are being conducted, with more operations at registry offices against sham marriages and those who organise them.
  A joint working group between the Home Office and Registrars has been established to share intelligence and enable enforcement efforts to be better targeted.
  1381W
  As the Home Secretary set out in his statement to the House on 22 April the Government will also shortly be bringing forward legislation to restrict the capacity to authorise marriage involving non-EEA nationals to designated register offices, which will enable us to focus our enforcement efforts into a more concentrated area, and also allow intelligence and expertise on marriage abuse to be built up in these dedicated centres. In addition, we will be introducing a new pre-marriage lawful status eligibility requirement for marriages involving non-EEA foreign nationals to further deal with those seeking to circumvent immigration controls by entering into sham marriages. In such cases registrars would be given the power to refuse to accept notification of marriage in the absence of a document from the Home Office or an entry clearance for marriage.

  Home Office officials will be working closely with Registrars to ensure that our proposals achieve the necessary balance between facilitating the vast majority of genuine marriage applicants and tackling abuse.

  It is not possible to provide historical statistics regarding previous activity to counter marriage abuse as such information has only recently started to be recorded in a form that can be easily collated.

  UK Settlement
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been admitted to the UK as(a) spouses, (b) fiancées and (c) children for a limited period prior to settlement, broken down by nationality, in each year since 1979. [177032]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: The latest available data relating to the number of people admitted to the United Kingdom for a limited period prior to settlement, by the requested categories, have been placed in the Library.

  To provide the 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" also available from the Library 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).

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been granted settlement in the UK in each year since 1979 on the basis of

  All work permit applications approved by the top 10 nationalities and others by calendar year

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Total

  USA

  16,437

  17,948

  18,392

  19,758

  20,327

  23,892

  24,026

  23,032

  23,056

  186,868

  India

  3,547

  4,564

  6,682

  9,690

  10,130

  18,747

  27,476

  31,818

  35,055

  147,709

  South Africa

  1,054

  1,236

  1,923

  2,986

  4,635

  6,295

  11,080

  13,710

  11,615

  54,534

  Philippines

  115

  141

  154

  341

  2,365

  7,404

  11,208

  12,778

  13,932

  48,438

  Australia

  1,802

  2,227

  3,022

  3,668

  4,059

  5,681

  8,035

  8,486

  7,953

  44,933

  Japan

  3,509

  3,892

  3,747

  3,993

  3,768

  3,893

  4,312

  4,103

  3,618

  34,835

  1382W
  (a)employment, (b) asylum, (c) family formation and reunion and (d) other discretionary grants, broken down by (i) nationality and (ii) age of applicant. [177091]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: It is not possible to provide the information in the format or for the period requested as this would incur disproportionate costs.

  The latest available information has been provided on:
  Grants of settlement by category of grant, excluding EEA nationals
  Grants of settlement on removal of time limit by age, excluding EEA nationals
  Grants of settlement by nationality, including EEA nationals

  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Detailed statistics on immigration control are published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom" also available in the Library, 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).

  UN High Commissioner for Refugees
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's liaison and co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. [177930]

  Mr. Browne
  The UK is currently the fifth largest donor to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Government gave the organisation £25 million in 2003–04. Both the Department for International Development (DFID) and the Home Office work with UNHCR in a number of areas. DFID's regional staff work closely with UNHCR on refugee protection projects all over the world, and its London-based staff liaise with UNHCR's headquarters over programme strategy and financial management. The Home Office also works closely with UNHCR on a number of issues including on the Gateway Protection Programme (resettlement) and voluntary returns.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits have been granted in each year since 1979, broken down by(a) country, (b) occupational earnings category and (c) duration of employment. [177101]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: The number of work permits granted in each year since 1995 broken down by (a) country and (b) duration of employment is as follows:
  1383W

  All work permit applications approved by the top 10 nationalities and others by calendar year

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Total

  Canada

  1,731

  1,981

  2,242

  2,384

  2,619

  3,272

  3,528

  3,780

  3,701

  25,238

  China

  1,161

  1,155

  1,227

  1,420

  1,624

  2,309

  3,307

  4,585

  5,830

  22,618

  Pakistan

  601

  568

  752

  851

  1,022

  1,709

  3,107

  4,006

  5,392

  18,008

  New Zealand

  602

  627

  713

  1,141

  1,415

  2,200

  3,376

  3,492

  3,027

  16,593

  Others

  13,817

  13,673

  15,596

  18,319

  20,729

  26,770

  37,325

  44,653

  53,789

  244,671

  Total

  44,376

  48,012

  54,450

  64,551

  72,693

  102,172

  136,780

  154,443

  166,968

  844,445

  All work permit applications approved by duration of permit by calendar year

  Duration

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  under 1 year

  5,829

  5,878

  7,048

  7,938

  6,466

  9,802

  11,560

  11,895

  11,419

  1-2 years

  4,422

  5,269

  7,065

  9,008

  10,097

  13,726

  16,517

  16,429

  24,182

  2-3 years

  4,508

  5,676

  6,883

  7,876

  10,917

  18,190

  22,379

  24,032

  19,738

  3-4 years

  4,570

  4,975

  6,035

  6,464

  7,142

  10,139

  10,666

  9,896

  10,355

  4-5 years

  2,892

  3,558

  4,662

  6,580

  8,546

  14,866

  29,087

  39,056

  47,989

  Others

  22,155

  22,656

  22,757

  26,685

  29,525

  35,451

  46,572

  53,135

  53,287

  Total

  44,376

  48,012

  54,450

  64,551

  72,693

  102,174

  136,781

  154,443

  166,970

  No figures are available for the years preceding 1995. No figures are available showing occupational earnings categories.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Basic Skills Agency
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding the Department provided to the Basic Skills Agency in each of the last five years. [177378]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The total funding provided to the Basic Skills Agency by the Department for each of the years from 1999–2000 to 2003–04, along with the funding currently agreed for 2004–05, is given in the following table:

  Basic Skills Agency spend, 1999–2004

  £

  Core grant

  Projects

  Total

  1999–2000

  7,374,500.00

  00.00

  7,374,500.00

  2000–01

  16,699,289.00

  6,888.88

  16,706,177.88

  2001–02

  21,267,884.00

  21,29S,878.68

  42,566,762.68

  2002–03

  5,119,740.00

  41,525,208.12

  46,644,948.12

  2003–04

  5.412,000.00

  40,310,969.77

  45,742,969.77

  2004–05

  5.467,000.00

  1,281,394.00

  6,748,394.00

  A summary of the headline projects that have been funded for each of the years from 1999–2000 is given in the following table:

  Headline projects

  1999–2000

  Literacy and Numeracy strategies and Basic Skills related work

  2000–01

  Family Literacy and Numeracy Programmes; NVOPP (the National Voluntary Organisations Partnership Programme); Intensive Teacher Training

  2001–02

  Financial Literacy; NVOPP; Community Based ESOL; Teacher Training; Family Programmes; Workplace Programmes; Offenders Learning and Skills Unit 'Link-Up' project, training prison education staff

  2002–03

  Financial Literacy; Basic Skills Brokerage Scheme Phase II, the roll-out of the Brokerage Scheme; basic skills development with Sector Skills Councils; NVOPP. Other

  1384W

  Headline projects

  projects, won by tender, include Link Up (training volunteer adult learner supporters), and developing diagnostic assessment tools for literacy, numeracy and ESOL

  2003–04

  Financial Literacy; Skills for Families; Step in to Learning (customised training and development programme for staff in Sure Start, Children's Centres and early years settings); Link Up; and a database of support links between employers and providers

  2004–05

  QUIP (the Quality Improvement Programme) is included in the Core Grant. Projects include Financial Literacy and Step in to Learning

  Bullying
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases of bullying were reported in primary schools in each year since 1990. [179446]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Data on bullying are not collected centrally and there is no reliable basis for an estimate of prevalence. However, any level of bullying is too high and we are determined to help schools to tackle the problem. Our guidance pack "Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence", the anti-bullying Charter for Action and the anti-bullying website www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying offer detailed advice on preventing and addressing bullying.

  In November 2003 I launched our anti-bullying charter for schools, which schools are now signing. It is accompanied by a summary of effective practice to help schools review and enhance their anti-bullying policies. The Charter was launched at the first of the Make The Difference series of regional conferences. The programme of conferences began in November 2003 and culminated with a final event on 14 June. These conferences are an opportunity for schools and other partners to share good practice on this issue and to learn at first hand about what has worked elsewhere. Details of the conferences can be accessed online at www.teachernet.gov.uk/antibullying. Our new public information film, "Tell Someone", also encourages children and young people to tell someone if they are being bullied.

  Charitable Status
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy to oppose change to the presumption that education is charitable in purpose. [177269]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Charities Bill will put all charities on the same footing in that they must demonstrate public benefit in order to enjoy the benefits conferred by charitable status.

  Cheshire Learning Partnership
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the expenditure of the Cheshire Learning Partnership was in each of the last five financial years for which figures are available. [179636]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Learning Partnerships receive funding from a number of different sources. My Department only holds information about expenditure related to funds that it has provided. Therefore, expenditure by Cheshire Learning Partnership, for the last five financial years, was as follows:

  1999–2000

  64,188

  2003–04

  133,172

  2003–04

  187,940

  2003–04

  198,540

  2003–04

  63,000

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding will be made available to the Cheshire Learning Partnership for the current financial year. [179637]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Learning and Skills Council assumed responsibility for Learning Partnerships from April 2003. This is therefore a matter for the Learning and Skills Council and I have asked the Chief Executive, Mark Haysom, to reply to you direct, copying his reply to me.

  Child Care
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what data is available on(a) the number of people working in the child care sector, (b) the level of academic qualifications they hold and (c) whether they have a qualification in child care and if so at what level; and if he will make a statement. [177521]

  Margaret Hodge
  The most recent data, the 2002/03 Childcare and Early Years Workforce Survey, show 279,100 people working in the child care sector in England at spring 2003. No data is available on the level of academic qualifications they hold. 48 per cent. of workers hold a qualification relevant to child care at level 2. 35 per cent. hold a relevant qualification at level 3 and 3 per cent. at level 4 and above. The position in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the effect is of a city technology college becoming a city academy, with 1386W
  particular reference to the impact on (a) funding and (b) the institution's relationship with (i) the local education authority and (ii) his Department. [179900]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In becoming an academy, a CTC would be funded on the basis of the local education authority formula where it is located, in line with other local schools. A CTC, is funded by taking an average of the school funding in all of the LEAs from which CTCs draw pupils.

  The relationship between the Department and a CTC on becoming an academy would remain unchanged. Both academies and CTCs are independent schools funded by the Department through a funding agreement between the school and the Secretary of State. When a CTC becomes an academy a new funding agreement is put in place.

  Academies are required by their funding agreement to share facilities with other schools and the wider community. They are required to be members of their local admissions forum and to take part in locally coordinated admission arrangements. They play a full part in local collaborative arrangements such Excellence in Cities. Academies are also required to consult the LEA and the holder of my office about the targets they set. CTCs are not required to do any of these.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions he has had with city technology colleges about becoming city academies. [179901]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State for School Standards spoke recently at a conference of CTC and academy principals. My officials are holding on-going conversations with individual CTCs about becoming academies.

  Connexions
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many of the Connexions Partnerships which opted to move to direct delivery in 2003–04 undertook best value assessments of alternative operational models before reaching their decision. [179003]

  Margaret Hodge
  Three Connexions Partnerships who opted to move to direct delivery in 2003/04 have undertaken best value assessments.

  Early-years Education (Training)
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have(a) registered and (b) completed the two-year Early Years foundation degree in each year since the course was introduced. [171369]

  Alan Johnson
  As many as 1,250 students enrolled on the Early Years Sector Endorsed Foundation Degree (EYSEFD) last academic year, 2002/03, and 3,500 new students were expected to start this year 2003/04. Actual numbers completing the course are not yet available.

  Education Bodies (Staffing)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the full-time equivalent headcount of the(a) Union Learning Fund, (b) Implementation Review

  1387W
  Unit, including secondees, (c) National Remodelling Team, (d) Office for Standards in Education, (e) UK Education and Research Networking Association and (f) Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association was in each year since 1997; and how much funding was allocated to each body in each year. [178209]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Union Learning Fund (ULF) is a source of funding to help trade unions use their influence with employers, employees and others to encourage greater take up of learning at work and boost their own capacity as learning organisations. It was set up in 1998 and administered by the Department for Education and Skills until March 2003. From April 2003 the Learning and Skills Council has been responsible for the administration of the Fund. As ULF is a source of funding rather than a unit or body, there are no figures relating to full-time equivalent headcount. The Department's annual expenditure on ULF was £2 million in 1998–99, £3.1 million in 1999–2000, £3.9 million in 2000–01, £6.3 million in 2001–02 and £7.4 million in 2002–03. Estimated expenditure for 2003–04 is £12.1 million and the budget allocation for 2004–05 is £14.2 million.

  The Implementation Review Unit was established in April 2003 with a remit to cut red tape and reduce bureaucracy in schools. The Unit has 12 panel members, each serving school staff, who work for the IRU an average 22 days per year. In 2003–04 the Unit was also served by a secretariat comprising three civil servants employed by the Department, working 0.5, 0.8 and 0.8 of the full-time equivalent, and two seconded advisers working for 20 and 50 days per year. Staffing figures for 2004–05 will be the same with the addition of another civil servant at 0.5 of the full-time equivalent. Estimated expenditure by the Unit in 2003–04 is £348,000 and its budget for 2004–05 is £500,000.

  The National Remodelling Team is an integral part of the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) and we are unable to provide separate figures for the Remodelling Team. Staffing and funding figures for the NCSL as a whole, covering the full range of activities undertaken by the College to support the training and development of school leaders are set out as follows.

  Total as at 31 March:

  Staff numbers

  2001

  18

  2002

  77

  2003

  131

  2004

  224

  Grant-in-aid budget

  £ million

  2000–01

  0

  2001–02

  27.8

  2002–03

  60.0

  2003–04

  79.8

  2004–05

  90.2

  The information requested on the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) is set out as follows.
  1388W

  Net resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) (£ million)

  Stuff employed (FTE)

  1997–98

  150.3

  5611

  1998–99

  110.5

  5741

  1999–2000

  86.4

  559.4

  2000–01

  104.1

  495.3

  2001–02

  155.2

  581.3

  2002–03

  197.5

  2374.8

  2003–04

  208.5

  2600.3

  2004–05

  213

  2572

  2005–06

  218.8

  2572

  1 FTE figures are not available for these periods; as such this figure represents headcount.

  The information requested on the UK Education and Research Networking Association is set out as follows:

  £

  Period end:

  FTE headcount

  Grants from JISC

  March 1997

  46

  9,553,000

  March 1998

  49

  14,527,985

  March 1999

  53

  15,281,086

  March 2000

  55

  10,756,821

  July 2001

  71

  49,849,664

  July 2002

  83

  30,176,608

  July 2003

  84

  26,722,465

  Notes:

  1. Public funding for UK Education and Research Networking Association (UKERNA) is channelled through the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) which is funded by all the UK higher and further education funding councils.

  2. The allocated budget for UKERNA for 2003–04 (running until July 2004) is £27,470,000.

  The Universities and Colleges Information Systems Association (UCISA) aims to promote excellence in the application of information systems and services in support of teaching, learning, research and administration in higher and further education. It is a private body and receives no direct Government funding. We do not have information on its full-time equivalent headcount figures.

  Education Funding
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total Government funding for(a) higher and (b) further education has been in each financial year since 1997–98. [179269]

  Alan Johnson
  The funding by this Department to the FE and HE sectors is shown in the following table. In addition, the HE sector receives public funding from the Department of Health, the NHS, other Government Departments, and from the Research Councils.

  Public funding

  £ million

  HE

  FE1

  1997–98

  4,686

  3,131

  1998–99

  4,851

  3,102

  1999–2000

  5,169

  3,300

  2000–01

  5,414

  3,471

  2001–02

  5,810

  3,924

  2002–03

  6,109

  4,326

  2003–04

  6,559

  24,732

  1These figures represent total assumed funding allocated to the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) until 2000–01, and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) from 2001–02 in either further education sector colleges (further and higher education

  1389W
  students) or in external institutions, specialist designated institutions and higher education institutions (further education students only).

  Over the last year the FE sector and other providers have exceeded expectations in participation, retention and attainment. In response the Government recently announced that they will increase the LSC's budget by £130 million over the 2003–04 to 2005–06 period. These additional funds are not included in the table.

  2 Planned.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of students who will benefit from the launch of the education maintenance allowance in Stoke-on-Trent North; and if he will make a statement. [177630]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Stoke on Trent is an EMA pilot area and at present there are 2,705 students in receipt of EMA across the city. We estimate that the number of

  £000

  Primary

  Pre-primary and primary

  Essex

  Thurrock

  Southend-on-Sea

  Essex

  Thurrock

  Southend-on-Sea

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  203,350

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  215,266

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  242,789

  n/a

  n/a

  1993–94

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  248,620

  n/a

  n/a

  1994–95

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  243,061

  n/a

  n/a

  1995–96

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  246947

  n/a

  n/a

  1996–97

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  247,711

  n/a

  n/a

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  240,132

  n/a

  n/a

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  207,670

  29,610

  24,533

  1999–2000

  250,395

  32,685

  32,036

  258,550

  33,471

  32,939

  2001–02

  294,395

  39,649

  39,566

  309,649

  42,143

  41,701

  2002–03

  320,908

  40,917

  43,966

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  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. Up to and including 1997–98 figures are for Essex LEA prior to local government reorganisation. From 1998–99 onwards parts of Essex LEA became Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock LEAs. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA. Figures are adjusted to 2002–03 prices using the March 2004 GDP deflators.

  2. 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 in 1998–99. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance.

  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 framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the expenditure in 2002–03 is not strictly comparable with earlier years as it includes an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers.

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

  6. Net current expenditure after recharges was not recorded on ROI until 1993–94. Consequently up to and including 1992–93 net recurrent expenditure is used and consequently figures in those years may not be strictly comparable with figures for future years.

  Failing Schools
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what Ofsted's policy is on inspecting failing schools which are expected to be closed. [179200]

  Mr. Miliband
  Ofsted will continue its normal cycle of visits to schools subject to special measures until Her Majesty's Inspectors conclude that a school no longer needs special measures or it has closed.

  Fee-paying Schools
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list, for each of the last
  1390W
  recipients will be broadly similar after the launch of the national scheme in September. Across the West Midlands as a whole, we estimate that around 24,000 sixteen-year-olds will take up EMA.

  We are unable to provide forecasts for numbers down to constituency level.

  Education Services (Essex)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total expenditure was on state primary schools in(a) the county of Essex in each year from 1980 until 1997 and (b) the county of Essex and the unitary authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock in each year from 1998 until 2003. [173329]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information is contained within the following table. Data for individual LEAs are not available prior to 1990–91.

  five years, the number and percentage of pupils in fee paying schools in each English local education authority. [176703]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Libraries.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list, for each of the last five years, the number of pupils in fee paying schools, at the age of(a) five to 10, (b) 11 to 15 and (c) 16 to 19 years,

  1391W
  (i) in total and (ii) by gender; and what percentage these figures represent of all pupils in each case. [176704]

  Independent schools: Number of pupils by age and gender 1999–2004 (provisional)—England

  Boys

  Girls

  Total

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  1999

  5–10

  103,288

  5.2

  97,896

  5.2

  201,184

  5.2

  11–15

  110,033

  7.1

  101,913

  6.9

  211,946

  7.0

  16–19+

  41,126

  21.2

  36,393

  17.9

  77,519

  19.5

  2000

  5–10

  104,072

  5.3

  99,044

  5.3

  203,116

  5.3

  11–15

  110,253

  7.0

  103,014

  6.8

  213,267

  6.9

  16–19+

  40,568

  20.7

  35,718

  17.4

  76,286

  19.0

  2001

  5–10

  105,215

  5.3

  100,379

  5.4

  205,594

  5.4

  11–15

  112,274

  7.0

  105,348

  6.8

  217,622

  6.9

  16–19+

  40,589

  20.3

  35,682

  17.2

  76,271

  18.7

  2002

  5–10

  105,687

  5.4

  101,401

  5.5

  207,088

  5.5

  11–15

  113,990

  7.0

  108,160

  6.9

  222,150

  7.0

  16–19+

  40,872

  20.3

  37,130

  17.7

  78,002

  19.0

  2003

  5–10

  105,051

  5.5

  101,454

  5.5

  206,505

  5.5

  11–15

  115,547

  7.0

  110,635

  7.0

  226,182

  7.0

  16–19+

  41,474

  20.1

  38,205

  17.7

  79,679

  18.9

  20042

  5–10

  104,340

  5.5

  101,000

  5.6

  205,340

  5.5

  11–15

  118,910

  7.1

  113,820

  7.1

  232,730

  7.1

  16–19+

  41,710

  20.0

  38,270

  17.2

  79,980

  18.5

  1 Number of boys, girls and total pupils in independent schools expressed as a percentage of boys, girls and total pupils in all schools.

  2 2004 data are provisional and have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils are (i) eligible for and (ii) taking up free school meals, broken down by (A) region and (B) gender. [178453]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: The information requested, for all local education authorities and regions in England. has been placed in the House of Commons Library and is relating to provisional 2004 figures.

  The available information on the take up of free school meals is limited to school level aggregates that cannot be broken down by gender.

  Further Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the Answer to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, south-West (Rob Marris) of 14 May 2004,Official Report, columns 623–24W, on further education colleges, what the percentage change in funding received in 2003–04 by (a) schools and (b) colleges was when the impact of (i) rates of changes to targeted funds for pay and staff training and (ii) teachers' pension funding are included in the calculation. [179177]

  Alan Johnson
  For the academic year 2003–04, core funding rates per qualification increased by 3 per cent. for school sixth forms and 10 per cent. for further education colleges. The 10 per cent. increase in core
  1392W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 June 2004]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  funding rates per qualification for further education colleges includes a 2 per cent. increase to compensate colleges for increases to the employer contribution to the Teachers Pension Scheme; and a 3.5 per cent. increase to reflect the consolidation of previously targeted funds for pay and staff training. The additional resources to schools for changes to the employer contribution to the Teachers Pension Scheme were allocated separately from the qualification rates to schools. The allocation was based on pupil numbers and area costs. The amount per pupil before area cost adjustments was £103 in 2003–04. The consolidation of previously targeted funds for pay and staff training did not apply to schools funding in 2003–04.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions he has had with the Association of Colleges about the concerns of the further education sector; and if he will make a statement. [179224]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have had a number of discussions recently with the Association of Colleges (AoC) and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) about concerns within the sector on funding for 2004–05. Over the last year the further education (FE) sector and other providers have exceeded expectations in participation, retention and attainment and it is this success that has created pressures on funding for this year. Although we have already invested a record amount in FE this spending review, we have added £130 millionextra to the LSC's budget that will allow allocations for 2004–05 to be kept on track for all colleges that are performing to target. This is an important extra investment which will
  1393W
  also support a process of change and help colleges develop towards a more demand-led system in which colleges are increasingly funded from a variety of sources, particularly from employers.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many different qualifications could be achieved through study at further education colleges on the latest date for which figures are available. [179812]

  Alan Johnson
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) estimate that in 2002/03 there were about 17,000 different qualifications being studied for in further education (FE) colleges in England. This estimate covers LSC funded FE provision only and includes some non-accredited qualifications. In addition to this 17,000, some colleges also provide higher education courses, and many local authorities contract out some of their adult and community learning provision to FE colleges.

  Graduates
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to monitor the first destination of first degree graduates each year in terms of(a) those who find employment and (b) the type of employment they find. [173088]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department's main data source for monitoring the destination of graduates is the First Destination Survey (FDS), which is collected annually by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). This records the employment position of graduates six months after graduation, including the type of work obtained by those graduates entering employment. Following a comprehensive review, the FDS has been expanded for 2002/03 to cover students completing part-time courses and to collect additional information on the student's employment.

  Higher Education Bill
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to ensure equal university and college access to people of all backgrounds under the Higher Education Bill. [176559]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 9 June 2004]: The Higher Education Bill includes provisions which will ensure that no institution can charge higher variable fees without an access plan approved by the Director of Fair Access. The access plan will include the outreach measures and financial support which the institutions will undertake to ensure access is safeguarded and promoted. We also propose to abolish the requirement to pay up front fees for all full time undergraduates—they will be able to defer their fees, and repay them after they graduate.

  In addition the maintenance loan will be increased to cover average basic living costs for undergraduates. From 2006, the poorest students will be eligible for the £2,700 maintenance grant, as well as minimum £300 bursary support. And all students commencing their courses after 2006 will benefit from a loan write off after 25 years.

  Inquiries (Costs)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the cost to public funds of(a) the Tomlinson Inquiry and (b) the Adrian Smith inquiry. [179795]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Working Group on 14–19 Reform (Tomlinson Inquiry ) in financial year 2003–04, spent just under £500,000 For the financial year of 2004–05, it has been estimates that spend will be approximately £600,000.

  Programme expenditure on the Post-14 Mathematics Inquiry amounted to approximately £427,000.

  Key Workers
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 6 May 2004,Official Report, column 1760W, on key workers, what evidence he has that (a) school teachers and (b) further education lecturers leave London when they want to start a family. [179762]

  Mr. Miliband
  Research reports commissioned by the ODPM and undertaken by Wilcox and PA Consulting concluded that key worker affordability is at its worst in London and the South East; the areas of the country with the highest house prices. Available evidence suggests that a significant problem for key worker employers is the retention of more experienced/older key workers. Each year, 3,800 teachers (school and FE) leave teaching in London, the South East and East for reasons strongly associated with housing. We therefore determined that our highest priority should be that set of London teachers identified in the London Challenge strategy document as "leaders of the future', who currently leave London teaching in order to afford family homes elsewhere. This group numbers around 500 each year. Second priority is the next group of London teachers (school and FE)—numbering some 1,750, and the third priority is the remaining group of 1,550, largely outside London. We were clear that teachers in our target groups are largely looking for homes to buy, not rent. For our highest priority group, family homes are the issue.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 6 May 2004,Official Report, column 1760W, to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), on Learning and Skills Council, whether elected regional assemblies will be given full responsibility for Learning and Skills Councils budgets. [176898]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 8 June 2004]: No. In our White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice' we set out proposals for local LSCs to be required to have regard to assembly strategies, including in drawing up their spending plans; and to consult the relevant assembly about their local plans. Assemblies will not have responsibility for Learning and Skills Council budgets: that responsibility will remain, as now, with the council.
  1395W
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the progress of the Learning and Skills Council's Widening Adult Participation strategy. [177381]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In September 2003, the LSC published "Successful Participation for All: Widening Adult Participation", setting out the Council's strategy for extending access to learning. The strategy requires local LSCs to adopt specific measures to support disadvantaged groups. It is being implemented by local LSCs, supported by a regionally held £2.5 million pa Widening Participation Action Fund. Every local LSC has identified groups which are under represented in learning and adopted impact measures for improvement. This work is integral to meeting the objective in the White Paper, "21st Century Skills, Realising Our Potential", to help individuals to obtain the skills they need to be both employable and personally fulfilled.

  Leigh Primary School
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the last Ofsted inspection of Leigh Primary School, Wiltshire took place; and when the next Ofsted inspection of Leigh Primary School will take place. [179198]

  Mr. Miliband
  Leigh Primary School was last inspected by Ofsted on 4–5 February 2004 and deemed to be in need of special measures. Her Majesty's Inspectors will make their first monitoring visit about six months after that inspection.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to dose Leigh Primary School. [179199]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Secretary of State has no current plans to give a direction to the Local Education Authority to close Leigh Primary School.

  Mathematics
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what discussions his Department has had with the Advisory Committee on Maths Education about improving mathematics education; [179415]

  (2) when his Department will publish a formal response to the Smith Inquiry; [179416]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the Smith report; and what steps his Department is taking to improve the standard of mathematics education [179417]

  Mr. Miliband
  I am replying to these three parliamentary questions together as they all have links to the Post-14 Mathematics Inquiry. We are most grateful to Professor Adrian Smith for the work he has put into the report, "Making Mathematics Count", and for his continued support. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said previously, the issues are complex and need to be considered carefully, particularly alongside the work of the Working Group on 14–19 Reform. A response is expected shortly. We 1396W
  have already announced that we accept the need for a high level post within the Department dedicated to mathematics and that we plan to undertake a marketing campaign to promote the take-up of mathematics. The post of Chief Adviser for Mathematics has now been advertised and in the meantime Anita Straker of the Centre for British Teachers, has been appointed on an interim basis.

  Officials informally met members of the Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education (ACME) during 2001 while it was being set up and, since 2002, have met the committee on a regular basis to discuss mathematics education. Ministers from this Department and the Department for Trade and Industry have also met ACME. During the period of the inquiry, ACME organised a series of workshops for Professor Smith to develop and discuss key areas. ACME and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) held a joint workshop in March to discuss specific recommendations in the Smith report, which was funded and attended by this Department. Anita Straker, the Department's Interim Chief Adviser for Mathematics, is due to meet the committee later this month.

  Office for Fair Access
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the role of the Office for Fair Access in university admissions. [176014]

  Alan Johnson
  Institutions are, and will remain, responsible for their own admissions policies and procedures. The Director of Fair Access will not be concerned with these when he considers institutions' access plans, which will be focused on encouraging applications from under-represented groups. We have accepted an amendment to the Higher Education Bill, which will ensure that the Director must have regard to the need to protect academic freedom, particularly in respect of the admission of students.

  Ofsted Inspections
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average(a) duration and (b) cost of an Ofsted inspection of (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools was in the latest year for which figures are available. [179223]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  PFI/PPP Schemes
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the private finance initiative and public private partnership schemes his Department has entered into that have been subject to refinancing deals, indicating in each case how much of the windfall gain has been repaid to the Government. [179061]
  1397W
  Mr. Miliband
  The only private finance initiative/ public private partnership that my Department has entered into is the Connexions Card, which is a PPP. It has not been subject to refinancing.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) book value of the stakeholding, (b)onward sale price and (c) arrangements for sharing any windfall gain from subsequent refinancing arrangements are for each of the private finance initiative and public private partnership schemes his Department has entered into where there has been an onward sale of the private sector stakeholding into secondary market. [179064]

  Mr. Miliband
  The only private finance initiative/ public private partnership scheme in my Department is the Connexions Card which has not been subject to onward sale into a secondary market.

  Physical Education
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of schoolchildren

  LEAs' planned expenditure for secondary schools in England in 2003–04

  £ million

  Percentage of Total Schools Budget

  Schools Budget

  12,112

  92.63

  of which:

  (i) Individual Schools Budget

  9,985

  82.44

  (ii) Total Standards Fund

  920

  7.60

  (iii) Schools Standards Grant

  314

  2.59

  £894 million or 7.38 per cent. of the Total Schools Budget is additional expenditure outside of the areas covered by (i), (ii) or (iii) above

  Memorandum items (already included in totals above):

  Sixth Form—Allocation from LSC for 16+ funding for secondary schools (included in (i))

  1,303

  10.76

  Expenditure covered by LSC Grant (included in lines within Total Schools Budget)

  Sixth form element included in provision for pupils with statements

  8

  0.07

  Sixth form element included in fees for pupils independent special schools and abroad

  3

  0.03

  Sixth form element included in fees to independent schools for pupils without statements

  1

  0.01

  (iv) Total post-16 LSC funding streams

  1,315

  10.86

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Local Education Authorities' 2003–04 Section 52 Budges Statement Table 1 submitted to the DfES. Gross figures are provided rather than net as income cannot be split by phase of education. All figures are as recorded in LEAs' Section 52 Budget statements. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  2. In addition to the Total Schools Budget for secondary schools £3,012 million was spent tin total LEA central functions and part of this would have been used to support secondary education.

  3. Within the schools' budget the amount available for delegation to schools after provision has been made for retained items is known as the Individual Schools Budget (ISB). ISB for secondary schools is £9,985 million of which £1,303 million is supported by the LSC for the funding of education for pupils in Sixth Forms.

  4. Total Standards Fund includes: Standards Fund allocation—Revenue (the Standards Fund allocation that the authority expects to devolve to its schools); Standards Fund—Non-Devolved (Standards Fund allocations not yet planned to be devolved to schools or to be spent centrally on items in the schools block; and Specific Formula Grants—Excellence in Cities (expenditure pursuant to a partnership agreement (under the DfES programme known as "Excellence in Cities") made between the authority, the Secretary of State and one or more of the authority's schools. In previous years this was not a separate line item but was recorded under the Devolved Standards Fund).

  5. Total post-16 LSC funding streams comprises of the memorandum items of expenditure included within the Total Schools Budget. The allocation from LSC for 16+ funding is included in (i) within the ISB. The sixth form elements of the provision for pupils with statements, the fees to independent schools for pupils without statements and the fees for pupils at independent special schools and abroad

  1398W
  are meeting the school sporting target of participating in two hours minimum a week of sport or physical education. [178443]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The results of the 2003/04 PE, School Sport and Club Links survey indicated that 62 per cent. of school children within a School Sport Partnership spend 29 minimum of two hours in a typical week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum. A copy of the full report has already been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The survey is used to measure progress towards meeting our target to increase the percentage of pupils spending a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  School Funding
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) proportion and (b) amount of funding for secondary schools in England comes from the (i) Delegated Budget, (ii) Standards Fund, (iii) School Standards Grant arid (iv) post-16 Learning and Skills Council funding streams. [171084]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained within the following table:
  1399W
  is included in other lines within the Total Schools Budget. Consequently the Total Schools Budget for secondary schools comprises of the total of (i) to (iii) plus additional expenditure of £894 million for secondary schools on areas such as SEN, education out of school, school meals, school based strategic management, non-standards fund grants and capital expenditure from revenue.

  School Leavers (Qualifications)
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils left school aged 16 years with no formal qualifications in each year since 1997. [179447]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentages of pupils reaching the end of compulsory education but not achieving any passes at GCSE/GNVQ in each year since 1997 are shown in the following table:

  Percentage of 15-year-olds not achieving GCSE/GNVQ passes

  2003

  5.2

  2002

  5.4

  2001

  5.5

  2000

  5.6

  1999

  6.0

  1998

  6.6

  1997

  7.7

  Pupils with no GCSE/GNVQ passes may have achieved passes in other approved qualifications such as entry level qualifications, key skills, national vocational and vocationally related qualifications.

  Skills Gap
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department has had with employers(a) groups and (b) federations regarding the skills gap. [179418]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department has regular exchanges with employer groups and federations about skills gap and skills shortage issues. This was of crucial importance in the development of the Skills Strategy—"21st Century Skills, Realising Our Potential" when we consulted all our partners and stakeholders. The Skills Strategy is now being taken forward by a new Skills Alliance. This brings together the social and economic partners including the CBI, TUC and Small Business Council with Government aria our key delivery agencies.

  Special Schools (Greater London)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many special schools there are in each of the education authorities in the Greater London area. [179051]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Special schools1: Number of schocls—January 2004 provisional)—local education authorities within Greater London

  Number of schools

  London

  156

  Inner London

  68

  Camden

  6

  City of London

  0

  Hackney

  5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5

  Haringey

  4

  1400W

  Special schools1: Number of schools—January 2004 (provisional)—local education authorities within Greater London

  Number of schools

  Islington

  3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2

  Lambeth

  6

  Lewisham

  7

  Newham

  2

  Southwark

  9

  Tower Hamlets

  7

  Wandsworth

  10

  Westminster

  2

  Outer London

  88

  Barking and Dagenham

  1

  Barnet

  4

  Bexley

  5

  Brent

  5

  Bromley

  6

  Croydon

  6

  Ealing

  6

  Enfield

  6

  Greenwich

  5

  Harrow

  4

  Havering

  3

  Hillingdon

  8

  Hounslow

  5

  Kingston upon Thames

  3

  Merton

  3

  Redbridge

  5

  Richmond upon Thames

  2

  Sutton

  5

  Waltham Forest

  6

  1Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  School Sport
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding is available for school sport in each year up to 2005–06; and how the funding is to be allocated.[177650]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table sets out the Department for Education and Skills' PE and school sport budget between 1996–97 and 2002–03 and the projected budget between 2003–04 and 2005–06.

  £million

  Financial Year

  DfES PE and school sport budget

  1996–97

  0

  1997–98

  1.9

  1998–99

  3.6

  1999–2000

  4.8

  2000–01

  9.5

  2001–02

  14.6

  2002–03

  23.5

  2003–04

  46

  2004–05

  108

  2005–06

  155

  The national PE, School Sport and Club Links strategy brings together eight individual but interlinked work strands. The following table sets out details for each of the work strands and their budgets.
  1401W

  Work strand

  Budget 2003–04 to 2005–06

  Specialist Sports Colleges Programme

  £11 5 million

  School Sport Partnerships (formerly the School Sport Co-ordinator programme) PE and School Sport Professional Development Programme PE and Sport Gifted and Talented Programme QCA PE and School Sport Investigation Swimming Strategy

  £224 million (total for all five work strands)

  Step Into Sport Programme

  £12 million (includes £2 million from he Home Office

  Club Links Programme

  £10 million

  In addition, related work to enhance Community Club Development (£60 million between 2003–04 and 2005–06), Coaching (£28 million between 2003–04 and 2005–06) and the Sporting Playgrounds Programme (£10 million between 2003–04 and 2004–05) is supporting the national strategy and the delivery of the sports Public Service Agreement target.

  Specialist Schools
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether funding for specialist school status is allocated on a per pupil basis. [179577]

  Mr. Miliband
  Yes, in terms of recurrent funding. Each specialist school also receives a one-off capital grant—irrespective of pupil numbers—to enhance the accommodation, facilities and/or equipment in the specialist subjects.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate his Department has made of the number of university graduates making repayments of nine per cent. of gross income over £10,000 to the Student Loans Company Limited in each year since 2001. [179445]

  Alan Johnson
  In general, repayments of income-contingent loans are collected through the tax system. Repayments are notified to the Student Loans Company (SLC) after the end of the tax year, after which time has to be allowed for SLC to reconcile the repayments notified with their records. There will therefore be some borrowers who have repaid their accounts in financial years 2001–02 and 2002–03, but this will not have been reported yet. Therefore data for those years understates the true number of borrowers making repayments. However, latest information from the SLC shows the following:

  Thousands

  Tax year

  Number of income-contingent loan borrowers making repayments1

  2000–01

  10.4

  2001–02(provisional)2

  33.2

  2002–03 (Provisional)2

  114.1

  1 Data exclude those borrowers making voluntary or early repayments.

  1402W
  2 Data are marked provisional to reflect the retrospective nature of the reporting of repayments through the Inland Revenue.

  Source:

  The Student Loans Company (SLC)

  Borrowers enter repayment status, i.e. are due to make repayments on their loans, in the April after graduating or otherwise leaving their course. No repayments are deducted from income-contingent borrowers with income below £10,000 per year. Borrowers with income-contingent loans can also make voluntary repayments, either in the form of prepayments before they enter repayment status, or ad-hoc repayments to accelerate their repayments after entering repayment status. These repayments are made directly by the borrower to the SLC. The table shows the number of UK income-contingent loan borrowers who have entered repayment status by tax year. It excludes those who have made early or voluntary repayments.

  Teacher Recruitment Managers
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been allocated for the(a) recruitment, (b) training and (c) employment of teacher recruitment managers not employed directly by schools in each year since 1997; and how many full-time equivalent recruitment managers there were in each year. [178208]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the available information since the creation of the recruitment managers scheme in 1998. Those local education authorities (LEAs) that employ recruitment managers receive an average annual grant from the Teacher Training Agency towards recruitment and employment costs. Any training for recruitment managers is funded by LEAs from wi thin their own resources. Their effectiveness in this role has been recognised by Ofsted.

  Recruitment Managers

  LEAS covered

  Average grant per LEA (£)

  2004–05

  97

  107

  50,000

  2003–04

  97

  107

  50,000

  2002–03

  86

  105

  50,000

  2001–02

  82

  97

  55,000

  2000–01

  67

  80

  55,000

  1999–2000

  52

  61

  55,000

  1998–99

  17

  17

  55,000

  Teacher Workload
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements he has made to fund teachers' planning, preparation and assessment time. [176555]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 22 June 2004]: The Government, in common with the other signatories to the National Agreement, believe that much can be achieved through redeploying existing resources.

  However, we recognise that some schools will require headroom in their budgets in order to meet the contractual change from September 2005. We shall decide later in the summer what kind of arrangements are needed to underpin the planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) reforms in the school funding system for 2005–06.

  To that end, we are currently working with six LEAs and about a dozen schools in each of those LEAs to get a better understanding of their starting points, how they plan to deliver the reforms and to what extent this can be achieved through the redeployment of existing resources.

  We will use the information produced in order to review the funding implications of the reforms.

  Teachers (Pupil Abuse)
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were investigated for alleged abuse of pupils in each year since 1997; and how many were subsequently(a) prosecuted and (b) found guilty. [179424]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not available.

  Teaching Posts (Greater London)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacancies for teaching posts there are at schools in the Greater London area. [179033]

  Mr. Miliband
  The latest vacancy information was published on 29 April in the School Workforce in England statistical first release (SFR09/2004), a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons 1404W
  Library and can be accessed from the following URL: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/D B/SFR/s000462/index.shtml

  West Midlands in Europe
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the work of West Midlands in Europe. [179600]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  West Midlands in Europe is working assiduously to ensure that Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the West Midlands receive an equitable share of the EU Framework Programmes for Research and Development (2002–06)—pan Europe the programmes are worth the sum of €17.5 billion to HEIs.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many employees in his Department have(a) signed a formal opt out from and (b) are exempt from the Working Time Directive; and how many employees in his Department have recorded hours, including any accruing on a flexitime basis, in excess of the maximum allowed under the Working Time Directive in the last month for which figures are available. [178364]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department is committed to reducing the number of employees who work in excess of the Working Time Directive maximum to an absolute minimum.

  64 employees have signed a formal opt out from the Working Time Directive. No employees are exempt. The number of hours that each employee works per week is not kept centrally, therefore the number of hours in excess of the maximum allowed under the Working Time Directive could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  XL Clubs
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department has had with the Prince's Trust regarding XL clubs in schools. [179414]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Prince's Trust has had a number of meetings with various officials in the Department in recent months. Although XL clubs have been mentioned, none of the meetings have been held specifically to discuss this issue.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Temporary Suspension of Adoptions from Cambodia
  The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge)
  I am announcing a temporary suspension of adoptions of Cambodian children by UK residents.

  The temporary suspension is being introduced in response to concerns raised by and investigated by officials from the DfES who visited Cambodia, by the British Embassy in Cambodia and, separately, by other stakeholders about the intercountry adoption process in Cambodia.

  I believe that the safeguards in the Cambodian adoption system are currently insufficient to prevent children being adopted without proper consents being given by their birth parents and in proper financial gain being made by individuals involved in the adoption process.

  The specific areas of concern include:
  Evidence relating to the systematic falsification of Cambodian official documents related to the adoption of children;
  Evidence relating to the extensive involvement of adoption facilitators in the adoption procedure in Cambodia even though Cambodian law expressly forbids facilitators participating in the adoption process;
  Evidence relating to the procurement of children for intercountry adoption by facilitators, including by coercion and by paying birth mothers to give up their children; and
  Concern about the prevalence of children trafficking and corruption generally in Cambodia.

  The temporary suspension will take effect immediately and will be imposed on all UK applications to adopt children from Cambodia where the prospective adopter has not yet received a matching report from the Cambodian authorities. This is the latest point in the adoption process in Cambodia where a temporary suspension could take effect before a Cambodian adoption certificate is issued.

  Although the UK authorities could intervene where a prospective adopter applies to bring a child into the UK there is a considerable risk that tho child might be left in the situation where they have been legally adopted in Cambodia, and as such are no longer an orphan but are unable to enter the UK with their adoptive parents. This would pose a significant risk to the individual child and would clearly be unacceptable.

  I intend to consider reviewing the temporary suspension when the Cambodian Government pass new adoption legislation or if there is another development I
  78WS
  consider to be significant, for example if Cambodia were to implement the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of intercountry adoption.

  Only in exceptional circumstances will I consider that the temporary suspension should not apply in a particular case. Any decision relating to a particular case will of course take account of what is in the best interests of the child and all the facts of the particular case.

HEALTH

  National Health Service Continuing Care
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  I am publishing today figures that detail the progress made on investigations into cases where individuals may have been inappropriately denied national health service care.

  Strategic health authorities have been required to investigate cases where individuals may have been inappropriately denied fully funded NHS continuing care since 1996. Where investigations have revealed that care should have been provided the NHS has been recompensing, or will recompense, individuals for the cost of that care. This process has formed part of the Department's response to the health service ombudsman's report into long term care, which was published in February 2003.

  The process began with each SHA reviewing and aligning the criteria for NHS continuing care within its area and ensuring that these criteria conformed with the legal position.

  The Department requested that investigations, as far as possible, were completed by 31 March 2004. The number and complex nature of new cases presenting themselves during the three months from January to March 2004 posed significant challenges to meeting that deadline, but the NHS has remained committed to completing investigations as accurately and thoroughly as possible. At the end of March the NHS had completed 57 per cent. (6,713) of all outstanding investigations. This number is greater than the number of cases that the NHS was aware of at the end of December 2003, and demonstrates the NHS's commitment to completing cases promptly once they are received. The Department will check that those cases outstanding at the end of March have been completed as of the end of July. From then onwards I will expect any cases to be completed within two months of all the information on the case being received by the SHA. The situation in each SHA is summarised in the table.

  Following the work carried out by SHAs in reviewing, revising and investigating the provision of fully funded NHS continuing care, awareness and application by the NHS is improving. The NHS expects to pay a total of over £180 million when all the cases received by the end of March 2004 have been investigated and restitution made for incorrect decisions. There is a timely appeal process for current cases, so that the need for a retrospective recompense process will decline.
  79WS

  SHA Name

  No. of Cases Eligible for Recompense

  Investigations Completed

  Investigations Underway

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire SHA

  0

  281

  370

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire SHA

  34

  102

  110

  Essex SHA

  10

  146

  26

  North West London SHA

  10

  181

  191

  North Central London SHA

  8

  64

  61

  North East London SHA

  0

  169

  11

  South East London SHA

  60

  183

  90

  South West London SHA

  62

  194

  21

  Northumberland, Tyne & Wear SHA

  27

  126

  172

  County Durham and Tees Valley SHA

  10

  48

  178

  North & East Yorkshire & North Lines SHA

  29

  266

  93

  West Yorkshire SHA

  25

  130

  219

  Cumbria and Lancashire SHA

  15

  154

  186

  Greater Manchester SHA

  5

  102

  240

  Cheshire & Merseyside SHA

  107

  774

  422

  Thames Valley SHA

  4

  181

  202

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA

  30

  386

  121

  Kent and Medway SHA

  24

  186

  44

  Surrey and Sussex SHA

  5

  15

  860

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA

  43

  612

  349

  South West Peninsula SHA

  25

  433

  120

  Dorset and Somerset SHA

  14

  448

  467

  South Yorkshire SHA

  138

  232

  78

  Trent SHA

  0

  236

  79

  Leics, Northants and Rutland SHA

  29

  202

  22

  Shropshire and Staffordshire SHA

  38

  412

  19

  Birmingham and The Black Country SHA

  10

  213

  73

  West Midlands South SHA

  8

  237

  187

  Total—England

  770

  6,713

  5,011

  Toft Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  In July 2002, the Government's chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, commissioned Professor Brian Toft to investigate the circumstances surrounding four adverse events that had occurred in the reproductive medicine units at the Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust. This followed reports of a mix-up in treatment that led to mixed-race twins being born to a white couple.

  Professor Toft's report is published today. He concludes that a mixture of inadvertent human error and systems failure was involved.

  He makes a number of recommendations for the trust, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Department. He also recognises that significant progress has already been made to address the issues his recommendations raise.

  Responses by the trust, the HFEA and the Department to the recommendations directed specifically at them are also published today.

  The Government recognise fully the distress that these mistakes and failings have caused to patients and their families, and the importance of ensuring that
  80WS
  lessons are learned to minimise the likelihood of them happening again. We are grateful to Professor Toft for a thorough investigation, and welcome his report.

  Copies of Professor Toft's report, and the responses to it by the trust, the HFEA and the Department have been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The following key targets have been set out for the Army Base Repair Organisation for financial year 2004–05.

  Key Target

  Details

  Target

  KT1—financial performance—return on capital employed (ROCE).

  The measurement of ABRO's ROCE.

  To achieve a return, averaged over the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, of at least 3.5 per cent.

  KT2—delivery performance.

  The measurement of revenue projection.

  To complete delivery of 100 per cent. of the planned revenue projection (£150 million) in FY2004–05, and in each of the next three years.

  KT3—business systems.

  The measurement of the introduction and operational the TABS and the imperative to detach from the current supply system.

  To introduce and have operation of ABRO business system (TABS) and to have detached from the ESPPA supply system by 31 March 2005.

  KT4—efficiency

  The measurement of the reduction in price of ABRO output.

  To reduce the average equipment repair price, across the whole programme, by 20 per cent. against the 2002–03 baseline.

  KT5—winning work

  The measurement of ABRO winning work.

  To maintain a closing order book of at least £80 million for FY2004–05 and to maintain this level for the next three years.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  FCO Travel Advice
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  In my statement to the House on 1 April,Official Report, column 1769, I presented the review of FCO travel advice (Cm 6158), and invited comments from all quarters on its conclusions and recommendations. A number of associations, companies and individuals, many but not all from within the travel industry, responded to this invitation. I held a round table on 27 May with key stakeholders to discuss further their views on our travel advice service and how it might be improved. I am now in a position to announce to Parliament the revisions which will be made.
  81WS
  We have discussed at length the difficult question of how we can best inform the public about the threat from terrorism in individual countries. As I said in my statement of 1 April, our travel advice needs to strike a balance between danger and disruption: making put lie safety its prime concern while minimising the disruption which terrorists want to cause. Our advice must inform people of the threat from terrorism and, when the threat is acute, it will inevitably lead to some disruption in travel in the interests of public safety. But at the same time we must make sure we do not do the terrorists' work for them by causing too much of the disruption which they seek.

  I have therefore decided that in future, in the case of intelligence-based terrorist threats, we shall advise against travel only in situations of extreme and imminent danger—if the terrorist threat is sufficiently specific, large-scale or endemic to affect British nationals severely (option E on page 22 of the review). The factors which we shall consider in reaching this judgment will include the specificity and credibility of the intelligence information, the recent history of terrorist incidents in the area, the likelihood that the threat could affect British nationals, and the level of protection from the threat available to British nationals. One reason for making this change of emphasis is to maintain the credibility of our advice. I am concerned that many people continue to travel despite our warnings against all essential travel. The public will be better served if such warnings are used more sparingly.
  82WS
  I should add that we shall continue to prescribe against travel in cases of non-terrorist threats (coups, civil unrest, natural disasters) on the same basis as before.

  I have also decided to accept the recommendation on page 28 of the review to establish a standing advisory council of travel advice users. Details of membership, timing and agenda are still to be finalised, but the council would bring together representatives of the travel and insurance industries, NGOs and others to advise on issues arising from travel advice and its implementation. It would not be consulted on individual travel advice changes, which would continue to be the responsibility of officials and, ultimately, myself.

  I have also asked my officials to implement a number of recommendations from the review, and from the subsequent consultation, to make the travel advice pages clearer and easer to use. Although we have achieved considerably greater clarity over the last year, further refinements have been suggested to ensure that those who consult the FCO website or the telephone call centre take away the key points.

  One fact that has emerged clearly from the review is that, while our travel advice service is heavily used, many different types of customer use it for widely varied purposes. Inevitably, we cannot satisfy all the demands, some of which are mutually exclusive, but I am confident the adjustments outlined above will improve the overall quality of service and level of customer satisfaction.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Lord Carter of Coles
Patrick Robert Carter, Esquire, having been created Baron Carter of Coles, of Westmill in the County of Hertfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Laming and the Lord Warner.
Baroness Morris of Bolton
Mrs Patricia Morris, OBE, having been created Baroness Morris of Bolton, of Bolton in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Seccombe and the Lord Brennan.

House of Lords: Display of Historical Documents
2.49 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked the Chairman of Committees:
What is being done to ensure that original documents which highlight United Kingdom constitutional history continue to be displayed in the House for the benefit of Members and visitors.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, original documents of constitutional significance will continue to be displayed in the Royal Gallery. But, on expert advice, the Administration and Works Sub-Committee agreed in 2002 that exhibits should be changed regularly to prevent their deterioration from overexposure to light. The Record Office now has a three-month cycle for displays, which are designed to use the rich and diverse content of the archives to engage visitors with the work of Parliament.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer because it confirms that we will continue to see original documents displayed in this House. But does he agree that many people take a lot of pride in the history and development of Parliament? They would like to see more original documents displayed, including such landmarks as Catholic emancipation, abolition of slavery, votes for women and perhaps even House of Lords reform some time in the future. Will he therefore encourage more Peers and staff to make contact and to visit our excellent Record Office and, perhaps, also make suggestions for documents to be displayed?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I endorse the noble Earl's comments about the pride of this House in the history of Parliament and our constitutional landmarks. The plan to change the displays regularly will help to preserve key documents and enable a wider variety of original records to be shown than ever before. Perhaps House of Lords reform will, one of these days, be among them—who knows?
On the second point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the Clerk of the Records is keen to encourage Members and staff to visit the Record Office and welcomes suggestions for future document displays.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Works of Art Committee in this House. Does the noble Lord agree that there is not time or space for the many large parties of children and adults to examine documents in the display case? In the old display case, one of the items of main interest was the death warrant of King Charles I, which, sadly, is deteriorating. Temporarily, a replica will be on display. People also like very much to see the signatories of all the monarchs, which are most interesting. Items that are easy to look at in a display case are a practical solution, but that has nothing to do with the fact that documents of public interest should be available.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. The old display case was unsatisfactory. It was made of oak which, apparently, gives off a noxious substance that is damaging to original documents. We have had the benefit of advice from an expert adviser from the British Library in that respect.
The death warrant of Charles I had been on continuous public display for around 150 years. Expert advice is that documents of that nature should be displayed for only three months at a time. Therefore, we have really behaved rather badly in the past. Signs of fading were starting to appear. It is essential that that document should be preserved in suitable repository conditions or it would fade irretrievably. It will probably be displayed occasionally, but not for long periods. The new display case, which has temperature and humidity control, will be better. Nevertheless, it is not right that such documents should be continuously displayed in light.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, historic documents displayed in the Royal Gallery were kept in a lovely Pugin-style display case which was completely appropriate for the gallery. That has now been replaced by a ghastly metal contraption which is gunmetal grey-green in colour. It is extremely difficult to see that as appropriate for the Royal Gallery. Why is that?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am afraid to disillusion the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but, as I mentioned in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the oak display cabinet was completely unsuitable. The relevant British standard for this

1115
specifically recommends against oak and other materials which emit vapours harmful to documents. If the noble Lord has a criticism of the new display case in the Royal Gallery, whose design, colour and site were approved in 2003 by the Administration and Works Committee and, I believe, by the Works of Art Committee, he should consult those bodies. As I mentioned in my last reply, the new display case has considerable advantages in terms of humidity and light.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on conveying what is, overall, a very sensible solution to a delicate problem. However, will he bear in mind that those of us who for a number of years have been taking parties and individuals around the Palace of Westminster, many of whom come from foreign countries and have a deep interest in our history, feel that there is nothing better than to show our guests articles and places of real historic interest within this impressive Victorian structure? As long as that is borne in mind, we shall achieve what most visitors to this excellent Palace expect.
The Chairman of Committees: Yes, my Lords; indeed, I hope that my answers have indicated that that is the case. However, I should say in regard to the death warrant of King Charles I that a facsimile is being made at the moment which will be put on display. I would bet that most visitors will be unable to tell the difference.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, do the documents include some of those concerning the union between Scotland and England in the reign of Queen Anne?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Articles of Union between England and Scotland of 1706 were indeed displayed. Those are documents like the death warrant of King Charles I which should not be kept on continuous display because of the likelihood of deterioration. Therefore they have been taken away and placed in proper, safe and secure conditions. However, I would strongly suspect that the 300th anniversary of the union with Scotland in two years' time would be a very suitable moment for the Articles of Union again to be displayed, although probably not for more than three months at a time.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, first, does the noble Lord agree that the aromas of oak are better when surrounding French wine? Secondly, can he assist the House by giving us some idea of what items are likely to be included in the display in the near future?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has asked me that question. The displays in the Royal Gallery cabinet are due to be changed later this week. One display will feature Parliament during the Second World War, building on public and media interest in the 60th anniversary of the
1116
D-Day landings and examining the effect of the war on Parliament. A second display will feature the longest original Act of Parliament on a continuous vellum roll, the Land Tax Act 1821, which has never before been displayed. If this Act were to be unrolled, it would stretch over 382 yards, or considerably longer than the entire Palace of Westminster, which is 291 yards long.

Iraq: US Treatment of Prisoners
2.58 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the United States Government about the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners; and whether such maltreatment is the result of official United States policy.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have expressed our disgust and anger at the mistreatment and abuse of a number of Iraqi prisoners to our American colleagues. We have stressed the need to ensure that anyone found guilty of these disgraceful abuses is punished appropriately, that detention and interrogation procedures meet international standards, and that safeguards to avoid abuse are put in place. A discussion of individual cases is clearly inappropriate, but United States officials have assured us and the international community that official US policy is to accord prisoners of war and security internees in Iraq the protections of the Geneva Convention.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I hope very much that it is right. Has she seen the report of the Pentagon legal panel obtained by the United States Center for Constitutional Rights and published in the Wall Street Journal on 7 June, showing beyond reasonable doubt that at one time the best legal minds in the Pentagon were trying hard to find ways to sidestep both US and international laws banning torture? Has the Minister seen further reports in the Washington Post of 12 June indicating that the actions at Abu Ghraib prison were not just those of a few rotten apples, but that some practices such as the use of military dogs in interrogation were sanctioned at a senior level?
Would the Minister accept that, since we are partners with the United States, all these actions have implications for the security of British personnel, both military and civilian, and have not the British Government not only the right but the duty to find out what American policy has been?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have not read either of the reports to which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has referred, but of course I know of the concerns expressed by him about the attitudes of the United States. I strongly agree with him that we have a duty to find out from the United States what

1117
their official attitudes have been. We know that Major General Fay, the deputy chief of staff of the US Army Intelligence and Security Command, began an investiga tion in April of this year into military intelligence practices in Iraq, including in Abu Ghraib prison. Also, I was in Jordan a few weeks ago attending a meeting of the World Economic Forum at which Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, made a full apology to what was largely an Arab audience for any abuse of Iraqi prisoners. So while I understand the fears articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the official United States position has been made clear at very senior levels.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness accept that what has been happening in Iraq merely mirrors what happened behind closed doors in Guantanamo Bay and that some of its personnel were transferred to Iraq to carry out those practices? Does she not further accept that the institutions in Guantanamo Bay were part of the policy of the United States Government about which this Government have so often complained?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Question is specifically about Iraq. While I understand that fears will be mirrored in Guantanamo, I am not in a position to answer in any detail. However, as the Minister concerned with the British people who have been detained in Guantanamo, obviously I have looked into welfare issues in that regard. We have made welfare visits to Guantanamo, as has the International Red Cross. In saying that, I declare an interest as a patron of the British Red Cross.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, would the Minister care to refer to the other part of the noble Lord's Question? It has been authoritatively reported that supervisory personnel from the Guantanamo Bay prison have had a supervisory role in the Abu Ghraib prison. If it is the case that the United States Government declined to apply the Geneva conventions in the Guantanamo Bay prison, is not that a cause for concern?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord reiterates what is already a matter of public knowledge: that personnel were moved from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib. I have expressed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government not only our disgust at the reports of what has gone on in Abu Ghraib but also, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I have acknowledged that there is a duty upon Her Majesty's Government to make inquiries and to press these points very hard with the United States Government.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does not the interview by John Humphreys in the "On the Ropes" programme last week of General Janis Karpinski—in which she stated that she was told by General Miller, when he was transferred from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, that he intended to "Gitmoise"
1118
Abu Ghraib on the Guantanamo model—suggest that further questions should be asked about whether the standards that applied at Abu Ghraib applied also at Guantanamo Bay?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not hear the interview to which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours refers. I remind him that in my original Answer I said that a discussion of individual cases is clearly inappropriate. I hope your Lordships will accept that position because three trials of United States military personnel are beginning in Iraq right now. Nothing I say in any way detracts from the seriousness and importance with which these matters ought to be considered. However, I do not believe that it is right or appropriate for me, as a Government Minister, to comment from the Dispatch Box upon guilt or lack of it.

UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement
3.5 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the negotiations with the United States for the renewal of the mutual defence agreement have been concluded; and whether there will be an opportunity for Parliament to debate its terms.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the amendments to the mutual defence agreement were signed on 14 June by US and UK representatives. Yesterday these amendments, along with an explanatory memorandum, were laid before Parliament in accordance with normal procedures for amendments to such treaties. The amendments have also been put before Congress, where they will lie for 60 days.
At present, I cannot undertake to find government time for a debate. In accordance with their undertaking in 2000 to the Procedure Committee of another place, the Government will give due consideration to any request from the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Liaison Committee for a debate. A debate in your Lordships' House will, of course, be a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that somewhat startling Answer, can he confirm that under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty the nuclear powers have undertaken to negotiate in good faith for the total elimination of nuclear weapons? Given that the mutual defence agreement is specifically intended to facilitate the transfer of information and materials between the United States and the United Kingdom in order to augment their nuclear capabilities, would it be

1119
surprising if the rest of the world perceived our position as, at best, schizophrenic—or is proliferation what other countries choose?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it would be surprising. The United Kingdom remains fully committed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in its entirety. Movements under the MDA do not involve nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices; hence they do not contravene the treaty. So far as concerns the United Kingdom's record, we are committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons. Indeed, we can claim to lead the world in our commitment to neutral, balanced and verifiable reductions. Since 1992, the UK has given up the Lance nuclear missile in artillery roles, our maritime tactical nuclear capability and all our air-launched nuclear weapons. Trident is now Britain's only nuclear system and we maintain fewer than 200 operationally available nuclear warheads. We are the only nuclear power that has so far been prepared to take such an important step on the route to nuclear disarmament.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, will the Government undertake in future to produce in advance a full list of agreements with the United States in the defence field? That will enable this House, if the Government are not prepared to give the time, to bring forward debates to discuss these issues. Can the Minister say whether the treaty has been changed to deal with the issues raised by national missile defence?
Lord Bach: My Lords, to the last question the answer is no. So far as concerns the first question, if the suggestion is that the Government are trying to avoid proper scrutiny, I refute it emphatically. This is a longstanding agreement and its renewal does not involve any consequential change to UK legislation. The Government have laid amendments before Parliament in accordance with the Ponsonby rule—that is, they are laid before both Houses of Parliament for 21 days. A copy of the command paper and the accompanying explanatory memorandum will be sent to the relevant Select Committee, in this case the House of Commons Defence Committee. As I said in my original Answer, in accordance with our undertaking made in 2000 to the House of Commons Procedure Committee, due consideration will be given to any requests for a debate from the Defence Committee or from the Liaison Committee.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, following on from the Minister's reply, the confidential intelligence contents of the MDA have never been disclosed to Parliament. Does the Minister agree that this long-established practice should continue?
Lord Bach: My Lords, yes, I agree that that practice should continue because of the necessity for great confidentiality and because of the use that such
1120
information would be to other would-be nuclear states. In other words, it might well assist proliferation.

Bosnia-Herzegovina
3.10 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina are meeting the 16 conditions under the European Union accession process and the NATO partnership for peace.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Bosnia-Herzegovina has made significant progress in meeting the military conditions for Partnership for Peace, but lack of co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia means that Bosnia-Herzegovina has not yet met the political criteria for membership. Progress in the 16 priority areas identified by the European Commission's Stabilisation and Association Agreement feasibility study in November 2003 has also been mixed, with good progress in some areas but not in others. The European Commission will review progress in the 16 areas in the autumn.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. Does she agree that it is crucial for Republika Srpska to co-operate with the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague on the arrest of Radovan Karadzic and other indictees? Does she also agree that the High Representative, the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, has achieved excellent results in rebuilding the institutions and encouraging appropriate legislation? Will she confirm that he has the full support of her Majesty's Government? Will my noble friend further agree that for a self-sustainable state, more power and fiscal authority has to be transferred to the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina from the two entities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I largely agree with my noble friend Lord Ahmed. The Republika Srpska authorities have indeed failed to take decisive action to locate and detain fugitive indictees, most notably Mr Karadzic, or to tackle their extensive support networks. Of course, we support all the action that the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, is taking in this respect. I understand that he and others in the international community have delivered firm messages about the inaction over Mr Karadzic and others, which is jeopardising Bosnia's Partnership for Peace prospects. I also agree with my noble friend's comments about moving towards an economic entity.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is considerable disappointment among the Bosnian leadership that they have been told so definitely that their candidacy for Partnership for Peace in NATO has been turned down for the time being? As the Minister says, that is

1121
largely due to the failure of a single suspect being handed over, especially by Republika Srpska. Is it entirely fair that the Bosnians, who were doing their best to move forward and become candidates both for the European Union and for the NATO partnership, should be punished because of backsliding by Republika Srpska? Will she suggest ways in which additional pressure can be put on the government of Republika Srpska and their officials to move forward a little and make real efforts to find the suspects?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making those points so well. It is important to say that Her Majesty's Government fully support Bosnia-Herzegovina's NATO aspirations. We welcome the progress that Bosnia-Herzegovina has made in implementing wide-ranging defence reforms, especially by appointing the first ever state-level defence minister, whom I met only 10 days ago. He and I had the opportunity to discuss problems relating to Republika Srpska, which is part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. One of the main reasons for having a state-level defence minister is to make an effort to pull these issues together.
However, it is important that the noble Lord does not concentrate only on Mr Karadzic. Although he is the highest-level person that we want to see detained, as I mentioned a moment ago, there are others and we are not happy about the way in which the networks that support them are allowed to continue to exist.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, under the terms of the stability pact for south-eastern Europe, Bosnia and also Albania, Macedonia and Serbia Montenegro are on the path to join the European Union when they fulfil the full range of conditions that apply, and that it is important that the full range of conditions is applied to all of those candidates as they progress?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is important to recognise that all these countries are at slightly different points in developing their relationships, certainly with the European Union. Albania has begun negotiations for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement. Those negotiations began in 2003. Macedonia has submitted its official application to join the EU on 22 March 2004. We have not had an application from Bosnia-Herzegovina because it has not yet reached the point at which that would be appropriate.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the European Union remains committed to the cause of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Will she further agree with Commissioner Patten, who, when speaking to the German Bundestag European Union committee
1122
in April, blamed political failure in Bosnia-Herzegovina for not making progress on the 16 items specified as part of the stabilisation and association process? Is my noble friend therefore in a position to spell out to the House quite clearly where the elements of failure in those 16 conditions are and how imperative it is that they are all met?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. Not only has the EU made it clear that Bosnia and all other countries in the region are potential candidates for EU membership, but, on behalf of the UK Government, I also say that we support Bosnia's EU aspirations. However, Bosnia-Herzegovina is not at that point yet. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson is right to remind us that there are some very specific areas where it is falling down. The problem for the EU is not only in respect of the non-co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, but with a wide area of fiscal and economic areas such as customs and taxation reform, budget legislation, budget practices including the recording of all income accruing to public authorities and the whole question of having reliable statistics. There is a range of issues on the economic front that urgently need to be addressed.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government do everything that they can to encourage inward investment into Bosnia and the rest of south-eastern Europe because a rising economy will provide favourable conditions both for peace and general progress?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the best encouragement to inward investment in any country—bearing in mind that inward investment is a highly competitive area, and I speak as a former Trade Minister—is for that country to have transparency in its economy. A country must also have effective public administration. Bosnia-Herzegovina still has to make further efforts towards creating not only an economic climate that is right but an effective public administration which would encourage that inward investment.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the very high esteem in which the British forces are held in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially because of their role in the peacekeeping process?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am indeed aware of that high esteem, particularly because at the end of my time as a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I visited Bosnia-Herzegovina with General Jackson. As a British soldier who had served there, he was held in the highest possible esteem, as were all the serving officers I met. I witnessed that for myself.

Bichard Report
3.19 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the Bichard inquiry report.
"Last December, following Ian Huntley's conviction, I asked Sir Michael Bichard to conduct an inquiry into the events leading up to the murder of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells. I am today publishing his report in full. The families have shown great courage and dignity. We extend again today our most heartfelt sympathy to them.
"I am grateful to Sir Michael for the speed and thoroughness of his inquiry. We accept his critique. In doing so we must not forget, as he states, that,
'Huntley alone was responsible for these most awful murders. None of the actions or failures of any of the witnesses or the institutions they represented led to the deaths of the girls'.
"His report uncovers serious failures in recording and managing information.
"These failures include local systems for recording, retaining and accessing data. They include national frameworks for inspection and information exchange, and the systems that underpin them.
"As a consequence, the report is wide-ranging in its recommendations. These apply to a range of public services and government departments. I am therefore responding on behalf of the Government as a whole.
"We are, in principle, accepting Sir Michael's main recommendations and will act on them immediately.
"It is the Government's task to ensure clear national standards as well as providing strong leadership. But other national bodies and local agencies also have a key role in strengthening the system.
"Let me turn to the specific recommendations.
"Sir Michael recommends the introduction of a national intelligence system. Information collected should be shared and acted upon before an individual is employed in a sensitive post. Let me describe how this will operate.
"The police national computer is the cornerstone of police information systems, but its task is to register recorded crime. It holds basic information—for example, names and addresses of offenders. We are working with forces to improve the quality and timeliness of data. It is necessary for them to keep up with the growing and changing demands on the police service.
"But the police national computer does not hold intelligence information—for example, where someone has been questioned in relation to repeated allegations of sexual assault.
"Until now, all 43 forces in England and Wales have operated individual systems for handling this kind of information. This should no longer be the case. As Sir Michael puts it, we cannot have a situation where, and I quote,
'local accountability will be used to defend ineffective local systems when a national system would be more appropriate'.
"This report marks a watershed in how police forces and authorities will work together to procure intelligence and information systems needed to do the job. No longer can the historic justification of operational independence take precedence over the imperative of being able to track and deal with offenders effectively.
"We are therefore now introducing the first national police intelligence computer system—entitled 'Impact'.
"'Impact' will ensure that all forces use the same system to manage and share intelligence information.
"As an interim measure, we are bringing forward the nationwide introduction of the police local exchange. It will begin this autumn and be complete by next spring. It will provide an easily searchable index of all those on whom any police force holds information. Sir Michael commends this.
"But systems are only as good as the information they hold. In this case, because records were handled so badly and deleted, a national intelligence system could not have identified the concerns. Sir Michael therefore concludes that the police need clearer, more soundly based rules, for recording, retaining and reviewing, as well as deleting information.
"Before the inquiry was established, the Data Protection Act was criticised as a contributory factor. While it is no doubt complex, it embodies important principles. Sir Michael concludes that the loss of intelligence cannot be blamed on the Act. He does not believe that radical revisions are necessary.
"It is crucial that rules on managing information are clearly understood.
"I am therefore introducing, by the end of this year, a statutory code of practice on police information handling. All 43 forces will deal with intelligence information in the same way. This will be backed up by detailed operational guidance. Effective training, management and inspection will ensure that it is fully understood and consistently applied.
"This will link closely to the police national intelligence model. This sets out how forces should collect and handle intelligence. It is already providing a more consistent structure. The code will ensure that all forces are required to make the most effective use of this structure. Those few forces still not operating this model must now do so.
"But these recommendations apply substantially beyond policing. The report recommends social services should routinely notify the police when a crime against a child is committed or suspected. Sir Michael concludes that this is not always done.
"The social services database needs to hold details of all alleged sexual offenders involved with named children and should be easily searchable.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is working urgently on this. The department will shortly receive a serious case review report from Sir Christopher Kelly on other specific lessons for social services.
"Sir Michael has highlighted the importance of robust selection and recruitment. He has recommended that those recruiting staff in schools must be properly trained in safeguarding children. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for Children have agreed that selection panels should contain at least one panel member properly trained in this work.
"He also calls for stronger, more consistent vetting, and a new system for registering those working with children and vulnerable adults.
"We will therefore urgently consider his recommendation that a register be created to bring together all the relevant information held on individuals in a way which is easily accessible.
"We need to consider how this fits with and enhances the service already provided by the Criminal Records Bureau. We will also need to make the link to proposals for identity cards.
"Let me now turn to concerns about the two forces involved.
"Sir Michael highlights deficiencies by Cambridgeshire on the checks into Ian Huntley's suitability. Sir Ronnie Flanagan's parallel report for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary into the investigation, which is being published today, also highlights concerns about processes and the actions of individuals.
"However, Ian Huntley is behind bars. Cambridgeshire acted effectively to achieve this. It also asked the Metropolitan Police to review its procedures at the time of the investigation.
"Failings were neither systemic nor corporate. I should also add that mistakes have been fully acknowledged and actions have been taken to ensure they do not recur.
"But much graver concerns are raised about the senior management of Humberside. There were, and I quote, 'very serious failings', some of which the Chief Constable became aware of only when hearing evidence to the inquiry. Sir Michael finds the lack of awareness of the scale of these failings over such a long period of time to be 'deeply shocking'.
"It is Sir Michael's view that the,
'final responsibility for these serious failures rests with Chief Constable David Westwood'.
It is difficult to disagree with this.
"Paragraph 2.94 could not be clearer. It says of Mr Westwood, and I quote,
'he was Chief Constable from March 1999 and, as such, became ultimately responsible for information management and information technology systems. The wide-ranging & systemic
1126
failures … existed in March 1999 and therefore predated him becoming Chief Constable. However, they were not identified and continued for a considerable period thereafter. Chief Constable Westwood must take personal responsibility for the continuation of those failures. From 1 September 1997, he had been Deputy Chief Constable, the second most senior officer on the force'.
"The role of any Chief Constable has to be one in which the public have confidence. In the face of serious criticism, it is my responsibility as Home Secretary to question whether people in Humberside can continue to have that confidence. Mindful of our duty of care, I asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Keith Povey, to discuss Sir Michael's findings with the Chief Constable yesterday.
"The strength of the report's criticism of him has led me to conclude that, using the powers available to me under the Police Act 1996, as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002, I should require Humberside police authority to suspend Mr Westwood as Chief Constable forthwith.
"I have also invited the police authority to consider what steps it should take, having regard to its statutory duty under Section 6 of the 1996 Act to maintain an efficient and effective force. I have asked it to report to me by 6 July.
"I have also asked Sir Keith to ensure that the professional judgment of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is available to the police authority. When I receive the authority's report I will then decide whether to initiate the process which could lead to the retirement or resignation of the Chief Constable.
"Finally, let me repeat my thanks to Sir Michael for his work. I believe that he is right to suggest the discipline of reconvening his inquiry in six months.
"We know that this must be yet another unbearable day for the families of Jessica and Holly. We owe it to them to make substantial progress, as rapidly as possible, in ensuring that these failures are not repeated.
"I commend the report to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made a short while ago in another place by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I am aware that the Home Secretary gave my right honourable friend David Davis unusually early sight of both the report and the Statement. This is not just the normal courtesy. It reflects the fact that this is a question of public safety and that will be recognised in my response today.
I wholeheartedly endorse the Minister's remarks about the dignity shown by the families of Holly and Jessica in the past few months. Our thoughts are with them and I have no doubt that all Members of this House share a determination that these failures should not be repeated. We welcome the report of Sir Michael

1127
Bichard. It is exhaustive and we agree with most, but not quite all, of it. We consider his decision to reconvene in six months' time to review progress not merely a good idea, but one that should perhaps become standard good practice in reports such as this.
The report makes it clear that Cambridgeshire Criminal Records Bureau was so focused on the introduction of new systems that it failed to carry out crucial checks into Ian Huntley's background. We must ensure failures such as this never happen again. However, Sir Michael says that even if Cambridgeshire had got it right Ian Huntley's record would still have been missed because of other failures, most notably in Humberside Police.
There were two failures in Humberside Police: one relates to IT, and the other relates to the handling of the Huntley case. Even before the weeding of records took place, Ian Huntley's record of behaviour should have led police to act. We should consider the following facts. In August 1995, there was an allegation of unlawful sex with a 15 year-old; in May 1996, there was an allegation of unlawful sex with another 15 year-old; and, also in May 1996, there was an allegation of unlawful sex with a 13 year-old. That is not an IT failure. It is a failure of policing. These offences were known at exactly the same time, before they had been weeded by Humberside police. Is it any wonder that PC Harding concluded in his report, reproduced on page 52, section 1.229 of the report:
"It is quite clear that Huntley is a serial sex attacker and is at liberty to continue his activities"?
Sir Michael says that no one thing could have prevented what happened. In fact, if the police had acted on this sequence of events, Ian Huntley would presumably have been locked up. Incidentally, this failure preceded the current chief constable's arrival in post. His failures relate to the failures of the IT system and the consequences that flowed from that. In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has today initiated a quasi-judicial process under the Police Act 1996, as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002, over David Westwood, which I do not wish to prejudice, I will say no more about his role today.
The report states that social services should report incidents of sex with minors to police. I agree. However, the report also says there are "exceptional circumstances" when the police should not be notified. What exactly are those exceptional circumstances? When an adult is engaged in a sexual relationship with a child, surely there are no circumstances where the police should not be informed.
We now know that in 1995 social services knew of an allegation that Huntley was having sex with a 15 year-old girl but apparently chose not to inform the police. This was at exactly the same time as the cases I cited a moment ago, about which social services would not have known. They were not, and could not be, in possession of all the facts relating to public safety. Therefore, they should not make the decision. Will the Government review this aspect and consider the option of making it an absolute requirement to notify the police of such offences?
1128
Much of the report very properly focuses on the failure of information handling, primarily by Humberside, but also by Cambridgeshire Criminal Records Bureau, and generic failures by the Police Information Technology Organisation, ACPO, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Home Office. I agree with most of what Sir Michael says but issues arise on which I seek the Minister's opinion.
The report properly criticises the Humberside police IT practices and the lack of a national police IT system. It calls for the introduction of such a system as soon as possible. It does not say whether the problems of Humberside are replicated in other forces, although naturally I suspect that they might be. Neither does it deal with a problem we all know about—namely, that Whitehall, in general, and the Home Office, in particular, have a very poor track record of implementation of computer systems. So I welcome the Minister's comments on the police local exchange system. I also welcome the announcement on the police national intelligence computer system, the so-called "impact" system.
However, I shall make two suggestions to the Government. First, will they commission Sir Michael Bichard in the next six months to review all the IT systems in the 43 forces in order to establish the extent of the problem? Secondly, to minimise the risk of another computer disaster, will they use either the best practice that he identifies, or the already operational Scottish system, as the basis for the new national system?
The failure to implement such a system should have been identified much sooner. Sir Michael Bichard states in his report, at paragraph 2.131, that:
"HMIC could and should have been more proactive. Information systems are of obvious importance to policing and they could have been inspected effectively with relative ease".
Do the Government have any proposals to reform or improve the capability of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary in IT review?
Sir Michael also recommends a registration system for all those working with children. Will this system apply to people who work in charities and voluntary groups, such as the Scouts, which often add great value and enjoyment to the lives of children?
We must remember that while child protection is clearly the paramount matter, a balance of justice must be established. A series of false allegations can effectively destroy an innocent person's career. Sir Michael envisages an appeal process for applicants who were refused registration. Sir Michael is absolutely right to do so. But how do the Government believe the appeal system will work? Will people know who is making the allegation against them—and, if not, how can it be challenged? Who will decide what information is held on record and how can this be challenged? Will the process be judicial? We recognise that these are difficult issues, but naturally they do need to be addressed.
The Minister will of course appreciate the burden that all this will place on the police. Humberside police will process 50,000 information requests this year.

1129
Across the area of England and Wales, that implies 2 million requests. How do the Government intend to progress work on that?
It is not just Humberside and Cambridgeshire who should read this report today; every police force and every social services department should read and learn the lessons of the report. If we fail, it will be a catastrophe measured in human tragedies.
3.40 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Home Secretary both for making the report available at an early stage and for the prompt response to it today. Reading it this morning my mind went back to just over 20 years ago when I was in another place and we were debating the lessons to be learnt from the Yorkshire Ripper case. I remember people saying then, "If only we had computers"—because the Yorkshire police had been using card indexes to try to track the assorted information. Sadly, we need not only computers but the training and expertise to use them properly.
The report must make heartbreaking reading for the parents of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, for it contains in meticulous detail the "ifs" and "might have beens" which might have saved their daughters' lives. Our thoughts must be with them today. I think that they and we should be grateful to Sir Michael Bichard for a report that pulls no punches and makes very specific recommendations which must now be pursued with all vigour and urgency.
We can never say "never again" because, as the report says,
"the harsh reality is that if a sufficiently devious person is determined to seek out opportunities to work their evil, no one can guarantee that they will be stopped".
Human error happens in all walks of life. There will be many individuals and organisations who feel a terrible weight of responsibility in the light of these findings.
We welcome the fact that Sir Michael does not blame any individual for the murders other than Huntley himself. But that does not mean that there are not hard lessons to learn and personal responsibilities to be taken. Does the Home Secretary, in accepting Sir Michael's critique, accept that the Home Office bears its share of responsibility for some of the slipshod working and culture that the report reveals? Does he accept that there are frequent references to lack of training, lack of expertise and lack of guidance, pointing to failures right up the line of management to the Home Office itself?
How could the failures of the Humberside force go undetected or unremedied for so long? As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, the specific case of Chief Constable Westwood is under review. However, what part in the failure to detect those failures should be shared by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary and by the local police authority? We take great pride in this country in local control of police, but if over a period of 10 years failures of this magnitude have occurred, then that responsibility also is with that police authority. As the
1130
noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, how can we be sure that the spotlight that has shone so harshly on two police authorities and showed such glaring weaknesses would not reveal similar weaknesses in other authorities?
I wonder how much nearer this moves us to a national police force and how we are going to balance the kind of efficiencies to which the Minister referred in the Statement with the very strong local ethos in Britain of local accountability and local control.
The report refers to the fact that Cambridgeshire called in the Metropolitan Police at Scotland Yard at an early stage to review its procedures. When I was a lad it was almost customary to call Scotland Yard in for major cases. One wonders whether the necessary expertise, and not only that of Scotland Yard, is being brought in quickly enough, or whether local jealousies, turf wars or, dare we say it, budgetary controls from one police authority to another are preventing it.
I have just one comment on the social services, as this report awaits another one. I hope that we are not in for another outbreak, particularly in the tabloids, of social worker whipping. Social workers do society's dirty work. They have to deal with everyone from the dysfunctional to the criminally dangerous. Sometimes we have to appreciate that the support they receive from society as a whole is lacking. Of course they must learn the hard lessons as well, but it well behoves us to understand the difficult circumstances in which they often have to operate.
I was interested in the points on data protection and it was reassuring to hear what was said. It is important also to ensure that the reforms which we have supported, such as data protection and the Human Rights Act, are not being used to justify inaction or the failure to share information.
A question-and-answer session following the Statement is an inadequate response in view of the report's importance. I hope that the Government will give a full day at least in this House for a debate on the report, not least to draw on the considerable experience that exists in this House on the matters that it reviews. I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the welcome of Sir Michael's commitment to a review of progress and believe that it should be standard.
I know that nothing can assuage the parents' grief and that no new laws, guidance or systems can make sense of their daughters' deaths. However, whatever level of responsibility belongs not only to police forces and social services departments but to every one of us as individuals when we accept a reference, check a fact, ask a question or follow a set procedure, let us all remember Soham. In so doing we may save others. Our thoughts are with the parents. I think that the whole country has a debt of gratitude to Sir Michael Bichard for a job well done.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for the sentiment and tone of their

1131
remarks. It is absolutely true that this is an incredibly sad and sobering day for everyone. No one comes away from the report without feeling a sense of responsibility and obligation to do better. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that it is absolutely accepted that there are lessons here to be learnt by the Home Office and by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. None of us should forget those lessons.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked for a full-day debate on the report. As he will know, that matter could be settled through the usual channels. I am sure that if his sentiment is felt by all Benches, the usual channels will undoubtedly pursue the matter with great commitment.
Public safety is of course a matter of huge concern to us all. I endorse what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay; namely, that it is a very good thing indeed that Sir Michael Bichard will have the opportunity to review his report in six months' time. We are immensely grateful to him for that. I do not know whether he would be entirely grateful if we were also to burden him with reviewing all of the IT proceedings. I think that even his generosity has a certain limitation.
The noble Baroness was right to mention the IT procedures. Of course, I hear what she says but I hope that she will accept that we have made an enormous contribution to improving those IT systems. Indeed, there are some things about which we should feel a modicum of satisfaction; for example, the way in which we have implemented the DNA database and the other systems. We have invested more than £1.3 billion since 2002 on those systems simply because we understood the enormous importance of having a really good and effective method of communication.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, highlighted the question of where the balance should rest between national and local responsibilities. There is a natural tension in that balance. We shall seek to preserve a sense of balance and fairness. The steps that we are taking to bring in a code and to make a method available to all 43 police forces so that they will have a similar template and operate in the same way may well help us to address the difficult issue of where that tension should properly lie.
The noble Baroness properly mentioned the Scottish system. It is a good one and we shall wish to look at it very carefully. The noble Baroness will know that the system was adopted on a consensual basis. The chief constables in Scotland decided that they would undertake both the intelligence sharing and the IT work together. The noble Baroness will know that we as a government have not resiled from that commitment. We have advocated and supported the tripartite approach to problem resolution between ACPO, ourselves and the police authorities. Part of the solution involves working in partnership, spreading good practice and therefore working together. We shall continue to look at those issues.
The noble Baroness asked a number of specific questions about the appeal system and how matters would be reviewed. In repeating the Statement made
1132
by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I made it absolutely clear that we shall look urgently and energetically at these issues. It is absolutely right that Holly and Jessica's tragedy should at least enable us to do better than we have done hitherto. There is hope that the highlighting of faults will enable us to do better in future. The police authorities and HMIC could have picked up problems. I have made it absolutely clear that they acknowledge that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked a specific question about the direct reporting of each and every unlawful sexual contact with an underage person. She is absolutely right as regards what she said about adults. The issue that was raised—there is by no means a definitive position—is whether 14 and 15 year-olds participating in certain sexual exploration with each other should be included in the prohibition; that is, when two children of comparable ages are involved. We shall need to consider those issues. These are difficult issues and we shall have to be very careful that in wanting to respond with vigour and energy to improve the situation we are not over zealous in the way in which we seek to implement provisions as we need to take into account very important issues.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope that I may ask a very short question on the sharing of information. Is it not implicit that a statutory code of practice to establish clear national standards in this context should have legal efficacy?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that a statutory code will have great force because each and every police force will be obliged to adhere to it. One of the difficulties that this case has highlighted is the ability of the 43 forces to have slightly different approaches to the way in which they deal with these issues. We have learnt the very painful lesson that in this area that degree of local autonomy is not one that we can continue in the future.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I think it was a debate on 1 May 1996 in which I took part that I drew attention to the fact that police forces were not sharing information and that an individual who had committed a criminal offence could pass from one constabulary area to another undetected. Had those observations been taken into account following that debate, would these murders have taken place? Would the inquiry have been necessary? Would we be debating it now?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say to my noble friend that those issues were taken into account. It was appreciated that we needed to have a joint sharing of intelligence. A number of issues arose concerning how we should do that and whether the intelligence issue should be dealt with before the IT issue or vice versa. As I say, we have learnt some very painful lessons. I absolutely accept what my noble friend says in that perhaps the sharpness of that work was not properly understood. I reassure the House

1133
that it is absolutely understood by all of us. We shall seek to do all we can to ensure that this lesson does not have to be learnt again.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can we be confident that the proposed new national computer system will work in view of the fact that a number of previous systems have not worked? Is it merely a matter of training?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are more confident now than we have been hitherto because of the changes that we have made in the development of practice as a result, frankly, of other systems not working. Noble Lords will be familiar with the way in which we have piloted certain developments to test them out to ensure that they can work appropriately. We have tried to improve them. As I said, we have tried to learn from the lessons of the past to ensure that any future development has the maximum possibility of working successfully and smoothly.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, will the Minister clarify a point about POVA, the Protection of Vulnerable Adults scheme? I was pleased to hear about the recommendation concerning a register. However, I wonder whether we are focusing enough on vulnerable people, whether or not someone working with them has a criminal record. Does the Minister agree with me that Huntley should have been on a POVA style list even though he did not have a relevant criminal record? Can we be certain that the Bichard recommendations will cover such vulnerable people in the future and protect them?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we absolutely understand the point that the noble Baroness makes about vulnerable people. When we review the systems, we shall ensure that they are very much borne in mind, together with all the other vulnerable individuals. The noble Baroness says that Huntley should have been on a list. However, that is reliant on the fact that someone retains the relevant information and puts it on such a list. Tragically, we have learnt that human failure in that regard is as important as IT failure.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that a rather simplistic solution would be simply to have heads on platters? I agree somewhat with—I nearly said my noble enemy—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that obviously police authorities and, indeed, the inspectorate of constabulary have some responsibility in this matter. We have the National Criminal Intelligence Service. If that body does not keep national criminal intelligence, what does it keep? It runs the football hooligans register which seems to work extremely well. I wonder why we need the new Impact computer when we have a National Criminal Intelligence Service.
Does the Minister also agree that false intelligence can lead in some cases to extreme injustice, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said? One allegation against an
1134
individual who applies for a job can be totally different from five allegations from different sources. Therefore, the quality of intelligence is absolutely critical, and we should not take the risk of extreme injustice in some cases.
Perhaps we should think outside the box and consider not only a national intelligence service, but a Europe-wide one, bearing in mind the reduction of barriers and the rights of people to travel. Criminal activity takes place across borders and, given the circumstances in France recently with the young Dickinson girl and the case with Marc Dutroux in Belgium, we clearly need to think wider than our own borders and perhaps develop a Europol criminal intelligence system.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my noble friend raises a very interesting point in relation to a Europe-wide intelligence service. Noble Lords know that we are working as hard as we can with our European colleagues. It is right that not all European countries have the same system in terms of identifying perpetrators and targeting them in a way that we would recognise. We continue that work.
This is certainly not a case of heads on platters. I hope that noble Lords will find that we have been judicious and have tried to be proportionate in the way in which we have approached the issues. The decisions to which we have come have been come to painfully and very carefully, after proper consideration of the discoveries made by Sir Michael Bichard in his report.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I associate myself with the heartfelt expressions of sympathy with the families of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells from the respective Front Benches.
Obviously, I have not had the opportunity to read the report in full, but I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 23 of the introduction, which states:
"I suggest … that better guidance is needed on the collection, retention, deletion, use and sharing of information, so that police officers, social workers and other professionals can feel more confident in using information properly".
I also draw her attention to the Home Secretary's insistence that a national system across all relevant services, allowing more effective sharing of information and intelligence, is urgently needed. Will the Minister accept that that gets to the core of the problem facing us, and that the legislative opportunity to address it exists in the form of an appropriate amendment to the Children Bill? That being so, and bearing in mind the tenor of Sir Michael's comments, will the Government seize that opportunity?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am always attracted by such seductive lures cast to me at the Dispatch Box. However, it is important that we get things right. My noble friend Lord Mackenzie indicated that we should not be precipitate. We have to be balanced and make sure that the systems that we put in place are fair and proportionate, and that we might not regret them later. I know the attraction of the Bill; it is like a passing bus on to which the noble

1135
Earl asks me to jump, but that may be a precipitate move. We will of course give all issues very careful consideration.
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is greater need for impatience than the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, suggests. It was in the 1970s that the necessity of transferring information across county borders in relation to children at risk was first raised, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Northesk that the matter is relevant to the Bill, on which the noble Baroness takes no part. However, I hope that her colleagues will note the matter.
Because of the anxiety about the transfer of information, and because the case has so clearly shown that one individual moving from place to place can strike again and again with impunity without it, I was rather distressed to hear in the Statement that only England and Wales were under review. I am not sure that I go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate—we want to think carefully before we start a monster machine to cover the whole of Europe—but the United Kingdom as a whole should be in the frame, not simply England and Wales. That is a comment and a question; I invite the noble Baroness to say that the Government will consider embracing Scotland and Northern Ireland as well.
My second question is on whether the statutory code of practice, when introduced, will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Will a means of discussing it be found, in the same way as codes of practice were discussed in parallel with the passing of the then PACE Bill in this House? In that context, what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about the dangers of false information is very relevant, because there has to be a means whereby someone wrongly identified or accused can clear their name. At the moment, there is no reason for them to know that it needs to be cleared.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no decision has been made on whether the code of practice should have the negative or affirmative resolution procedure attached to it. We will obviously have to consider the merits of that in due course. Noble Lords will know that England and Wales has one legal judicial system and that a different system prevails for Scotland, with a slightly different system for Northern Ireland. Therefore, when we expressed our views in the Statement, that was obviously in relation to England and Wales. However, there is a huge job of work to do in co-ordination and co-operation right across the United Kingdom. We will certainly look at that very carefully and talk to colleagues to ensure that that synergy takes place.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, although I welcome very much the positive response of the Government to the report on establishing a national system, I am somewhat concerned about the size of the problem. I was impressed with the statistic cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that 50,000 queries a year are addressed to Humberside alone. That seems to put
1136
substantial additional burdens on the police force. Therefore, the question arises of whether there should not be a separate agency to deal with such matters, so that the police would not be diverted from their other activities in following up those inquiries.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but he will know that there is an issue in terms of the proliferation of agencies involved in such activity and making sure that the practitioners that collate the information actually participate in the system. When we look at creating something more fit for the purpose than what we have now, all those issues will of course be very much to the forefront of our minds.

Higher Education Bill
4.7 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that she, having been informed of the purport of the Higher Education Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and Interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Shutt of Greetland Lord Shutt of Greetland moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
"REPAYMENT OF FEES VIA VOLUNTARY SERVICE
(1) The Secretary of State shall use his powers under section 186 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) (student loans) to develop a scheme whereby fees charged under sections 23 and 24 of this Act may be repaid in whole or in part through the performance of voluntary service.
(2) Regulations under section 186 of the 2002 Act shall specify both the types of voluntary service eligible and the minimum period of service necessary to qualify for such repayments."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I again speak on the issue of volunteering. There may be advantages and disadvantages to having three bites at a cherry, but there is a sense in which markets move upwards or downwards. I feel very much that markets are moving upwards so far as the amendment is concerned, or at least in terms of my enthusiasm for it. I am therefore pleased to move the amendment.
There are three relevant areas. I do not want to go over old ground, and I understand that it is the convention of the House that we do not do so. First, I should establish volunteering as worth while and valuable for young people. There has been support all round the House for that principle.
My second point is that we do not really know at this stage where the Bill will lead us in a variety of ways, the effect that it will have on young people and their parents in their attitudes to university education—and on many other areas of later life. All that we know is that there will be another element of debt, on top of other debts, in our present society. Therefore, there is a major worry that volunteering will not be uppermost in the minds of people who are about to make their

1137
way in the world after obtaining a degree. The amendment aims to suggest to them that perhaps it might be worth considering volunteering.
My third point is that there is a gap in the volunteering market for people who have obtained their degrees and at that point might consider, "Shall we do some volunteering or do we make our way in the world?". That gap is not there at other times of life. For example, the "gap year" is a time when there are opportunities for volunteering and there are no associated financial problems.
There are also opportunities for people later in life. It is interesting that Voluntary Services Overseas—VSO—is keen on people who can bring many different experiences of life, who then go overseas and give their services in the third world and so on. The numbers of people who have graduated who take up volunteering at that stage are very low. They could benefit in many ways from the amendment.
I was grateful at an earlier stage to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is present. He referred to VSO. Its chief executive, Mark Goldring, has pointed out that this amendment, or an amendment similar to this, would be valuable to that organisation. He has been mooting that idea and said that it should be passed on to the Minister.
A concern was raised earlier over the nature of the scheme. In moving the amendment we believe that it is important to establish the principle and not be prescriptive over the details of the scheme. There are two possible ways forward. One would be for the Government, who are invited to propose a scheme, to say, "Our proposal is for there to be 1,000 opportunities a year". They would discuss that with the organisations involved in volunteering and ask them to bid, as it were, for the numbers that they might be able to take from those 1,000 a year. Another way would be to have no fixed limit, but exacting standards on who could benefit from what might be called a fee remission certificate, provided that they did the appropriate amount of volunteering.
We are right to say, "Let us establish this important principle to fill an obvious gap", but not to go into details that might well cover half a dozen pages in the list of amendments. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to support the amendment, even at Third Reading. It is immensely imaginative and in years to come, if passed, might be seen as a landmark. As my noble friend Lord Shutt said, it could develop, by degrees, into a quiet revolution in opportunities for young people to serve society. We all know that the modern world of education is such that the fees students must pay for university, and then for post-university qualification, are a huge disincentive for many young people to engage in voluntary activity. We also know that the level of giving of time and money by young people under 30 has declined and is declining. We know, too, that the top 10 per cent of earners in the population gives less than a third of what
1138
the bottom third gives as a proportion of their income. Those are manifestations of the pressures and the particularities of modern life.
I urge the Government to give the amendment a fair wind because they know better than anyone that the voluntary sector often does the job of government in a more effective and cost-efficient way. If this scheme is established, the benefit to the community from all angles, particularly regarding the cost to the Exchequer, will not be the concession by the Exchequer to those students that it might appear to be, but will be of huge net benefit in real terms, admittedly in ways that are not easily quantifiable. I would hope that in future it might be possible to extend the scheme to provide opportunities for people before university, so that they could gain a credit for doing their voluntary service before going up. I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I spoke to a similar amendment on Report. I do not believe in repetition on Third Reading and I hope that the amendment is carried.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. If I have a reservation about the amendment, it is that it should not be necessary to amend the Bill to make the Government use their powers for this purpose. Both the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, have tabled the amendment in the hope of teasing the Government to go down this course.
Of course there will be much detail to be decided relating to how the scheme would work, how it would be evaluated and so on. But it is a good idea that would encourage many of our youngsters, who, more than in any other country in the world, have a distinguished record of involvement in volunteering. So, I hope that, even if the Minister is still reluctant to accept the amendment, the Government might hint that they are open-minded about considering a scheme of this kind.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for moving the amendment and I was glad that on Report we could agree the inclusion of part-timers. Voluntary work is a fact of modern life and an indication of its complexity. If the Government cannot look kindly on the amendment, I hope that they might smile on the creatively Jesuitical intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—and I use that adjective in ecumenical brotherliness.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I have not spoken on this matter before, but I shall be brief, nevertheless. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that voluntary service is a valuable part of national life. It is vital to society and, perhaps, no less to the individual who gives it. However, I am less than enthusiastic about putting this amendment in the Bill. A minor reason is that it would be the third time that we have, as it were, diverted some money that was intended for higher

1139
education to another cause. My particular reason is that the essence of voluntary service is of giving without payment. We diminish that when we begin to say that it attracts remuneration. A second point is that it is a bad principle to identify this form of financial stipend with graduates, rather than to all members of our society who give. There are other people in straitened circumstances who give to society. Let us celebrate that, along with the gift that young graduates make to society. On those grounds, I do not think that this is an appropriate matter for the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken about the importance of volunteering. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about celebrating our young people who do so much to ensure that people give to society in the most appropriate ways. I declare my interest as having spent a great deal of my life working around the voluntary sector. Indeed, I spent part of it with the Charities Aid Foundation looking at the whole question of incentivising people to volunteer.
I start by echoing the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, because there is an issue of principle about which I am uneasy. I believe that volunteering gives huge benefits to society—I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, about that—but I also believe that it gives huge benefits to the individuals who participate in it.
It is important to understand that the principle behind volunteering is that one gives of oneself. We would need to think very carefully about incentivising people. In the work that I have done, that has always been a matter of training and providing opportunities for accreditation of the work that people do as volunteers. It is also a matter of recognition by employers and universities of the fact that people have worked in a voluntary capacity in some way. Much of the work that I have undertaken personally has related to ensuring that recognition is given to the contributions that people make to society in this way.
The amendment concerns a different principle—that is, it states that we shall also, in a form, remunerate people for doing that work. I have some difficulty with that. I understand that underlying the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is the desire to look at the issue of volunteering and to ensure that a real pool of talent is available. It is a desire to ensure that young people, including young graduates, participate in this way with the talents that they have.
Noble Lords will know that we have established the Russell Commission, which is specifically working towards a national youth volunteering strategy. As the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, indicated, we believe that it is very important to examine any deterrents that may exist to participation in voluntary work.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in particular, that I recognise that there are issues surrounding the number of people who take up voluntary work. But, as
1140
the noble Lord knows very well, all the research in which I have been involved and the work that I have done with organisations has indicated that one of the critical factors is not financial incentive but time. The inability of people to take part in regular volunteering led to, for example, the setting up of the New York Cares project, which I consider to be spectacular. I recommend that noble Lords take the opportunity to have a look at that project. Rather than trying to persuade people to make a regular commitment, which they find impossible to meet, the project allows young professionals to volunteer in imaginative and creative ways.
Therefore, I hope that one way in which the Russell Commission will support such work is in examining how we can ensure that opportunities exist to volunteer in appropriate ways. As I said, that includes considering the issue of availability of time.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she accept that the amendment does not remotely require remuneration at what one might call a "market" level and that it would provide the possibility of modest financial assistance to the young people involved, which might make all the difference between their being able to give a major chunk of their time and not being able to do so at all?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I return to the issue with which we began our deliberations on the nature of the proposals before your Lordships. We are saying that people who earn less than £15,000 a year will not pay back any of their student loan. Indeed, after 25 years, the loan would be written off. A salary of £15,000 is not huge; in many cases, it is a modest sum. None the less, the Bill contains what we believe to be appropriate measures in relation to the contributions that students make. I do not consider it to be debt in the traditional sense, as the noble Lord knows very well.
I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that if one remunerates people for carrying out voluntary work, a different principle is involved. In his amendment, the noble Lord is clearly saying that there could be an incentive for people to participate in such work. We cannot ignore that and say that it should be viewed in the same way as volunteering, as I understand the concept.
Real issues arise concerning the number of voluntary organisations that we have and how we would ensure that such a scheme recognised the kind of volunteering that would be eligible. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, touched on that when he described the scheme that would need to be set up. I am very keen that people volunteer in all kinds of ways in all kinds of communities. I would be nervous about saying that if one volunteered for VSO, that would be acceptable, but that if, for example, one volunteered for Home-Start (Stevenage), that would not. We want to encourage volunteering in all its forms in all our communities and, again, I have some concerns in that respect. I am not sure that we would be able to find

1141
ways around that which would be satisfactory to all concerned. It is very nice of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, to leave it to the Government to sort out the detail. I thank him very much.
There are also issues of principle behind the detail concerning how the scheme would be run. If we had such a scheme, we would need to ensure that people turned up to volunteer when they said they would. They would need to be monitored because we would, indeed, be writing off student loans. Therefore, a system of fraud prevention would need to be in place. Noble Lords will appreciate that this is public money and we would have to ensure that the scheme was carried out properly. It sets a challenge in terms of bureaucracy and so on, and, as I said, there is an issue of principle about which I have some concerns.
I have set out my reservations on the matter and I hope that the House will appreciate that they are genuine. We have already raised this proposal with the Russell Commission. I can say to the House that if, having deliberated on it, the commission decides that it has merit, then, under Section 186 of the Education Act 2002, we already have the power to pay off loans and we do not need to amend this Bill. I am happy to accept the general concerns raised by noble Lords, but I hope that I have balanced them to some degree by describing not only the logistical issues concerned but the issues of principle.
We cannot agree to a duty on the Government to provide such a scheme without looking at the implications of that duty, and I have outlined some of those. I have not even raised the issue of the cost that would be involved. Costs have already been mentioned but, again, this would involve another sum of money to come out of the higher education budget. I simply refer to the theme of top-slicing in passing; none the less, it is important.
I give the commitment to your Lordships that we shall raise the matter with the Russell Commission and we shall do so in the spirit of those who tabled the amendment. We need to think through how to obtain high-quality volunteering from our young people. If the Russell Commission felt that this issue was important, we would already have the power to carry it out. I believe that, at this stage, that is a commitment worth having from the Government. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Forsyth, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth who have spoken in favour of the amendment. It was helpful to have the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, although they were not quite as helpful as others.
I hope that your Lordships will accept the challenge. Reference has been made to remuneration and incentive. I have never thought that there was anything wrong with an incentive—people have to live whatever the position is in the scheme. The beauty of the
1142
different stages of a Bill is that it gives one an opportunity to speak to experts in the field. I understand, for example, that VSO pays people at the rate paid in that country and they do not bring any money home.
So there will need to be remuneration, but it will be fairly low. I suppose that if I had worked up the scheme in absolute detail it would have been attacked in absolute detail. The Government have an army of people who are very good at writing documents which eventually become schemes and so on. If they have difficulties I will offer to help. It may well be that other noble Lords would offer to help and we could create a really good scheme.
I feel that noble Lords would like to give such a scheme a fair wind. I should therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not-Contents, 155.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Garden, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Glentoran, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Attlee, E.

Greaves, L.

Avebury, L.

Greenway, L.

Barker, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Biffen, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blaker, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Higgins, L.

Bowness, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Home, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Howe, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Burnham, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Byford, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Caithness, E.

Kalms, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Kimball, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kingsland, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Laird, L.

Courtown, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Cox, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Lindsay, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Denham, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Dholakia, L.

Lucas, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Luke, L.

Dundee, E.

Lyell, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Elles, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Elton, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Ezra, L.

McNally, L.

Falkland, V.

Maddock, B.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Fookes, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Marlesford, L.

1143

Masham of Ilton, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Methuen, L.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Sandberg, L.

Montrose, D.

Sandwich, E.

Morris of Bolton, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Selborne, E.

Newby, L.

Selsdon, L.

Noakes, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Northesk, E.

Sharples, B.

Northover, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Onslow, E.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Peel, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Taverne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Plumb, L.

Tope, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Tordoff, L.

Prior, L.

Waddington, L.

Quinton, L.

Walmsley, B.

Razzall, L.

Walpole, L.

Redesdale, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Renton, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ahmed, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Alli, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Falkender, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Andrews, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Filkin, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Fitt, L.

Bach, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Berkeley, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Golding, B.

Bhattacharyya, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Billingham, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Borrie, L.

Grantchester, L.

Bragg, L.

Gregson, L.

Brennan, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Harrison, L.

Brookman, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Haskel, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Haskins, L.

Carter, L.

Henig, B.

Carter of Coles, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Chorley, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Christopher, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Cobbold, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hoyle, L.

David, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Dearing, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Desai, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dixon, L.

Jones, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jordan, L.

Drayson, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Dubs, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

1144

Kirkhill, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Layard, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lipsey, L.

Richard, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rix, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Rogan, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Rooker, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Sawyer, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Simon, V.

Marsh, L.

Slim, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Stallard, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mitchell, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Monson, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Morgan, L.

Thornton, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Triesman, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Moser, L.

Turnberg, L.

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Uddin, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Varley, L.

Palmer, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Patel, L.

Warner, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Paul, L.

Whitaker, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Whitty, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Wilkins, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilson of Dinton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Quirk, L.

Winston, L.

Radice, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 27 [Condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales]:
4.40 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Carter): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 2, I should point out that it has been misprinted. The last line should read:
"the first three years of a first degree course".
I call Amendment No. 2.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 13, line 45, at end insert—
"(d) to ensure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no qualifying fees are charged to any eligible student for any academic year beyond the first three years of a degree course."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to dissolve the proposed grouping and speak to Amendment No. 2 now and Amendment No. 15 in its place when it is called. I hope that that will be for the convenience of the House. My reasoning is that I have learnt that a number of noble Lords have reservations about Amendment No. 2 but are much happier with Amendment No. 15, so I shall not deal further with Amendment No. 15 at present.
Amendment No. 2 relates to Wales, which is why it becomes more complicated than might otherwise be the case. Your Lordships will recall that on Report precisely the same wording was carried as an amendment proposed by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Skelmersdale. It was proposed to Clause 24:
"Condition to be imposed by English funding bodies".
It therefore had the effect that students on a first degree course lasting for more than three years—such as not only medics, vets and architects but many studying four-year courses in science and engineering at many universities—would be required to pay top-up fees only for the first three years of their course, not subsequently. That amendment was carried in relation to England.
When we reach Amendment No. 15, I will point out that the amendment carried on Report left the burden of paying those fees on universities, whereas Amendment No. 15 would place that burden on the Secretary of State. But for the moment, Amendment No. 2 would introduce provisions to Clause 27:
"Condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales",
to establish a symmetry between the situation in Wales and that in England. Although I am no expert on higher education in Wales, it seems inequitable that students at Welsh universities should be expected to pay top-up fees for fourth, fifth or even sixth years for a first degree course whereas, in the Bill as already amended, students at English universities are not expected so to do.
That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issues that, as he rightly says, he raised on Report. I hope that he will forgive me; I started off on this Bill by trying to make him a happy Peer but have consistently made him unhappy ever since. I must say that he has also made me an unhappy Peer from time to time. I shall simply repeat what I said about the situation in England. I know that the noble Lord has degrouped his amendment, but he made a slight reference to Amendment No. 15 and, with the forbearance of the House, I shall make a similarly slight reference. There is one pot of money. Wherever the noble Lord puts the onus, it is one pot of money and the effect on universities is the same. We will debate that at greater length.
The passing of this amendment for Wales would create exactly the same problem that it would in England. That is twofold. First, the costs that we anticipate for England are roughly £180 million for universities to continue to offer the courses that they currently offer for more than three years. Secondly, it is a huge disincentive to offer courses, including sandwich courses, modern foreign language courses, engineering, veterinary and architectural courses. Noble Lords know those courses very well; indeed, institutions with which some noble Lords are connected offer them.
1146
I genuinely say to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that that is not the way to go. It is important to stick with the two principles for which I have tried to argue throughout the proceedings on the Bill. First, we are trying to ensure that we do not top-slice the money for universities, which I am afraid that both amendments would do. Secondly, we want to give universities the flexibility to offer the courses that they feel right and proper. Noble Lords have fought very hard and I hope that I have been supportive in ensuring that those two principles rest within the Bill.
I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment for Wales. It is for another place to consider what happens in England but I hope that noble Lords will understand the Government's position. It is important that we do not endanger four-year courses, nor make assumptions that there is additional money. There is one pot of money. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the unfailingly courteous way in which she puts her points. The doctrine of the one pot of money of inflexible size is at the heart of the Bill. It is a doctrine to which I hope to return at greater length on Amendment No. 15, which is really about who pays the money. I shall not speak to it now. I take the points made by the noble Baroness and, as I feel myself rather out of my depth in the affairs of Wales, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Director of Fair Access to Higher Education]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 16, line 10, after "education" insert "(whether full-time or part-time)".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when we debated part-time provision on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said that he knew of no issue that attracted more solid consensus than the need to do something for part-timers. Many noble Lords have spoken on the issue on Report and during previous stages at the Bill. Sadly, there is not time to do them all credit. I shall mention a few and hope that others will forgive me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that there was a need for the director to take account of access to part-time education. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said that there needs to be a signal in the Bill to recognise an important growth area and a fact of modern life. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, reminded us that the director needs to see the effects of the new system in an holistic manner. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, have been passionate throughout the Bill's progress in arguing the case for part-time students. My noble friend Lady Blackstone said that it was important not to pass a Bill that neglects to recognise the existence of part-time higher education

1147
and that the director had a duty to consider both kinds of students. As she reminded the House, part-time students make up 40 per cent of the student population.
I agree with those sentiments, and we have listened and responded. I agreed on Report to return with two amendments, which I have now tabled in my name for your Lordships' consideration. Amendment No. 3 explicitly extends to part-time higher education the role given to the director on Report of spreading good practice. Like my noble friend Lady Warwick, I have every expectation that many institutions will include part-time provision in their access plans. It is therefore eminently sensible for the director to consider the good work that they are doing and encourage good practice.
In considering good practice, the director will consider the whole range of what institutions are doing through their access plans in respect of part-time study: outreach to ensure that potential students are aware of the part-time options available; ways in which institutions provide financial support for part-time students; and information on the range of financial support available to them. I believe that that will be a very positive move to help institutions and their part-time students.
Amendment No. 4 confers on the director a duty to perform his functions in such a way as to promote and safeguard equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education, including part-time education, in so far as his functions are exercisable in relation to it. On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, tabled an amendment with similar intentions, which I could not accept because of a technicality. I was, however, glad that she had tabled it and accepted the principle behind it.
Although the director will focus principally on full-time students, because it is those fees that the director will regulate, I agree that his remit should extend to part-time students. Many institutions will want to include their study in their plans. This amendment makes clear that the director will take an interest in what institutions are doing to encourage students in both full-time and part-time education.
The amendments put a clear signal on the face of the Bill that part-time education matters, and its importance should be reflected in the role of the Director of Fair Access. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as one of the main proponents of a similar amendment on Report, I am very grateful to the Minister for the amendments that she has now tabled. It is absolutely right that the director's remit should include part-timers and that it should be on the face of the Bill. When we discussed the matter on Report the Minister mentioned that that was not necessary, but, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is a signal and it is very important that it is in the Bill. I welcome the two amendments and thank the Minister for them.
The amendments are important. We also recognise that the survey of part-time students is being accelerated—which is also good—and that the
1148
director's remit starts here in 2005–06. However, institutions providing part-time education, particularly the two specialist institutions, the Open University and Birkbeck, face problems in attracting graduates to apply for courses.
We did not proceed further with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, about pro-rata grants and loans to part-time students; we left it for the Government and HEFCE to sort out with the institutions. Nevertheless, for the moment, it leaves the institutions in a very difficult situation. I urge the Government to do their best to ensure that, in the negotiations between HEFCE and the institutions, HEFCE realises the importance of part-time education and its development.
As we discussed on Report, part-time education is the way of the future for many of the extra students who will come into higher education over the next few years. It is very important that the opportunity exists for those students, and that institutions such as Birkbeck and the Open University can flourish. It would be very sad if, as a result of the Bill, in the short term both institutions suffered.
Lord Rix: My Lords, it is always a pleasure, and sometimes a pleasant surprise, to be able to thank the Minister and the Government for changing their minds and accepting an amendment, even if they had to rewrite two amendments on this occasion. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, there are still many issues to be settled in regard to part-time education. But if the Government are as receptive to the remaining changes that are needed as they have been to these two amendments. I am sure that all will be possible in the very near future. I extend my grateful thanks, certainly on behalf of the university that I represent. I am sure that goes, too, for all the other universities which have many part-time students.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, as I have tabled amendments in support of the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has mentioned, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the two amendments tabled by my noble friend. Not only are they a signal, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said in an earlier debate, they underwrite the principle of part-time education in the Bill so that we now know that it is an important part of government policy.
The amendments will strengthen the hand of the Minister's department when it deals with HEFCE in relation to financial assistance for part-time education, particularly for Birkbeck and the Open University, but also for better facilities throughout the system. It is important that the Government grasp the opportunity that they have given themselves in the Bill, and make clear to HEFCE that this is a prime part of government policy and strategy that it should take on board when considering the position of the Open University and Birkbeck and completing its wider

1149
review of part-time education. I hope that the Government will press the advantage that they now have.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put it very nicely. We all welcome the inclusion of a signal in the Bill. It would have been extraordinary to exclude from the Bill any mention of part-time students. However, the Government have not done much except to give a signal and to create a possibility. They have done nothing in response to those of us who pointed out the threat to the Open University and Birkbeck because of the Bill.
The Open University has written to me—and, I expect to other noble Lords—to point out that largely nothing has changed for it. There is a threat that if it increases its fees it will lose nine-tenths of its undergraduate students. The Minister always looks as though she does not believe that, but I have seen the figures and can assure her that it is a serious point that she must take on board. I suspect that Birkbeck is in a similar position, although it has not written directly to me.
The Minister has done nothing about those two urgent points. Money is needed now to go direct to those two universities because of what the Government are doing in the Bill. Unless they do that, the Government will find that the university that they created will have virtually disappeared. I hope that they are not sanguine about that.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for the changes. At least now we have an acknowledgment that part-time higher education exists. However, I re-echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I have also received the letter to which she referred and seen the figures. I fear that the situation remains and that urgent action is still needed.
I spent the morning chairing a seminar on equal pay in higher education. One of the points raised was the duty of equal opportunities between the sexes that will be imposed on public services. Women may form a much greater percentage of part-time students at the Open University, in which case there might be yet another reason for the Minister to think carefully about those 40 per cent of students, many of whom are at Birkbeck and the Open University.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. I am not sure whether I am declaring an interest or boasting, but I attended the Open University, during which time my wife was also a student. Over the five years of part-time study and full-time employment, we produced between us two degrees and two bonny baby boys. So, I am very conscious of the good work performed by the Open University, and others.
5 p.m.
Much of the debate has revolved around—rightly so—the full-time university institutions. This
1150
legislation is set to generate around £1 million in extra funding for English universities, but not one penny will go to either the Open University or Birkbeck College. The Open University has been overlooked in this legislation, and the Government must now listen to and address these concerns. The Open University provides an accessible educational service for part-time and mature students who work full time, and those whose needs are matched by the option to learn from home.
The Open University has asked the Government to ensure that it is not disadvantaged financially by this legislation in comparison to other universities. It has made its case to HEFCE for additional funding, to ensure that the resources available to it to teach part-time undergraduates are not less than those available to other universities to teach full-time students, taking the fees and the grants together.
Basically, the Open University needs an interim funding allocation to ensure that it can compete in the market place at this time of change. In the long term, the Government must think hard about how the Open University and Birkbeck can continue to provide their essential educational facilities to those who opt not to take the conventional university path. The new fee regime for full-time universities will be introduced in 2006, but HEFCE says that the earliest that it will be able to introduce any new funding methodology as a result of the review will be 2007. Consequently, this leaves part-time institutions in a precarious position compared to full-time universities, which will be able to plan and prepare for the future.
Furthermore, the very nature of the Open University means that if it wishes to remain open it cannot simply raise fees to the equivalent of £3,000 a year in line with the other universities. This will simply not be affordable to a great number of those who take the part-time option. I ask the Government to look again at this position and help the Open University.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords—
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I, too, welcome these amendments, which we see as a welcome first step to tackling these proposed worrying circumstances that part-timers find themselves in. I thank the Minister for bringing the amendments before us today, and we look to her to confirm that the ongoing discussions will continue with all the institutions to address the serious matters that they face.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to thank the Minister most sincerely for giving effect to the requests made at the previous stage. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Together with other noble Lords who have Open University links, I have had a letter that is somewhat bleak in looking at what will be done.
I have sufficient confidence and faith in the Minister and in her ministerial colleagues, and sufficient political savvy, to recognise that in this House it will not be a political matter; it will be an all-party matter

1151
for those who have accepted the good faith of the Minister. If there is any lesson to be learned, I am delighted, as an ex-Open University student and graduate, to find that there is support in depth all around the House, not just for the Open University or for Birkbeck but for the ethos of part-time education.
The Minister will take careful note of the reservations and caveats that have been mentioned. She will recognise that as we continue to be briefed by others, including the Open University, we will not hesitate to come back to this House and find a device of one kind or another to express that point of view. After the previous debate on this matter, I am satisfied that the Minister and her colleagues appreciate that there is a case to be answered. They have answered it by the words in this amendment. If it turns out that that does not do the trick, we will—without malice but with a great deal of forethought—come back again.
I was heartened by the Minister's words on the previous occasion. The agitation from the Open University then was about the timetable for the review, the survey and so on. There was a gap year, but, as I heard the Minister, that disappeared when we last dealt with this matter. If the point at which the Open University could be in trouble were removed, that would solve the problem. However, we will have to wait and see. I have confidence that when the survey is carried out by HEFCE it will find that the part-time student institutions—led by Birkbeck and the Open University; but not them exclusively, there are others—deserve a better crack of the whip.
I thank the Minister for what she has done, and I thank her for her attention to the matter. As I said, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I hope that we will hear from the Open University in particular that it is satisfied that what is needed to safeguard it as an institution will be taken care of. As a noble Lord said in this debate, it is precious to the Labour party that the Open University was started, but it is not a party matter. There were some queries at the beginning, but it is now accepted by all parties as one of the finest institutions in the world.
Tonight I will have the pleasure, along with other Labour colleagues, of warmly welcoming Mary Wilson, the wife of Harold Wilson, when the Labour Peers have a party on the Terrace. If there is a vote between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., rest assured that we will be well represented. Mary Wilson is an embodiment of the Open University and all that it did, and there will be others. The Minister should be glad of the warm welcome for the efforts that she has made. She has done what she said she would do at the last meeting. Whether that is enough remains to be seen.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I, too, welcome these amendments, which are about the Director of Fair Access and ensuring that part-time higher education is looked at when that office is operating. I want to pick up what has been said about the Open University. I also received the letter from the Open University, and I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and Lady Howe of Idlicote, that I
1152
was a bit surprised by it. It did not seem to me that the letter reflected what my noble friend the Minister said when we had a debate about part-time higher education last week.
Like my noble friend Lord Graham, I believe that over the coming months and years your Lordships' House will be looking at what the Government said on that occasion, and we will be ensuring that the commitment that was made is followed through. Like my noble friend Lord Graham, I am confident that it will be. If it is not, plenty of us in this House will take it up again. We should recognise the major concession that the Government made last week, not just through these two amendments, but on the issue of funding part-time student places.
We are grateful for that, as is Birkbeck College. I happened to be there last night, as was my noble friend Lady Lockwood. Birkbeck is pleased about what happened last week. I believe that the Open University is probably pleased as well, even if that was not reflected in its letter.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, as the Minister referred to me in her opening sentence it would be curmudgeonly not to thank her, and I do, most warmly. For what we hope to receive, may we be reasonably thankful.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, as someone who has had a lot of difficulty with this Bill—and has indicated that in the Division Lobbies—I congratulate my noble friend, my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and my noble friend Lady Blackstone, all of whom have been lobbying the Government very powerfully over the past week or two, on this extremely important issue. It is pleasing to know that flexibility was possible in this Bill.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed yet again to this very important debate. I have one disappointment of course in that there will be one Peer not at the Labour Peers' party this evening, for I have two Bills back to back. I hope noble Lords will think of me, if nothing else.
I am also sorry that I did not receive the letter from the Open University. I appear to be the only Peer who has not done so. It is very difficult to deal with some of the issues raised in it, as I am not fortunate enough to have a copy.
I can say a number of key things, however, to noble Lords. The first is to say to my noble friend Lord Graham, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others who have spoken yet again with great passion about the Open University, that the commitment of this Government remains firm. The Open University receives £150 million, almost 4 per cent of the total for the sector. The next highest payment is to Leeds, just under £80 million. The Open University receives that money because we believe in that institution. It is in all our interests to ensure that it continues properly. I stand by all the commitments I made on Report, but I am not going to reiterate them. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, was not there, because a lot of

1153
what he is looking for from me was addressed then. Perhaps I might ask him to look back at that debate and come back to me if he has further queries. The Higher Education Funding Council is looking at the case for the Open University and Birkbeck. We have commended it for that.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that I always look concerned about this "nine tenths", because I am waiting for the figures. We sometimes have real difficulty with lots of figures being around, but it is actually very difficult to get underneath them. I hope and am sure that the Open University will provide the information to the Higher Education Funding Council in order for it to look at it carefully and properly. I urge it to do so as soon as possible.
The main thing I take away from this is broad welcome and support for what we have already achieved, support for the role of the Director of Fair Access within this, and recognition that this job is not yet finished, as I made plain on Report. I made a commitment that we would look at the needs of part-time students, the student income and expenditure survey—to include part-time students for the first time and, having looked at our students and who they are, we will then consider what more can be done. We have funded the Open University to get this information for us. Although noble Lords have been concerned about it, there is nothing in this legislation to stop us moving forward if that seemed the appropriate thing to do.
I stand by all those commitments. I recognise that if I were to fail in those commitments, there are plenty of noble Lords who have made it perfectly clear that I should be back here answering important and detailed questions. There is no intention to do other than what we said on Report, and I hope these amendments will be received in that spirit.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [General duties of relevant authority]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 16, line 20, after "education" insert "(including part-time higher education in so far as his functions are exercisable in relation to it)".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 16, line 20, leave out from "education" to end of line 26 and insert—
"(1A) In the performance of his functions under this Part, the Director has a duty to protect academic freedom, including, in particular, the freedom of institutions—

(a) to determine the contents of particular courses and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed, and

(b) to determine the criteria for the admission of students and apply those criteria in particular cases.

(1B) The Director must, in the performance of his functions under this Part, have regard to any guidance given to him by the Secretary of State."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am delighted that during our debates on this Bill, this House has continued its tradition of defending academic freedom. We have had some very helpful discussions about this in Committee, on Report and with other noble Lords outside of the Chamber. I hope that I have by now reassured noble Lords that it is not our intention that the Director of Fair Access should interfere in matters which are, quite rightly, for institutions to decide for themselves, particularly the criteria for the admission of students.
As noble Lords will know, I was happy to accept an amendment to the Bill in Committee and another on Report, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, one of which confers a duty on the director to have regard to the need to protect academic freedom. The other ruled admissions criteria out of regulations. But I recognise the desire of the House for further clarification on this. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for tabling an amendment on Report which sought to define academic freedom. Although, as the noble Lord knows, I could not accept the exact wording of the amendment, I undertook to consider further and come back at Third Reading with a proposal.
I agree entirely that academic freedom should be safeguarded, and Amendments Nos. 5 and 13, tabled in my name, will further strengthen that principle. Amendment No. 5 will clarify Clause 31(1)(b)(i), which confers a duty on the director to have regard to academic freedom. We have already made it clear that it embraces the freedom for institutions to determine their own admission criteria for students. The Bill will now make it clear that that freedom also embraces the freedom to determine the content of courses and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed. I know that there has been concern, for example, about whether the director might think that the manner in which a course was taught had affected applications from under-represented groups and whether he might therefore be tempted to intervene. The amendment puts it beyond doubt that he cannot. The definition used in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 also refers to freedom in the matter of the selection and appointment of staff. We have not included that phrase here simply because that is so clearly removed from the functions of the director that its inclusion is not necessary and, indeed, would not make sense.
Amendment No. 13 is a corresponding amendment, which clarifies that regulations may not require plans to contain anything relating to such matters or any reference to particular courses. In other words, it absolutely rules out the possibility that institutions will have to include measures related to individual courses in their plans in order to gain the freedom to charge higher fees.
The amendments, together with the earlier amendments that I accepted on the matter, will protect the important principle of academic freedom, which the House rightly holds dear. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the amendment. I agree that the wording is better than that of the amendment considered at an earlier stage. It will go a long way to meeting the concerns that were expressed. I know that it was an issue of concern not just on these Benches but on the Liberal Democrat Benches and on the Cross Benches. My noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark was particularly concerned about it. I have two short words for the Minister: "Thank you".
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. We were anxious about the issue, but we are much reassured by the amendment that the Minister has tabled.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I support the amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, on his persistence and am grateful to the Government for tabling the amendments.
Amendment No. 5 builds helpfully on the amendment that I tabled in Committee. It gives an even more powerful assurance that institutions are to retain their autonomy over admissions, course content and delivery.
Amendment No. 13 goes further and makes it clear that OFFA cannot require institutions to refer to individual courses in their plans, except as provided for in Clause 32(1). That is very welcome. Universities UK, in which I declare an interest as chief executive, has pressed for it since the Bill was first published, and I must say that I had all but given up on it. Universities UK felt, as I do, that it was rather important that OFFA should look at widening participation strategies as a whole. OFFA should not have the power to require institutions to focus on individual courses. One can imagine how, if OFFA had that power, it might be abused or used innocently in such a way as to distort the priorities of institutions in widening participation. It would also, inevitably, lead to a degree of micro-management, which would, in my view, be unacceptable. The amendment is very welcome, and I thank the Minister for it.
I wonder, though, whether the Minister might clarify the meaning of the phrase "general provisions" in the amendment. I hope that she means "except as provided for in Clause 32(1)". If that is what she means, I am entirely happy with the amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is indeed my understanding that that is what I mean. I hope that that clarifies things for the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Contents of plans]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 16, line 36, leave out "In relation to England,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group, with the exception of Amendment No. 8, which will be spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford.
The amendments would extend to higher education institutions in Wales the freedom from potentially gross interference that has already been granted to similar institutions in England by a government amendment tabled on Report. The freedom was conferred in England by confining the power of OFFA to insisting that plans for access should include provisions to ensure equality of opportunity only. It should not seek to promote higher education generally, which your Lordships strongly argued is best left to the institutions. Perhaps this is the point at which to note that the welcome government amendments that have just been agreed refer to what the institutions can do rather than to the institutions themselves.
The Government accepted the arguments that were put forward in your Lordships' House, but only as regards England. The power to insist that access plans promote higher education was retained for Wales. OFFA does not cross the dyke in this Bill to operate in Wales. But there will be a similar authority, which will probably be the Higher Education Funding Council, sponsored by the Labour Government of the National Assembly. Our amendments seek to ensure that the remit of the Welsh authority will be identical to OFFA and similarly restricted, and that higher education institutions in Wales will be as free as similar institutions in England. Your Lordships may well ask, "Why not"?
The main objection is that we are dealing here with a devolved matter. There is a presumption that amounts to a principle among ardent devolutionists that whatever the National Assembly wants in primary legislation, it should get. It was well expressed—albeit with a hint of mild embarrassment—by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, at Report. She said:
"My party, in particular, is concerned that Wales should be able to do its own thing and should not be dictated to by this Parliament".—[Official Report, 14/6/04; col. 572.]
I do not know how far that Liberal latitude extends. Would it extend, for example, to the total abolition of higher education or some other extreme? That remains to he seen. I shall be very interested to hear how members of the Liberal Democrat Party reconcile taking one view in England—after all, on a matter of principle—and another view in Wales on the same principle.
The Minister confirmed that the Assembly had asked specifically for this differential between England and Wales. But, with respect, the request came from the Assembly Government within the National Assembly. As far as I am aware, there is no record of any such request being made by the National Assembly as a whole. I am not sure that it has scrutinised the Welsh clauses of this Bill in what your Lordships would call "any detail". It has certainly not discussed the issue that we are considering today. So I counsel caution.
This Parliament is still responsible for providing primary legislation for Wales. We should be careful when we issue blank cheques to the Assembly Government for the exercise of powers, which we deny to central government in the United Kingdom. We should be especially careful when central government concur that we are right to do so.
So why should we insist on these amendments? I respect those who believe in the prime importance—indeed, the sanctity—of the devolution process. But I must remind them of their current responsibility to provide sound primary legislation and, where important principles such as academic freedom are threatened, to lay down parameters for the exercise of powers that may undermine such principles.
We have reason to believe that higher education institutions in Wales feel threatened. They have told us so through Higher Education Wales, which comprises 14 vice-chancellors and principals. I quoted a letter from its secretary, Mr D G Lewis, at length at Report. I shall remind your Lordships of his view that the power to require an institution's plan to "promote higher education" may be used,
"in ways not directly connected with fair access to higher education … [but] to direct their business plans and even to force merges. … Some members of HEW fear that the power is there to ensure that institutions comply with the Minister's wishes and to fine them if they do not".
I have checked on Mr Lewis and his position. I have to say that the fear is not groundless. The chairman of Higher Education Wales, Professor Anthony Chapman, said recently:
"The Vice Chancellors and principals in Wales are concerned at the coincidence of several recent statements by the Welsh Assembly Government which taken together suggest an undermining of university autonomy, notwithstanding protestations to the contrary".
I am afraid that that is the true position.
On 9 June, the Minister, Miss Jane Davidson, said:
"I will ask the HEFCW to use the core grant to the sector more strategically, along with elements set aside for the same purpose. I will expect the Council to consider how those monies should be distributed to provide concrete benefits to those institutions which have embraced reconfiguration"—
which, I think, means mergers and collaboration—
"and to provide further incentives to achieve it".
If that is not an enforcement of policy on institutions, I do not know what is. Such actions would be clean contrary to the wishes of this House and this Government as regards England. I urge the House and the Government to stand by their principles and extend the protection of academic freedom, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, memorably said, is indivisible to Welsh institutions too. Our duty is clear and we must not shirk it. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I perhaps should have asked for Amendment No. 8 to be degrouped. If Amendment No. 7 is agreed, Amendment No. 8 will fall. Therefore, it depends on whether the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, wishes to test the opinion of the House on his amendment. Amendment No. 8 is tabled on behalf of RNIB and
1158
SKILL, which were very concerned about the changing of the wording of the Bill in relation to England. I remind your Lordships that the original wording of the Bill was that the responsibility of the director should be the promotion of equality of opportunity or the promotion of higher education. We picked that up at a fairly early point and changed the wording. Indeed, this came forward at Report to cope with that. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, explained, we left that wording in in relation to Wales.
The two organisations are very concerned because it would suggest that one is counterpoising the promotion of higher education against the promotion of equal opportunities. The suggestion therefore is that in order that those two sub-paragraphs should not seem to be alternatives, the word "or" should be substituted with the word "and". This is a minor amendment that would just clarify the wording.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to the position of the Liberal Democrats on the devolution issue. Our spokesman on Welsh affairs, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will speak on that for us. I do not want to speak on that issue. I just wanted to explain my amendment and also make clear that basically it stands only should the other amendments fall.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I rise to support fully the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to which I have added my name. Noble Lords may know that this was the subject of amendments which I tabled on Report and I am delighted to be able to return to the matter. I know that for many noble Lords, the amendments before us pose a problem. Those who support devolution, as I do, instinctively feel that the Welsh Assembly must be free to determine its own path and that it should not be for Westminster to dictate what can and cannot be done.
However, we retain responsibility for making primary legislation for Wales. I do not believe that, that primary legislation should be subject to a lower standard of scrutiny than that for England. It is not good enough to say, "That's what Wales wants, so we should not interfere". Given the extensive and anguished communications I and others in this House have received from the Welsh universities which are the most closely involved, this is not what Wales wants. It may be what the Minister in Wales wants, but I do not think that we would be so trusting as to give Ministers in England everything they desire without stern challenge, and I do not see why we should adopt a different attitude to Wales.
With this Bill we are creating a regulator. We have tested the limits of that regulator through rigorous debate, and it is right that we should have clone so because the regulator will have power to tine institutions up to half a million pounds and withhold their grants. It is clear that, with respect to England, the regulator is to regulate access to higher education.

1159
The Government brought forward an amendment on Report to make it clear that that is all this regulator can do.
But that will not be the case in Wales. The RNIB and SKILL, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also referred, are concerned that in Wales the powers created by this Bill will not be used to promote access. I think they are right to be worried. Wales has a very good record on access to higher education, as have many institutions in England. That should not mean that it is neglected as a priority in the future. As the RNIB and SKILL note, there is always more that we can do.
Even if it were true that there was not a problem in relation to access in Wales, surely the response should be to remove the regulator with respect to Wales rather than to keep the regulator to do other, unspecified, things. I do not know what the regulator will regulate in Wales; nor do the vice-chancellors of Welsh institutions and nor, I suspect, does the Minister. It is not right that a regulator should be created without clarity as to what he or she will regulate—and with the power to fine, but no clarity about what the criteria will be.
I will certainly support this amendment should the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, decide to test the opinion of the House. I shall do so knowing that I have the strong support of higher education institutions in Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is with some regret that Members on these Benches are unable to support the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, on this amendment, in particular having regard to his many years of outstanding leadership in the education field as a Minister of State in the Welsh Office. But he has urged us to stand by our principles, and there are principles other than academic freedom at stake. He reminded us that the Minister assured the House that the Welsh Assembly had asked specifically for the differentiation contained in this Bill to exist between the English provisions and those for Wales. I have said from this Bench on many occasions that we believe that, if devolution is to work, the National Assembly for Wales should have its way and that primary legislation, subject to a reserve only in the most exceptional circumstances, should mirror the requirements of the National Assembly.
I said that over the four years when we were in a partnership government in Wales with the Labour Party. Am I to move away from that principle because at the moment the Labour Party is exercising power in the National Assembly on its own? We believe not. We believe that the purpose of primary legislation in Westminster is to enable the National Assembly to do its job and not to limit or curb it.
If this is all about money and the way that money should be used in Wales to fund higher education, I should make it quite clear that the Welsh Liberal Democrats in the National Assembly have called for the release of £50 million from the reserves of £726 million in order to support and enhance higher education in the Principality.
1160
We do not necessarily believe that the policies being followed by the present National Assembly government are right or even sensible. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred to what was said by Jane Davidson on 9 June in plenary session. She has stated that she intends to change the landscape of higher education in Wales and sharply strengthen the financial incentives for reconfiguration. That may not be sensible where the institutions of higher education in Wales do not agree and where they have not been consulted. But that is what devolution is about. It is a power given to the National Assembly government to make mistakes and it will be punished for those, we hope, at the ballot box.
If the Assembly wants, for example, to introduce variable fees for higher education in Wales, I am sure that the Labour Party will not have missed the fact that in the recent elections, the Liberal Democrats scored enormous successes in the university towns, taking every ward in Cardiff Central where there is a higher proportion of students to the population than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Students and young people across the whole of the United Kingdom are responding to the policies of the Liberal Democrats on education. If the Labour Party wants to pursue other policies, whether elsewhere in the United Kingdom or in Wales, let it be punished for them. That is what the democratic process is all about and that is what devolution is all about.
So it is in support of that principle—that it is for the National Assembly for Wales to make up its own mind, right or wrong—that we are not in a position to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. This House is a not a Court of Appeal. This is not the place for Universities UK to make representations about the future of education. It should concentrate its efforts in Wales by bringing students out into the streets in peaceful demonstration if that it what it wants, but it should not come here for us to second-guess what the National Assembly has done.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord has enunciated the theory that devolution means that Westminster should simply rubber stamp that which the Welsh Assembly wants, that we should be agents for the Assembly in making primary legislation because it does not have the power to do so. I find that very difficult to accept. This is an interesting devolution issue and I think it is one that worries us; it certainly worries me that it has arisen at all. It is something that we shall have to look at when we consider the Richard report.
As the noble Lord knows, although I am no expert on Welsh matters, I know how Scotland has dealt with the problem of getting universities to consider co-operating more and perhaps merging in the future. That has been achieved by asking the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to make it a condition of funding that they do consider this. That has worked well and there is no question about the fact that it is open to Wales to do so as well.

1161
The point here is that we have a Bill which is the job of the Westminster Government; we have to legislate. This Bill creates the possibility of a regulator in Wales which could be extremely threatening to universities if it is not limited. But we have created the Bill and we are approving it. If we leave the Bill as it is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, has said, universities in Wales will have no protection from the threat that the regulator, which would he the creature of the government of Wales, will do what it will with them. We have a responsibility to ensure that the Bill does not create a situation where the universities in Wales could suffer in a way in which the universities in England will not suffer. We owe it to the people of Wales to do so.
Had the Assembly consulted properly with the universities in Wales and obtained their agreement that they did not want limitations on the regulator, the situation would he quite different. But it apparently has not done so. I believe that the noble Lord is getting slightly carried away with his enthusiasm for devolution and the Assembly in thinking that the Government are right to accept this simply because the Welsh Assembly says so.
I think that the Government are deeply wrong. If, with the help of the Liberal Democrats—who are also enthusiastic in this way—they do not accept the amendment, they will show that they have not done their thinking about the lop-sided kind of devolution that we now have in this country. We owe it to the people of Wales that the Bill should give the same kind of protection to universities in Wales as it gives to universities in England.
I hope that the Government will listen to the universities in this respect. Noble Lords sitting behind the Government Front Bench may or may not have gone into this issue in great detail, but I hope they realise that, having created devolution, we have to be extremely careful how we operate it. Some matters may have to be changed as a result of the Richard report but I hope that the House will accept my noble friend's amendment and that the Government will see the danger of the course they indicated they were on at the previous stage.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former vice-chancellor of the University of Wales and of Aberystwyth.
"Give me liberty or give me death",
is a famous phrase from the American Revolution. This seems to be a case of "Give me liberty or give me devolution". As Tom Paine observed, I am for liberty. Although I sit on these Benches, I am not a politician; I am a life-long academic and I have always supported devolution.
There are two aspects of devolution to which I should like to refer. Noble Lords may not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, with whom I invariably agree on these matters. First, this is a case of devolution within Wales as well as a case of devolution in relation to Wales and Westminster. Devolution has always been said to rest on a consensual attitude, but
1162
this policy is part of a programme which is being imposed upon the universities and institutions of Wales.
I have spoken to many vice-chancellors over the past few days and we have had communications from the higher education body in Wales representing vice-chancellors and principals. They are totally opposed to the implications of this policy, as my noble friend Lady Warwick said. They are also deeply apprehensive that it makes Wales, in various ways, less free than England. The supreme quality of a university is its freedom. That matters more to me than anything else. I have spent my life as a university teacher and it seems to me that a lack of freedom from overt—and, even more, from covert—interference is very dangerous.
There are implications in the broader provisions for higher education which arouse suspicion, particularly in regard to the amalgamation of institutions where pressure has been imposed. When I was in Aberystwyth there were two amalgamations, but they were carried out by free, autonomous institutions. We cannot have it both ways. Universities are either free, autonomous institutions, or they are not.
There has been a good deal of double talk in these matters. In this case, the universities in Wales feel that they are not given the same degree of freedom. They have already raised grave concerns about funding and whether or not the possible gap in 2006–07 will be made up. They have grounds for believing that they will be more regulated. After reading the letter from the National Assembly Minister, Jane Davidson, which many of us have received, I am quite glad that I am not now a vice chancellor and subjected to such a degree of interference and regulation.
I suspect that my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies will take a different view—which is rather like arguing against God, as far as I am concerned—but, with great respect and great regret, I feel that academic freedom and academic autonomy are threatened, that Wales will suffer and that the Welsh higher education system, which has been one of the glories of our nation since the late 19th century, is likely to diminish. I hope that the Government will think very seriously about the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I do not argue against God very often. If a DNA test were carried out on me, I do not think it would reveal any Welsh or English blood in my veins.
Having supported the Liberal Democrat amendment on voluntary work, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. It relates to the complex issue of the balance between what is right to be devolved and the national educational policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, indicated.
In my view, the Bill appears to have become the victim of what might be called the negative side of well-intentioned positive discrimination and needs to be rectified. In other words, as it stands, the Bill would involve undue interference in Welsh institutions. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, I very much hope

1163
that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will be accepted. If the will of the House is to be tested, I hope that the amendment will be agreed to.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I am in favour of liberty and devolution and I respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, very much indeed. However, I believe that it is not right necessarily to assume that the Education Secretary in the Welsh Assembly Government is the most popular person in Wales. I know that to be not a fact.
The principles outlined in Amendment No. 6 give rise to an interesting situation, as my noble friend Lord Thomas said. As currently drafted, Clause 32(2) relates specifically to England. This is an England and Wales Bill and matters relating to higher education are specific to the Secretary of State in England and the Welsh Assembly Government in Wales. We agree with Clause 32(2) because it is consistent with the devolution settlement, and Clause 32(3) spells out what should apply in Wales. Indeed, it places duties on the Welsh Assembly Government either to promote equality of opportunity or to promote higher education. My noble friend Lady Sharp has tabled Amendment No. 8, which seeks to put that right. We are confronted with an interesting situation. We would obviously prefer that the Bill did both.
The principle of devolution is very important. Amendment No. 7 seeks to strike out specific reference to Wales and therefore goes against the principle of devolution. We oppose the deletion of Clause 32(3) and we will vote against Amendment No. 7 for this reason.
However, a great many issues arise. My noble friend Lord Thomas made the point that although we are consistent in our attitude to devolution, that does not necessarily mean that we agree with what might happen to higher education under the present Minister for Education in the Welsh Assembly Government.
I should like the Minister to consider several matters. In Wales, equality of opportunity is very important and should be essential, not just an option. Why is this? Will she explain why the Welsh Assembly Government want this distinction?
Secondly, is there a price tag connected specifically with the word "promotion"? Thirdly, will promotion as specified in the Bill be used as a means of amalgamating a number of university colleges and higher education establishments in Wales, which has been hinted at by several contributors to this debate? Fourthly, will moneys be withheld from establishments that do not comply with the diktat of the Welsh Assembly Government's Education Minister if she so desires them to amalgamate?
There are also wider questions. What impact would this measure have on the federal university colleges of the University of Wales? Indeed, the Government will know that the right honourable Dafydd Wigley has been appointed by the University of Wales to produce a report into its constitution. I have not seen that
1164
report and I do not know whether it has been published yet, but it might have an impact on what we are discussing.
What measures will the Government take to redress the substantial under-funding gap, to which the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, referred, between the higher education sector in England and that in Wales? Historically, Wales has fallen short by approximately £300 per student in comparison with England, and I believe that the gap may be greater at the present time. Clearly, it has an impact on equality. The Government should surely provide equality of funding for both England and Wales, as well as equality of opportunity for students to access higher education in Wales. If the Welsh Assembly wants to go ahead, I would like to know whether it has said that it wishes to use promotion as a means of getting additional funding to force higher education establishments in Wales to amalgamate. That would be extremely foolish of the Welsh Assembly because of the geography of Wales and the paucity of physical communications—it is practically impossible to get Bangor to amalgamate with the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education or Trinity College Carmarthen to amalgamate with the University of Wales, Swansea.
There are many issues that need to be raised. If the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff is foolish enough to pursue this path, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said, it should have the freedom to do so. However, the electorate in Wales will deliver a verdict that will not be favourable to the Welsh Assembly government.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I would like to clarify one point. The speech by the Minister, Jane Davidson, to which I referred, was made on 9 June and actually states that the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales,
"will take a much more proactive approach to delivering on the reconfiguration agenda. For a sector with a large number of relatively small institutions, funding will continue to be available for mergers. However, I shall also be looking to promote innovative ways of working to enable the sector to take forward other forms of collaboration".
There is not much doubt about the Government's intentions.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. It is obviously correct. However, if the Minister is unwise enough to pursue this course, frankly, judgment will be made by the people of Wales.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, this is a Third Reading debate and we should try to stick to the conventions of Third Reading.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I do not think that this amendment bears on devolution at all. It is open to the Welsh Assembly to promote higher education. The clause that we are discussing is about the requirement to include the promotion of higher education in an access plan. This is something very specific. I support the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, when my noble friend replies to this debate, it would be helpful if she would

1165
confirm two matters: first, that Clause 32(3) has been brought forward at the request of the Welsh Assembly Government and, secondly, that the UK Government themselves are satisfied that the new power is justified given the circumstances prevailing in Wales. If my noble friend can give us that assurance, there is a presumption that the clause as it stands should be acceptable to the House. I remind the House that between 31 July 1999 and 31 December last, Parliament passed 42 Acts of Parliament containing distinctive Wales-only clauses or Wales-only Bills. To the best of my recollection and belief, on no occasion did your Lordships' House reject a Wales-only clause or a Wales-only Bill. If that is correct, there is no need for me to emphasise the obvious. If the series of amendments is agreed, an important precedent would be established.
If the Welsh Assembly, which has a democratic mandate, is to be denied the primary legislation to enable it to pursue policies that it considers to be in the interests of the Welsh people and if that legislation is agreed by the UK Government—the two conditions that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech—we are bound to ask how the devolution settlement will work. That was the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It greatly saddens me that so much criticism has been levelled at this clause by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The Welsh higher education sector is small, but it has made a substantial contribution to Welsh life during the past 120 years, and continues to make a contribution. I should declare an interest: I am hugely indebted to the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, and the University of Wales, Swansea.
When I read the evidence of the Welsh Assembly Education Minister to the Richard Commission on the powers of the Welsh Assembly, it seemed to me that she was seeking the legislative powers to promote higher education in Wales. That is what emerged from her evidence to the commission. When did Higher Education Wales first make representations to the Welsh Assembly about this power? That is a very difficult question to put to my noble friend the Minister; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has asked a series of questions.
6 p.m.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is in his place. I am wondering whether we are faced with a basic weakness in the devolution model. The clause emanates from the Welsh Assembly but is being scrutinised by this forum. The Welsh Assembly Minister is not present to explain or defend the clause or to answer the questions that have been put to our Minister. That "split responsibility", as the Richard Commission called it, is partly the cause of the difficulties that we are in tonight. Of course, if a Welsh Minister were present in the House or in a Special Standing Committee to consider the Welsh clauses of an England and Wales Bill, she might be able to give assurances to noble Lords who are concerned about the Bill.
1166
I hope that the House is not asked to vote on the amendment. However, if the amendment were passed, I believe that the Ministers of the Welsh Assembly Government and many people in Wales would think that the time had come for the conferment of primary legislative powers on the Assembly. That has never been more necessary nor more timely than tonight.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I declared my Welsh pedigree in support of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy at an earlier stage. I shall not dwell on the niceties of the devolution issue. However, in comparison with the knowledge that some of us could once have had about the entire UK higher education sector—even though the department's writ did not run throughout the land—we are in these matters severely constrained by devolution. We are also constrained by the purity under which, as Westminster parliamentarians, we cannot be given information by Ministers relating to devolved institutions on the one hand and, on the other, we have no right as Westminster parliamentarians to receive information from those in devolved institutions who could tell us. All I can say is, "more's the pity".
I rise to support my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. In relation to his anxieties about what may happen in Wales, I can cite analogously an ILEA episode from long ago. I was resident in Highgate and was, or had been, a governor of the Camden School for Girls, to which the episode relates. The Hampstead and Highgate Express reported that a senior elected member of ILEA had addressed the parents of Camden School for Girls and had said that in her view it was absolutely wrong for girls—or, indeed, women—to go into higher education. The paper reported that officials from ILEA sitting on the platform with her put their heads in their hands and presumably hoped that the roof would fall in. Like the thunderbolt that fell on York Minster shortly after the Bishop of Durham expressed his famous views, as the paper also reported, the roof obligingly did fall in that very night, though after the meeting when everyone had left. In that time-honoured phrase of the Metropolitan Press, "Provincial papers, please copy"—and, if I may say so, Liberal Democrat Benches, please note.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I briefly offer my support to this amendment. To me the issue is very simple. Whatever the rights or wrongs of devolution, we in this Parliament currently have the responsibility for primary legislation in respect of universities in Wales. We have already achieved a great deal in the passage of the Bill though this House, and with the concessions made by the Government on the issue of academic freedom for English universities. It seems to me totally wrong that we should not just as stoutly defend the academic freedom of Welsh universities. That is why I give my support.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I speak briefly in support of the amendments. It seems rather extraordinary that

1167
we have been invited to endorse Clause 32(3) when, seemingly, no decision has been taken in Wales as to whether they want to promote higher education or about access. I cannot see how there are alternatives. That seems to make no sense whatever, and I find it difficult to endorse a proposal that does not seem to make sense.
There is another reason, however, why I very reluctantly speak on a matter that one would regard as properly the business of Wales. It is not a concern for me that the universities in Wales feel threatened and do not like what the Government have in mind. However, I do care that they have not been consulted on a matter, on which, if they are found wanting, they face a serious financial penalty. That cannot be good for the process of government in Wales. Therefore, I support the amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I apologise for not having been involved before in this debate. I must declare an interest as an employee of one of the universities that has benefited from the merger process and which is now in the process of merging.
I have listened very carefully to the debate, and fear that we are muddling up two different things. There is devolution and whether Wales should have more powers; that, in a way, is a separate debate. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, relates to the situation as it stands today. It is with great regret that I feel inclined to support the amendment.
My gut feeling is that I want to support Wales and the Assembly Government in Wales, but things work in Wales when everyone works together, when consultation is wide and there is a consensus view. If the universities in Wales are giving a message that they are anxious, forcing things on them will only create unhappiness. Sadly, there is an exit across Offa's Dyke for the brightest and best among our academics. I fear that if we allow those universities to become unhappy, the fantastic tradition of academic excellence of which we in Wales are so proud will be under threat.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords. The debate has been long and interesting, as befits what is an important part of the Third Reading of the Bill. I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible, as I am mindful that many comments have been made that cover the points well.
I should tell my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that the provision is the desire of the Welsh Assembly, as he knows. Jane Davidson, to whom noble Lords have referred, has made clear to me her commitment to the autonomy of higher education institutions. The provisions in Clause 32 will in no way undermine that principle. The Assembly has requested the inclusion of the phrase,
"the promotion of higher education",
to enable institutions to propose plans drawn more widely than simply in terms of access. The intention is to free the hands of institutions, not bind them further.
1168
Noble Lords referred to the differences within the sectors. The sector in Wales is much smaller than that in England, and its concerns are also different. Access is an area of success in Wales, where higher education institutions have a very good track record. Jane Davidson has made it clear, too, that if variable fees were introduced in Wales, there would be no question of the Assembly imposing requirements on individual institutions. The Assembly would not envisage defining the content of fee plans in such tight terms as to infringe the autonomy of Welsh institutions. Rather, fee plans would be an integral part of the sector's strategic engagement with the Funding Council and the Assembly Government.
During Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised concerns that the inclusion of promotion of higher education or equality of opportunity could lead to disregard for equality of opportunity in Wales. I assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that the National Assembly for Wales is committed to equality of opportunity in all its functions. Indeed, Section 120 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 makes this a statutory duty on the Assembly, which applies to all its functions. This Bill sets out the framework under which a system of variable fees would operate in Wales, but we contend that it is essential that the Assembly has sufficient flexibility to determine and deliver a policy suited to Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was concerned about granting power to the Assembly without rigorous scrutiny of how it will be used. The Assembly regulation-making procedures involve at least as much scrutiny as the affirmative procedure in Parliament. The relevant subject committee and the legislation committee will consider the Assembly regulations. There will be a full public consultation, which is also a requirement. I hope that covers, at least in part, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It will be important. Of course, higher education institutions will be part of the full public consultation. In view of the number of comments that have been made about the need to consider scrutiny, that is an important point. There is no negative procedure in the Assembly, other than in cases of urgency, so draft regulations are open to scrutiny and debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked whether the Assembly has already debated these provisions. The National Assembly has debated the Higher Education Bill in plenary on more than one occasion since it was introduced. On each occasion, the Assembly voted to welcome the devolution of the powers in the Bill. That addresses the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
We are satisfied that the Assembly is best placed to make the judgment about how it wishes to take this forward. It has a statutory obligation to consult, it has debated these issues at length and it will make any regulations within the affirmative procedure, as I have made clear. We believe that we should offer the flexibility for the National Assembly to make its own

1169
decisions. I believe that the assurances about scrutiny and consultation, which would precede any Assembly regulations under this clause, and the assurances from the Assembly Minister on the policy context should be enough to satisfy noble Lords. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate. There has been a fairly clear clash between those who stand by the principle of academic autonomy and freedom and those who give priority to devolution. It was very interesting that, right from the beginning, the voice of higher education in Wales was very clearly heard, starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who was followed by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, a former principal. Then we heard the voices of my noble friend Lady Perry and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, an employee of the University of Wales College of Medicine. She is very much in touch with academic feeling in Wales.
There is no doubt about it: academic institutions feel threatened and rightly so, from what I have read of the intentions of the Assembly's education executive. It is no wonder since, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, implied, there has been no consultation. This is what has really caused anxiety in institutions of higher education in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was very firm in his belief in devolution and also in his belief that devolution means the freedom to make mistakes. I am not sure that that freedom extends to this Parliament while it has responsibility for providing Wales with primary legislation. We cannot contemplate the road to ruin as far as institutions of higher education in Wales are concerned with any degree of equanimity. I agree with the noble Lord that devolution may well mean freedom to make mistakes. However, while we have responsibility for primary legislation there is no doubt that we should do our best to ensure that no major errors occur.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, but the fact is that the clause as it stands is rightly seen by academics and students in Wales as a Trojan horse. There is no doubt that the Assembly government would like to use their financial muscle to shape higher education in Wales as they think fit. We have ample words from the Minister herself. The question is, is that the right way to go about achieving these ends? I doubt it very much. The impression that has been given is that the Minister is riding roughshod over the institutions of higher education. They do not like it and I do not like it either. I have a feeling that the House will not like it. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Astor, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Attlee, E.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Biffen, L.

Bowness, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Burnham, L.

Monson, L.

Burns, L.

Morgan, L.

Byford, B.

Moser, L.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Noakes, B.

Chadlington, L.

Northbourne, L.

Chorley, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Cox, B.

Onslow, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peel, E.

Dearing, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plumb, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Ferrers, E.

Prior, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Quinton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Quirk, L.

Freeman, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Glentoran, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Greenway, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Henley, L.

Selborne, E.

Higgins, L.

Selsdon, L.

Howard of Rising, L.

Sharples, B.

Howe, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Kimball, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Laird, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Walpole, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Lindsay, E.

Wilcox, B. [Teller]

Listowel, E.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Lyell, L.

Wilson of Dinton, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ahmed, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Alli, L.

Carter, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Carter of Coles, L.

Chandos, V.

Andrews, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

David, B.

Bach, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Berkeley, L.

Desai, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dixon, L.

Bhattacharyya, L.

Donoughue, L.

Billingham, B.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bragg, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brookman, L.

Filkin, L.

1171

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Gale, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Mitchell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Golding, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Grantchester, L.

Paul, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Pendry, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Harrison, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haskel, L.

Puttnam, L.

Haskins, L.

Radice, L.

Hayman, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Henig, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rea, L.

Hollick, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rooker, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hoyle, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jones, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Jordan, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Triesman, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Layard, L.

Uddin, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Varley, L.

Levy, L.

Warner, L.

Lipsey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Whitty, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Winston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.27 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 17, line 27, after "(2)" insert "or (3)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 17, line 27, leave out "to include provisions" and insert—

"(a) to include among the general provisions of the plan any provision referring to particular courses or to the manner in which courses are taught, supervised or assessed, or

(b) to include any provision"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in moving Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
"REVIEW OF DECISIONS MADE BY RELEVANT AUTHORITY
Regulations made by virtue of section 35, 36(3)(b) or 37(3)(b) must include provision—

(a) requiring any decision of the relevant authority under section 35, 36 or 37 affecting the governing body of an institution to have effect in the first instance as a provisional decision,

(b) enabling the governing body of the institution to apply for a review of the provisional decision to a person, or panel of persons, appointed in accordance with the regulations—

(i) in relation to England, by the Secretary of State, or

(ii) in relation to Wales, by the Assembly,

(c) enabling the Secretary of State or the Assembly to pay remuneration and allowances to any person so appointed,

(d) prescribing the grounds on which an application for the review of a provisional decision may be made, and

(e) requiring the relevant authority to reconsider its provisional decision having regard to any recommendation of the person or panel."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland, Lord MacGregor and Lord Norton, for tabling an amendment at Report which sought to give institutions a right of appeal against a decision by the director. Having discussed the issue with the noble Lords—I am most grateful for the time they have given me—and having read the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which we hold in high regard, I said at Report that I accepted the principle that it should be possible for an independent panel to make the director think again about his decisions and promised to come back at Third Reading with a government amendment.
I should say at the outset that I do not expect any review procedure to be much in demand. I hope that the need for such a mechanism will arise very rarely, if at all. I have every confidence that the director will make careful and well considered judgments, and I am also sure that institutions will not appeal to the review body lightly. However, there was consensus in your Lordships' House that there should be some form of extra safety net, which this amendment provides.
The amendment allows for a review of the director's decisions. It specifies that regulations must provide that the director's decision is, in the first place, provisional. If an institution wishes to contest that provisional decision, it may appeal to a panel to review it. That panel would be appointed by the Secretary of State. Any appointment to the panel would be made under the Nolan rules and would therefore be subject to scrutiny by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
We will put in regulations the grounds on which a review could be demanded, and will need to secure detailed advice on this from legal advisers. However, I can say that we would expect the grounds for review to include: new facts that had come to light since the

1173
director took a decision; the director's having ignored any relevant fact; and the director's decision being manifestly disproportionate or unreasonable.
I shall give an illustration of that last point. If the director were able to impose a sanction on an institution for non-compliance with its plan, and the institution felt that it had taken all reasonable steps to comply, I believe that that would constitute potential grounds for review. There is a clear correlation here with the amendment we have already accepted from the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who is not in his place, and now at Clause 36(2), providing that an institution should not be liable to sanction if it has taken all reasonable steps to comply with the provisions of its plan.
The panel would look at the director's decision and, if it felt it appropriate, ask the director to reconsider his decision. This regulation must require the director to reconsider his decision, having regard to the panel's recommendation. I assure noble Lords that that gives the panel teeth. The director cannot ignore what the panel says. It is quite clear in law that he actively has to reconsider the original decision, giving due weight to the panel's recommendation. Were he not to do so, any future judicial review would take that into account.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify a possibly "daft laddie" question. On the face of it the provision seems welcome. However, would the appeal procedure include the right to appeal any financial penalty? I understand the Minister's point about particular decisions, but will that encompass the right to question particular fines or sanctions?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, yes, indeed, it would. That would be a matter of proportionality. The issue that is not covered in this amendment is appeal against approval. On accepting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, we deleted the regulation-making powers in this clause for the approval of plans. I am not able to bring forward an amendment to appeal a measure that we no longer have in the Bill as that would be against the rules.
The amendment also gives the Secretary of State the power to pay the panel. We think that that payment should be assessed according to the time spent carrying out a review as we expect reviews to be very infrequent. Noble Lords will have noticed that the amendment covers decisions made by the relevant authority in Wales.
I hope that the amendment addresses the concerns raised by noble Lords. I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have worked with me on this matter, if I can put it like that. I hope the House agrees that the measure provides greater security for institutions. I believe that the principles of reasonableness and fairness, which we have always maintained were our intentions, are now very clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I warmly welcome what the Minister said on the matter. In the
1174
light of what she had to say, I welcome the acceptance of the principle of a review or appeal procedure being inserted into the Bill. I, too, hope that the mechanism will be used rarely and that discretion will be used by universities and that the director will act in a way that will not provoke the need for appeals. None the less, it seems to us—I am glad that this has been accepted—that in the interests of justice being done and being seen to be done one can reasonably look for an appeal and review procedure.
The matter was debated in a civilised fashion in Committee and informally. I appreciate the exchanges that have taken place and the support of colleagues, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, in framing the measure. I particularly welcome the mention by the noble Baroness of appointment according to Nolan rules and the itemisation of the grounds on which an appeal might be heard—that new facts are available that were not reasonably available previously; that facts may have been ignored or perhaps overlooked; and particularly the point about disproportion. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, clarified the fact that that might apply also to the level of penalty that is imposed.
The new clause makes provision for such a review. Clearly, the devil will be in some of the detail. We shall listen with great interest to what is said in due course if the new clause is accepted. The detail of the regulations will be critical but the noble Baroness has put matters on the record which are of great importance. I thank the noble Baroness and the Government for moving on this matter.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister not only for the way in which she has responded so positively to the debate but also for the way in which she engaged us fully in the discussions prior to the new clause being tabled. If I may say so, that is an example of this House at its best. I hope that the outcome is satisfactory to everyone.
I had intended to raise two points but I need to raise only one because the Minister has already dealt with one of my concerns, which was to ensure that the Nolan rules applied to the selection of whoever deals with the appeal. The Minister gave a clear guarantee that that will be the case.
The only other point I wanted to raise was in relation to the grounds on which an application can be made. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say but obviously the regulations will contain more detail on the matter. I hope that they will not be too narrowly drawn so that they replicate almost what could happen with a judicial appeal, except that, of course, the process will be faster and less costly. I hope that the matter will go wider than that. We shall certainly want to consider the regulations when they are drawn up. I thank the Minister again for the way in which she responded to the debate.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I am delighted that the Government have brought forward this amendment. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who has pursued the matter with such

1175
determination. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, who spoke to it so cogently on Report. Given the powers that OFFA will have to fine institutions and prevent them charging fees, an appeals mechanism is vital. It was difficult to come up with a solution that was not just as expensive and potentially as time consuming as the original proposal of judicial review. I believe that the measure before us will be satisfactory in that regard. It explains why the decision of the appeals panel will not be binding. If it were legally binding, it is likely that the scheme would have offered no advantages over judicial review. I look forward to hearing how the Minister proposes to take the measure forward in regulations. I hope that the Minister will confirm that she will consult sector bodies before bringing forward the necessary regulations.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment. Like my noble friend Lord MacGregor, I appreciate the work that the Minister has done in order to bring the amendment forward and also what she said for the record in moving it.
As I said on Report, I believe that it is one of the most important changes needed to the Bill. It addresses some of the concerns that universities have about OFFA. It will ensure that, if universities believe that the Director of Fair Access has not met the criteria to be stipulated in regulations, there is a body to which they can have recourse. Judicial review, as I argued on Report, is not sufficient: it is too narrow in scope, time consuming and expensive.
The mechanism that is created by the new clause is not a full-blown independent appeals process. The appeals body will not be able to overturn the decision of the director. What is created is essentially an independent review procedure—a fact recognised in the wording of the clause. The decision can be referred back to the director. The Minister and I have had interesting discussions on the legal effect of the provision "to have regard to". The director may be required to think again—to reconsider, as the Minister said—but the appeal body cannot overturn the decision. The provision may not go so far as I would wish but I acknowledge that it represents a significant step forward.
My noble friend Lord MacGregor and I have a particular interest in the subject of an appeals process deriving from our membership of the Constitution Committee. The committee issued its report on the regulatory state in May and included a chapter on the means of appeals from the decisions of regulators. For the reasons given in the report, which I summarised on Report, there is pressure for the decisions of regulators to be subject to an appeals process on the merits of the case, not least because of Article 6 of the European Convention. This amendment is therefore an important move in that direction. As we recommend in our report, there is a need for the Government to take what we describe as a "whole of government" view of regulation. I hope that there will be a generic template for new regulatory regimes, which will include an
1176
appeals process on the merits. Though I would prefer a full-blown independent appeals process, I none the less very much welcome the new clause that the Minister has brought forward.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful for the welcome given to the amendment, and shall briefly respond to a couple of the points raised. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, that the regulations will be subject to affirmative procedure, so we will have the opportunity beforehand to make sure that we continue to fulfil the obligations that we have set out. I am sure that he will have a contribution to make, to which I shall look forward. I say to my noble friend Lady Warwick that we will, of course, talk to sector bodies, as she indicated would be important.
I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, that I have checked again with the lawyers to make absolutely certain what the process would be. It is clear that the obligation set out means that the director has no choice but to look at the original decision again and examine very carefully the issues that the panel has raised. In the light of that consideration, he would have to make the final decision. If he did not take account of the views of the panel, the institution could apply for a judicial review of the director's decision. If the panel had identified procedural failure by the director, that would in itself furnish a reason for judicial review. I hope that we have covered the point as carefully as we can. I am happy to continue the dialogue, because the issue is important.
It is extremely nice to see the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, in his place and to see that he looks to be fully recovered. Once again, I say how grateful I am for the work of the noble Lords to whom I have referred in helping us to get to this position.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
"QUALIFYING FEES BEYOND FIRST THREE YEARS
In respect of any qualifying course, the Secretary of State shall, through the relevant funding body, pay to the relevant institution any qualifying fees for any academic year which, but for the provisions of sections 24(1)(d) or 27(1)(d), would have been charged to the eligible student."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House earlier, I was able to separate the amendment from Amendment No. 2. In moving Amendment No. 15, I seek to alleviate what would be the unfortunate consequence of an opposition amendment made on Report. It was the amendment that very rightly sought to remove from students at English universities the burden of fees beyond the first three years of a first degree course. That amendment is now in the Bill, in Clause 24(1)(d). The unfortunate effect of that amendment was to make the universities undertake that cost by forgoing the fees, rather than to arrange that the fees should be paid by the Secretary of State.
I have learnt through the researches of the excellent research department in the Library, with the help of Universities UK, that the cost to English universities of that amendment—unless we rectify it by Amendment No. 15—is likely to be of the order of £180 million per year. That would be an outrageous consequence of our work in this House. The crux of the matter is that our universities are under-funded, and will remain under-funded as a result of the Bill. The fees will go about half-way to meeting the recurrent deficit. It is very important that we seek to remove the additional financial burden that the provision would place on the universities unless it were amended.
The point of my amendment is to provide that:
"In respect of any qualifying course, the Secretary of State shall, through the relevant funding body, pay to the relevant institution any qualifying fees for any academic year",
as specified in Clause 24(1)(d). The reference to Clause 27(1)(d) falls away, I hope, because I did not press the Wales amendment, Amendment No. 2. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the cost to universities of Clause 24(1)(d), unless amended, would he of the order of £180 million per year, and therefore that the cost to the Secretary of State of the amendment would be of the same order.
My amendment is intended to ensure that the fees for the fourth and subsequent years will indeed be waived, as was discussed fully on Report. I particularly hope that that position will be supported by colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, because their stated policy is, as I understand it, that fees in general should be paid by the state, not by individual students. Therefore, it would be a strange anomaly if they encouraged the universities to pick up the burden rather than the Secretary of State. I shall be interested to hear their position. I shall also be very interested to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, what the position of Universities UK is on the amendment. I would find it altogether astonishing if Universities UK were to accept cheerfully the additional burden of £180 million per year to be paid by the universities.
6.45 p.m.
I feel a sense of shame that the only financial provision that your Lordships have implemented in the course of amending the Bill should place an additional financial burden on the universities, rather than on the state. The purpose of my amendment is to rectify that. I could almost write the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, for her. She will tell us that there is no money, that the amendment would mean top-slicing, and that everything must come from the same pot. I assume that she will say that because she is instructed to do so by the Treasury.
We are, however, talking about legislation in Parliament, which is the sovereign body. I could never accuse the noble Baroness of arrogance—she has been charm itself in our debates—but it seems a rather arrogant statement to say that an amendment should not be passed in this House because it does not suit the Treasury, and essentially that the Treasury will not follow it because everything should come from the
1178
same pot. I hope that noble Lords will not be tempted to accept that argument. It may have the ring of financial reality, as I am sure that she will remind us, but I would regard it as a discourtesy to this House to advance that argument in such a way.
I invite noble Lords to shift the burden in the matter to where it belongs—to the Government, to the state. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I supported the then Amendment No. 7 on Report and I cannot see how it is possible not to join the noble Lord in the Lobby tonight, in the event that he presses his amendment. Those of us who spoke on the matter on Report have a responsibility for finding where the money will come from. I shall support him.
Earl Russell: My Lords, one of the points on which the least thought has been given in the preparation of the Bill is its differential effect between subjects. I drew attention at Second Reading to its harmful effect on departments of chemistry. The provision multiplies that. I say that on behalf of the late Lady Young, as well as on my behalf; it is a cause on which we often worked together, and were proud to do so.
Chemistry is a four-year course. It needs to be; it is expanding all the time, because new discoveries are made all the time. It is also a subject very vital to our industrial development. It is not the only four-year course, either. Medicine takes much more than four years on occasion. The burden of the Bill to medical students is one about which we have already heard a great deal and will, I hope, hear a great deal more before it is finished. The burden to people doing greats at Oxford, which is in effect two subjects, is also considerable.
The provision will encourage universities to close departments of chemistry and other departments whose courses take more than three years because, as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, they simply cannot carry the costs. The universities are in no position to carry extra costs. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention, because if we have to buy in all of our chemistry from abroad we will be in for major national expense that is unnecessary, probably undesirable and possibly not as good as what would have been done in this country.
There is much concern in my own college, for example, about the closure of its department of chemistry. I spoke recently to the students' union, which had a great deal to say about it. So the Government have shot themselves in the foot and they might be wise to get the bullet out before any poison from it is taken into the system. If the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, believes otherwise, I would be glad to hear why.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I was opposed to the amendment on Report that imposed a three-year limit precisely for the reasons to which the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred. This is not new information. Amendment No. 15 could be seen as repairing some of the potential damage to universities that would be caused by the three-year limit, but there

1179
should be no limit at all. I am opposed to that limit for the obvious reason that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has identified. He is right about the consequences—it would prevent universities from charging any fees at all after the first three years. In addition to the loss that he has already indicated, it would mean a loss of £180 million. That would be disastrous for the universities.
Perhaps I should see the amendment as a relief in that it puts the bill at the door of the Government. However, there is no guarantee at all that that additional resource will be found. The Department for Education and Skills faces a tight spending round, as does the university sector, and there is a limited pot of funding. Therefore, I fear that any money to pay for the imposition of a three-year limit would have to come from elsewhere in the Budget or from elsewhere in the higher education sector. I cannot see that the universities would not suffer in some way if the amendment is carried.
The amendment deals with a symptom, not the cause of these difficulties, which is the three-year funding limit that I will continue to oppose.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, the cause of these difficulties is the central core of the Bill. Listening to the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and that of my noble friend, Lord Renfrew, I felt that I had received something of a wigging for having proposed an amendment that I thought my noble friend supported, but that the noble Baroness did not. My concern was for those people who decided that they wished to be architects or wished to take a longer degree course such as chemistry—and other groups who would find themselves discriminated against to an enormous extent. That is certainly not reflected in the labour market.
So, although I support my noble friend's amendment, he is looking at this matter from the wrong perspective. He regards it from the point of view of money for the universities, which he says is £180 million. I do not know whether that figure is correct, but I was looking at the matter from the perspective that it was £180 million that those students would have to find to pursue their professions.
Earl Russell: My Lords, are not both those perspectives correct, which is why the Bill is mistaken?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right, which is why I said in my opening remarks that this matter is at the heart of the Bill. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who represents Universities UK and the Labour Benches in these matters, it struck me as extraordinary that this was the consequence of a Faustian deal made by the universities. From now on they will be told that, "There is a limit to how much money we can provide publicly. You will have to find more money from the students themselves".
1180
My noble friend's amendment is welcome and I support it, but I am concerned at the way in which the debate about the funding of higher education has been skewed—undermining the notion that there is a public good in people taking longer courses that are not only valuable in themselves but that many of them produce an economic contribution to our country. We now have the Treasury and the universities as unholy allies, because the Government, which was elected on a platform of "Education, education, education", are refusing to meet their obligations. So I welcome my noble friend's amendment from a slightly different perspective.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I entirely endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. This matter is, indeed, a Faustian deal. He said the Government were elected on a platform of "Education, education, education". They were also elected in 2001 on an explicit platform of "We will not impose top-up fees". The central problem that now confronts the Government arises from their own doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, asked whether the Liberal Democrat Benches would support the amendment. He is right. We have always argued that the fees should be paid by the central Exchequer and we were prepared to waive taxes to increase the revenues of the Exchequer to fund the universities properly. We have a fully funded and worked-out plan to that effect, which is viable. As I have argued on previous occasions, it is an alternative that the Government have not allowed to be discussed.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, when he introduced his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said that he was concerned to alleviate an "unfortunate consequence"—more recently an "outrageous consequence". It should have come as no surprise, given that on the first day of Report on 8 June, when the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, replied (column 181 of Hansard) he warned us that there would be no extra money to fill the funding gap. It was an unfortunate consequence, but it was not one that we were not forewarned about before we chose to vote.
I was among those who voted against the amendment. I confess that I did not know what the bill would be—although I guessed that it would be considerable—but it had not crossed my mind that it was £180 million. That concerns me.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but he his talking as if the matter was an inevitable consequence. This problem only arises as a result of the Bill, which he has consistently supported. It is a little odd and inconsistent for him just to accept the Government's position, given what has been said in respect of other groups, such as part-timers, by other people who have taken a similar view.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I was not arguing about the merits of the figure, I was saying that it should not

1181
have come as a surprise, because we were forewarned by the Government that there would not be funding. That is a fact that can be cross-checked in Hansard.
The second reason that I voted against the original amendment was that I did not accept the principle that anyone who took more than three years should not make a contribution beyond three years—partly because the student going to university is not only concerned to gain a degree but to benefit from the experience of higher education. If a student is there for four years there are benefits, other than career benefits, that come from those four years.
A Noble Lord: No.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, noble Lords may disagree but it is a fact that people benefit from the experience of higher education in addition to obtaining a degree.
There is the matter of the £180 million. I voted against that amendment. I was very much in favour of avoiding any pre-emption or opportunism by the Chancellor in taking some of that £180 million, or, more accurately, the money that comes from fees, to reduce Exchequer contributions. But here the noble Lord is arguing that there should be a pre-emption of Exchequer resources to fill the funding gap that arises from the amendment.
7 p.m.
I want to raise two points. First, I do not think that the proposal would be effective because there would be nothing to stop the Chancellor taking out of the funding some other element that the higher education institutions were hoping to obtain. After all, the bid by Universities UK on behalf of the sector was about £8.7 billion for the three years. A great deal is being required but the money is simply not available to meet everything. Therefore, I do not think that the proposal would be effective.
However, if it were effective, I should not like the principle that the Chancellor, in deciding how he was to use the money that he was prepared to make available for education, should be able to pre-empt that £180 million, regardless of the claims of other sectors in higher education. Perhaps I may advance the cause of those who have special educational needs or advocate the cause of those who come from disadvantaged communities.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is correct in saying that the money is simply not there, why are we trying to educate more students than there is the money for?
Lord Dearing: My Lords, that is one reason why I believe the Government are right to seek a contribution from students, as that would enable that to happen.
I shall continue briefly. We have, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been leading us into, a repeat of the Second Reading debate on the basic principles. I am saying that the Chancellor should not make financial allocations other than on the basis of
1182
what is most to the national advantage—that is, on behalf of all the people of this country at all levels. In taking that decision, he must think about, for example, the very early years, children with special educational needs and lifelong learning. He must consider a range of issues in principle. First, I do not believe that the proposal would be effective and, secondly, it is wrong in principle.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when we discussed this matter on the previous occasion, I suggested that the Minister should look at what was happening north of the Border. The same Chancellor, the Member of Parliament for Dunfermline, is funding the Scottish Parliament so that it can pay fees over the basic length of a degree course in Scotland, which is four years. That is how the courses are funded.
I do not think that on this issue the Scottish Executive thought, "Here's a pot of money and we must fit into it", in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, seem to think must happen. That is not how it works. This is a government policy to charge fees, which will be paid back after graduation. The question is whether medical education, architectural education and so on matter enough to ensure that students are not put off going into those areas. The system has worked in Scotland. Medical education in, for example. Dundee University is flourishing, but students there pay for only four years of their course; the rest is paid for by the Scottish Executive, and the same Chancellor has agreed to that.
Therefore, I think that it is wrong for us to defend the Government on the issue of a pot of money. They can talk like that if they wish and try to make us realistic. Everyone has to be realistic. But if a government have a policy, they must fund it and they must find the money from somewhere else. That has happened in Scotland; why should it not happen here?
My noble friend is right to move the amendment. I believe that we were wrong to agree to the amendment on the previous occasion without the necessary funding being available. I said that the Minister should look to Scotland to see how it was done. We understood perfectly what we were doing but it was necessary to have this additional amendment. We now have it and I hope that the Government will agree to it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I recognise the passion with which noble Lords have spoken on this issue. I must correct something that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. He said that the problem arose only as a result of the Bill. In fact, the amendment would prevent all fees. That includes not only an increase in fees; it removes the prospect of the additional income and also the income that higher education institutions receive today. Therefore, it is a different matter, and I would argue that it does not only arise from the Bill because, in that context, we take away all fees for higher education institutions.
It might make the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, smile to hear me say that the amendment is defective because Amendment No. 2 was not agreed to. Amendment No. 15 refers to Section 27(1)(d), which does not exist.

1183
I shall resist the temptation to go down the route of discussing the whole principle behind the Bill because I feel that I have already discussed that at great length. I recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said regarding the option that she put before your Lordships of additional taxation in order to fulfil the promise to universities. I have argued—I hope coherently—the case for saying that the purpose of government is to make rational choices with the money available. I have also argued that universities are important to us but that we need to think creatively about funding all the important aspects of our lives.
I have noted, too, the Conservative Party's latest proposal concerning endowments. From the figures that I have been given, I understand that £38 billion would be required to be invested in order to raise the necessary money. However, I do not want to go down that route now because I think that we debated that issue at great length. The Bill before the House is what we as a government believe is the best way forward for higher education, putting responsibilities where responsibilities should lie. I believe that that is very important.
I do not accept the argument that students are deterred. Because of the support that we have put in place in the Bill, we believe that students will be able to make the right kind of choices in relation to the courses that they take up, and they can benefit in making those choices. We are very keen to see students do that in the right context. That is important.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, and I do not wish to prolong matters. However, can she answer the point obliquely alluded to by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, who I think was talking about the position of Scottish students in Scotland? I know that the Minister's response to that will be that that is a matter for the Scottish Executive. But can she explain to the House the difference between what is proposed and what I understand the Government are doing now? Currently, students from England go to Scotland for a four-year honours degree—in Scotland, the honours degree lasts for four years, whereas in England it lasts for three years. The Government—the Minister's department—pay the Scottish Executive for the fourth year completed by the English student in Scotland. I am finding it difficult to understand where the problem lies with regard to the amendment, given that that precedent has already been established.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the precedent is set under the Quigley arrangements, and I know that there is a recommendation before the Scottish Executive to continue with that. The answer to the noble Lord is very simple: the norm in Scotland is that it takes four years to complete what we, in England, would regard as a traditional undergraduate course. That arrangement—I cannot answer if the noble Lord is bantering with me; it is very difficult to hear what he is saying—was put in place because the two courses are comparable. A three-year
1184
undergraduate course in England equates to a four-year undergraduate course in Scotland. I do not mean that that is the case in terms of quality, and so on—I do not wish to raise issues concerning the wonderful Scottish higher education system. I am simply saying that that is the logic behind the arrangement and the Scottish Executive makes the necessary funds available. A four-year-plus course in England—whether it is a sandwich course, a modern languages course, including time spent abroad, or a course in architecture, veterinary surgery, and so on—is different.
It is not a case of saying that the Treasury has told me to say certain things—
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, therefore, is my noble friend saying that the first year at a Scottish university in no way equates with a foundation year in a four-year English university course?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am saying precisely what I have just said. The norm within Scotland is that an undergraduate degree is completed within four years. The norm within England is that an undergraduate degree is completed in three years. The reason that the fourth year is paid for is that the two courses are comparable. My contention is that it is quite different from a situation where a degree course lasts for four years either because that course needs to be longer—that is, it is a course in medicine or architecture and so on—or because the nature of the course is different, such as a modern foreign language course which includes a year abroad. That is all that I am saying in this context.
The figure that I have been given for the amount of money that that equates to is between £130 million and £180 million. It is hard to be precise, but that is what I understand the cost to be. I am clear that there is one pot of government money, and we can all agree on that. It is not a question of whether it is for higher education, but that there is an amount of money available to the Exchequer from its entire works across government. The noble Lord will know well that decisions about funding are made within that.
The Department for Education and Skills recognises that we have had very generous settlements from government and that this matter will fall to the next settlement. However, it is my responsibility on the department's behalf to make clear, as I did through my noble friend Lord Triesman on Report, the consequences we foresee of the generosity we have already had from the Exchequer. We contend that although we expect further generosity, none the less there will be implications for higher education of this change, not only in additional fees but in the fees that universities charge today. It will be of that order. I think that I must put that responsibility before the House.
I consistently have said throughout the passage of the Bill that the two things I seek to avoid on behalf of universities are top slicing and taking away their freedoms. The difficulty I have with what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, sought to do in his previous amendments, which your Lordships accepted, and with this amendment, is that I believe we run into both items.

1185
The amendment provides for top slicing because it requires the funds to be paid by the funding council, so there will automatically be a top-slicing operation. Because that takes away the private contribution universities would lose out. I also believe that we would have to create bureaucracy in order to take money out of higher education and then put it back in a slightly different place.
So I contend—and as I have said already, it is up to another place to determine what it wishes to do about the amendments already passed by your Lordships—that the implication is that the sector may well find itself losing resources, not only because of the additional moneys we hope to raise through fees, but also because of the fees currently made available to universities.
I do not believe that it would be right to say other than that. That is the position I want to put before your Lordships' House. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. I do not believe it adds to what I understand the noble Lord wishes to achieve. It has serious implications for universities and the impacts would be as I have said.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. It may well be that we would not wish to be where we are. But where we are is that the amendment was passed on Report. I see the merits of it and I agree with the résumé by my noble friend Lord Forsyth that students in the fourth year and above of a first degree course are absolved from the burden of paying fees after the third year.
So the question is: who pays? The noble Baroness was very clear on her cause and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, was almost clearer. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, was less clear. She saw the problems but did not clarify exactly where she would vote or where indeed she will vote. Perhaps that will be very interesting to observe.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that he was not the only person to see the potential consequences of the amendment on Report. In Hansard of 8 June, col. 180, he will see that I mentioned that I had tabled Amendment No. 14 but did not move it, which would have had consequences similar to those that I propose now. That was why I did not go through the Lobbies in support of my noble friend's amendment. So the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, was not the only one who foresaw the problem.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has a view of the Treasury which is almost as sacrosanct, though less understandably perhaps, as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. He points out to us with prescience, that there is nothing to stop the Chancellor—he did not use the word—"fiddling" the books; in other words, meeting this and taking the resources from elsewhere in the higher education sector. So I take the point.
The noble Lord went on to say—and I think I quote him accurately—that, "There just isn't the money and the money is not available". That is the same point as
1186
the noble Baroness made. But that is a matter for decision by the Government. It is exactly what we are debating; and it is the purpose of the amendment. If carried, I hope the amendment will strengthen the hand of the noble Baroness when she goes to the Treasury and says, as she would have to, "Look, we have a problem here".
Also I have taken some advice. The amendment contains the negative clause,
"but for the provisions of sections 24(1)(d) or 27(1)(d)".
I do not believe that the amendment is defective, although I accept that the reference to Section 27(1)(d) is no longer necessary. I think that the amendment is intelligible and not defective, although that phrase could certainly be dropped, as I hope it would be, in a tidying up procedure.
Your Lordships have heard the arguments. I still find it an arrogance—I must be careful; I must not say that word looking at the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, because I used another disagreeable word and had to withdraw it at an earlier stage of our proceedings—to say that the money is not there. The money is not there because the Government are not putting it there. That is the central problem with the Bill. That is why many of us in this House are distinctly dissatisfied and why I feel it is necessary to test the opinion of the House.
7.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

McNally, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Maddock, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Caithness, E.

Mar, C.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B. [Teller]

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Colwyn, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Noakes, B.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

Northesk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Fookes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Peel, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Garden, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. [Teller]

Glenarthur, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Roper, L.

Howe, E.

Russell, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Laird, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lindsay, E.

Selborne, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Selsdon, L.

Luke, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lyell, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

1187

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Walmsley, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Tope, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Waddington, L.

Windlesham, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Andrews, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jones, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bach, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bhattacharyya, L.

Levy, L.

Billingham, B.

Lipsey, L.

Borrie, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bragg, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brookman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Burns, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter of Coles, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Chandos, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mitchell, L.

David, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Dearing, L.

Palmer, L.

Dixon, L.

Parekh, L.

Donoughue, L.

Patel, L.

Dubs, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Portsmouth, Bp.

Quirk, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Radice, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Filkin, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Rea, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gale, B.

Rooker, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gilbert, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Golding, B.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grantchester, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Grenfell, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Triesman, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Turnberg, L.

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Haskins, L.

Varley, L.

Hayman, B.

Walpole, L.

Henig, B.

Warner, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hollick, L.

Whitty, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wilkins, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Wilson of Dinton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.26 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, before calling the next amendment I should point out that the line reference for this amendment has been incorrectly printed. It should read, "page 19, line 30".
Clause 38 [Provision of information]:
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 19, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) If so requested by the governing body of a relevant institution in relation to which an approved plan is in force, the Higher Education Funding Council for England must provide that institution with any information which is in its possession and is reasonably required to enable the institution to inform its students about the level of publicly provided resource for each category of course offered at that institution, and about the level that would have been available had the level of publicly provided resource for that category of course in the previous year been uprated by an index of higher education institution costs."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief; I expect that we need that by now.
At present, Clause 28(4) provides that any fees paid by students will be additional to and not in substitute for public funding. The Government opposed this amendment, and it may well be removed when the Bill returns to the Commons.
On Report, I moved but then withdrew an amendment to ensure that any reductions in funding for teaching were matched by proportionate reductions in student numbers. The Minister objected that such an amendment would require the Higher Education Funding Council for England to control student numbers more tightly than it does at present. The Government may also have opposed the amendment precisely because it would have made it explicit that reductions in public funding mean that, for any given level of fee, either numbers of places must be reduced or quality of provision must be lowered. That is the truth of the matter.
At this stage I wish to move a weaker amendment; that is why it relates to a different part of the Bill. Its aim is only to ensure transparency about levels of public funding for university teaching and courses of different categories.
On Report the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, supported the amendment that I had moved, pointing out the degree of transparency that it would achieve. He said:
"The Government will understand fully the implications of what they do, and that is good for good government. Taxpayers will understand why universities must be supported: they are not a bottomless pit of energy and talent that can be milked and milked. Students, their parents and sponsors will understand why, in the current situation, fees are necessary and they will see what they get for those fees. Finally, also in terms of transparency, universities will know what is expected of them, they will know what the resource is and they will be able to make proper plans over a foreseeable future".—[Official Report, 8/6/04; col. 251.]
Those are aims with which all of us can agree. I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment. The amendment would secure a degree of transparency. It allows taxpayers to know the extent to which students on courses in different categories are supported from public funds. It allows students and

1189
their families to know how far the costs of their education are met by their fees and how far by public funding. It allows universities to make a secure case for any fee they charge. It also allows them all to know if public funding is reduced or increased in real terms. In the past, the unit of resource for university teaching has very often been reduced by an adequate suppositious uprating of funding at less than the rate of increase of university costs, labelling the resulting gap in funding and efficiency gain, and in effect meeting the shortfall at the expense of students, who received less teaching, and academic staff, whose level of pay was eroded.
It would at least help to be clear about those matters. The amendment does not add to the burdens on universities. It neither requires nor allows HEFCE to exert more precise control of numbers admitted or of their distribution across categories of courses. It does not determine which index of university costs—whether the higher education pay and prices index or another index—should be used. That would be a matter for HEFCE in consultation with the sector. Universities that find the funds to admit more students, despite any future reduction in public funding per student, would remain free to do so. However, I think that students, their parents, universities and the public would be able to see what was going on. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, on what she has said and for exploring the complexities that will be part of all our discussions on the unit of resource. We will ensure that the Government stand by their commitment that the income from fees will be additional, and if necessary that they must be made to stand by it.
What the noble Baroness has sought to do in her amendment is already possible. The information referred to here is at least in part already publicly available. Institutions can use a measure—it is a Universities UK measure, but it is produced by the London School of Economics—called the HEPPI index, the higher education pay and prices index.
However, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness touches on an important point. While I do not think that the Bill should be amended in the way that she suggests, it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate that the retail price index does not give an accurate measure of inflation in the higher education sector. While the Minister may not be prepared to accept that the HEPPI is the only possible, or even the right measure, perhaps as part of our discussions on the definition of unit funding, which has already been agreed, we might discuss what an appropriate measure of inflation would be and arrange for that to be published annually.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I will be brief. I had hoped that my name would appear alongside those of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on the
1190
Marshalled List. I had asked for it to be so, but a slip up in the Public Bill Office meant that it was not so. I had an apology this morning to that effect.
We support this amendment, because it adds to transparency. There is already ambiguity as to what constitutes unit funding, and it would be useful to clear that up. There is also ambiguity as to what price index is used when we have real figures as distinct from those on current terms. On all scores, and for the reasons already set out splendidly by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, we support this amendment.
Lord Wilson of Dinton: My Lords, I also support the amendment. It will be fair for students, who are already going to be expected to contribute to their education, to know what the Government are going to contribute. That transparency is very much in line with the openness that the Government want in many fields. I also point out—this may be some encouragement to the Government—that if, as we all hope, the Government are going to be much more generous to higher education in the future, it will be a good way of indicating to people in higher education how their generosity is moving over time. I support it very much, and I hope that the Government will respond positively.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. The notion of transparency is admirable. I am enchanted by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, that it might bring us increasingly good news. On that happy thought, I warmly support it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, for the way in which she has identified the issues that are of concern to her. I know that the purpose behind this amendment is to look at the transparency around the amount of funding that the Government commit to higher education. This amendment is not necessarily the way to do it. Although I shall be brief, I hope that in doing so I shall reassure the noble Baroness.
I spoke to HEFCE this morning. It confirmed that it already provides extensive information to heads of higher education institutions, as my noble friend Lady Warwick pointed out, about their annual funding allocations, including information on the effects of inflation using the GDP deflator. The grant letter that it provides is around 50 pages long, plus annexes. I have a copy here, but I will resist the temptation to read from it. I cannot say that I have read every page—
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I hate to interrupt, but I remind the noble Baroness very gently that she is addressing the whole House, not just my noble friend Lady O'Neill. The Liberal Democrats are seeing only the back of her head.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is always my intention to move around the House, as I believe the noble Countess will see as she watches me in the course of this speech. I was addressing the noble

1191
Baroness, Lady O'Neill, and I shall move to address those who have spoken in this debate, as is my wont on every occasion—
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Baroness is not addressing those noble Lords who have spoken, she is addressing the House.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in doing so, I always attempt to be courteous. As I have indicated, there is the letter from HEFCE. Detailed information is available on how the higher institution block grant figures are arrived at, based on a combination of the expectations of the mix of courses that institutions provide. Of course, higher education bodies are autonomous and are free to use their overall block grant to fund provisions at they see fit. I say particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, that HEFCE is happy to provide additional details on request.
On Report, I took care to respond to the issues around additionality, which I know your Lordships' House feels strongly about, and our plans to work with Universities UK on such a definition. As I explained, we plan to publish the new definition in the departmental annual report, which is laid before Parliament in the usual way. We know that HEFCE has plans to carry out a further fundamental review of the funding method, to take into account the impact of variable fees. This will lead to further changes in due course.
I have a number of concerns about the practicalities of the amendment before us, because I do not think that it will be so straightforward to devise a new index—the index of higher education costs. To summarise, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that this amendment is unnecessary. HEFCE already provides regular annual information, and we are planning to develop a new definition of the unit of funding. Taken together, this will provide institutions with the clarity that they need about levels of public funding.
I am also concerned that we ensure that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, who has such an interest and expertise in this area, is able to do that. I offer the opportunity to bring the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, to discuss these issues with HEFCE, so that there can be absolute clarity about the way in which we are proposing to go forward. I should point out to my noble friend Lady Warwick that university costs are generally estimated by Universities UK to be higher year-on-year, as the noble Baroness will know, than the retail price index or the gross domestic product deflator. The amendment is unclear on which index to use. In our deliberations with HEFCE, we shall be concerned to ensure that consideration is given to how we might take forward the correct way of identifying the means of inflation.
In the context of recognising the work that HEFCE is already doing, the offer to discuss this further with the noble Baroness and to facilitate those
1192
conversations, and our continuing work with Universities UK to identify the transparency that noble Lords want, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I am grateful in many respects for that reply. I was interested in the shift in the course of the Minister's reply from an emphasis on the amount of information that HEFCE discloses to the clarity of the information that it discloses. These are rather different considerations.
One of the concerns that lay behind our amendment is that institutions should be able to make apparent to students the extent to which their education is being paid for by the public purse and to what extent it is covered by their fees. I have in mind, for example, a student taking a course of study which includes a bit of laboratory work. It is not a simple matter for any student, or their family or their sponsors, to answer that question from the scads of information that HEFCE produces.
If the noble Baroness can assure me that this issue of firm, communicable information on an annual basis for category of course is the objective of this review, then I would consider withdrawing the amendment. If, however, it is simply the development of a new index—and I was very careful not to tie the Government's hand to one index or another—then I think I would consider dividing the House. I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is my understanding that we would look to do that. I will try and be as firm in my commitment to the noble Baroness as I can. My only hesitation in being absolute is to make sure that when the noble Baroness joins us—it is to be hoped—in discussions with HEFCE she will feel confident that the way in which the work is undertaken—and, indeed, the work with Universities UK, which I am sure will also wish to join in the discussions—will cover that issue properly. I can commit to the underlying issues behind the amendment being addressed fully by the ongoing work. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I have listened carefully and, on that basis, it should be possible to work something out that would provide a degree of comfort and information which would be useable by students and their families, not merely by the finance departments of universities and HEFCE. These are vital figures for students, and quite vital politically. On the understanding that this is one of the objectives of the exercise, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Commencement]:
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 25, line 14, at end insert—
"section (Review of decisions made by relevant authority), so far as relating to England;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In moving the Motion, I wish to say a few words of thanks to noble Lords who have given so much time to the Bill and have spoken during its passage through your Lordships' House. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Triesman, whose detailed understanding of the higher education sector has been immensely helpful.
I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that while I regret the circumstances of the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, it has been a pleasure to work with him. I have been impressed by the noble Lord's knowledge and understanding of the issues and, while we have differed in our views in some respects, we have shared a genuine commitment to the autonomy of the sector, with a special regard to academic freedom.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has, as always, played an important part in our debates, and I thank her for her constructive approach. I am particularly pleased that we have been able to accommodate a number of the amendments of the noble Baroness, where she has characteristically been supporting the views of groups such as the RNIB and SKILL, and also dealing with part-time student matters.
Sometimes we have disagreed on the Front Benches, but debate has never been less than thoughtful and courteous. Other noble Lords have contributed greatly, and I will resist the temptation to name them all at this time. I am extremely grateful to everybody who has spoken.
I want to end by giving my thanks to the Bill team. They have been fantastic. They have good sense and high intellect, and it has been a privilege to work with them.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I have no wish to detain the House, but I want to say a few words of thanks to my colleagues and noble friends Lady Seccombe and Lord Skelmersdale. At the risk of destroying her future ministerial career, I also want to pay tribute to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, for the very positive way they have dealt with the amendments and probing which we have tried to carry out in the proceedings on the Bill.
I do not know if I am giving away any secrets in saying that there has also been a lot of time spent behind the scenes, arguing the case. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the way in which she has been prepared to listen to argument and to help us in trying to reach agreement.
1194
This House is sometimes portrayed as being asleep and not doing much. One need only compare the consideration of the Bill in the other place with that given here, where the Government have agreed to important amendments in respect of OFFA, appeals and part-time students. I hope that we will not have finished with the consideration by the Commons of other matters that have come forward.
At the risk of causing difficulty to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, I offer her my thanks. We are in different parties, but we have tried to work in the interests of the universities and higher education institutions, as we see them. The noble Baroness has been a pleasure to work with. I have rather enjoyed the experience, but I have no intention of repeating it.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for the consideration and good humour with which she has dealt with the Bill. There were occasions on which our positions were diametrically opposite, but there was always a feeling that there was a degree of understanding of where we were coming from. I find that encouraging.
I reciprocate the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. It is very sad that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not in her place. I suspect that, had she been there, we would have spent many long hours on the Bill and, perhaps, considered more amendments than we have done. In some senses, we might have done a slightly more thorough job on occasions. Nevertheless, we have done a very good job, and it has been a pleasure to work together in this way.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland, who came in at the last moment to help me to cope with the Bill. I am extremely grateful to him.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I do not want to preach a premature funeral oration, but, on behalf of those of us on these Benches and others, I add my thanks for the way in which the Minister has responded to no end of approaches and the way in which she has listened. Although she was unable to work in our concern to have a statement of the values of higher education because of lawyers and litigation, I look forward to a future opportunity to explore that theme in another way in the House.
I am sure that I speak for many others when I say, "Thank you very much". It has been fascinating to watch not just the "Punch and Judy" show of Forsyth and Ashton but the triad involving the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, as well—and, occasionally, to take part in it.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Business of the House: Children Bill [H.L.]
7.47 p.m.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that further consideration on Report of the Children Bill should be postponed until after the Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Waste Management Policy (EUC Report)
7.48 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne The Earl of Selborne rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Report of the European Union Committee on European Union Waste Management Policy (47th Report, HL Paper 194), what steps they are taking to improve the development and implementation of European Union waste legislation.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my Question refers to European Union waste management policy and specifically draws attention to the report by the Select Committee on the European Union that came out last year. I had the privilege of chairing Sub-Committee D, which drafted the report.
It must be recognised that European Union waste management policy has not been an easy area of legislation for this country to wrestle with. We found that often we failed to influence the debate and from time to time had difficulty implementing the legislation in a timely and effective way. One need only think of the approaching deadline for the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and of the End-of-life Vehicle Directive and the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. All have caused great difficulty, and we must learn some of the lessons.
One of the documents that we scrutinised was a European Commission document that suggested a thematic approach. The document is called Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and the Recycling of Waste. We welcomed at least part of that thematic approach because it appeared to open the possibility of a sudden change in direction on EU waste strategy, which we felt was much needed. The report states:
"Current Directives foresee that all Member States should achieve the same recycling rates. However, the question is legitimate whether this uniformity in targets is most effective from both an environmental and economic point of view".
That goes right to the heart of the current problem with the EU approach of one solution fits all, which we found to be fundamentally flawed when trying to implement across Europe. In summary, we found that there was inadequate scrutiny by national Parliaments and by the European Parliament. We found that there were imprecise definitions of what is waste, which leads to different interpretations in member states. We found a lack of adequate baseline data, which made impact assessments of present and future legislation inadequate. There was a lack of impact assessments on
1196
amendments by the European Parliament and by the expert committee, the Technical Adaptation Committee. There was most uneven reporting by member states.
At the UK level, we recognised a lack of involvement in developing national strategic thinking by those best suited to contribute. We always seem to be overtaken by events. It was rather discouraging to find that the Environment Agency complained that it did not have an adequate opportunity to contribute to legislation in its formative stage. Certainly, that was true of the waste industry, which felt that it could be much better employed as part of the consultation process. We heard the same from local authorities.
A second fault at the United Kingdom level identified our failure to implement EU legislation in a timely way. That has been fully dealt with by the Better Regulation Task Force. At this stage, I would endorse its recommendations for project planning. We felt that the third area of United Kingdom failure was a lack of adequate co-ordination within government. We made proposals for how Defra and the DTI might work more effectively together.
To return to the areas of concern, the Technical Adaptation Committee (TAC) is meant to be an expert committee which should not be involved in determining policy. It should certainly not be left to conclude matters that are fundamental to the delivery of policy. However, on taking an example such as the landfill directive, industry found itself having to determine what class of waste it should handle before definitions had been determined about what was and what was not included as hazardous. That is a completely inappropriate use of a technical committee. It is impossible to decide how to invest in infrastructure until precise directions are given from the European Union about what should go into it.
The timing of the TAC deliberations was most unhelpful. Currently, we have the electronic equipment directive. The decision process took more than 2.5 years, so one really cannot say that there was any need for a rush. But here we have UK transposition required by August 2004 and the details of the TAC and its deliberations are still emerging on the DTI website. However, it is an advance at least to have a DTI website which is publishing those deliberations. That was not the case for earlier EU waste recommendations. We made a very firm recommendation that substantive definitions accepting the operation of the directive should be decided at policy level and not at expert level.
As regards definitions, there must be consistency between the different directives about the definition of waste and other technical terms. We saw an overlap between directives; that is, the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive and the Waste Framework Directive. As regards something like taking a battery out of a car, the industry was not clear whether that should be dealt with under the End of Life of Vehicles Directive, the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive, the Battery Directive or the

1197
Hazardous Waste Directive. How on earth can anyone plan sensibly to handle those materials if definitions are not agreed?
Turning to the lack of baseline data, there cannot be consistent legislation until one understands where one is starting from. Targets are quite meaningless if the data is suspect. The timetable for a proposed waste statistic regulation suggests that the first set of data will be available from the Commission in 2006, which will allow the assessment for trends by 2008. That makes quite problematical any future directives that may set targets.
Our firm belief is that we should resist setting further targets until we have got some robust data. In the United Kingdom, we should not wait for the European data, but we should try to generate some for ourselves in which we have some confidence.
The lack of impact assessments is a particularly worrying aspect. It is being addressed. The Battery Directive is subject to a pilot study, as well as the revision to the Groundwater Directive. We need to ensure that as amendments are moved by the European Parliament, they are subjected to impact assessments. As we have a proud record in this country, we should lead the way on that.
As regards who should collect the data in Europe, we felt that the European Environment Agency, as the main agency for collation of data, has a central role. It has the task of promoting awareness and producing reliable comparisons on the state of the environment across the European Union.
If we accept that the United Kingdom's influence on EU policy making has been less than impressive in the past, we must ensure that the Environment Agency, industry and local authorities are brought in at an early stage in deliberations. There is evidence, which comes through in the Government response to the report, that this has been taken in hand. Certainly, if the Better Regulation Task Force recommendations on project planning are accepted—as I believe they will be—by government, we will have a much more sensible approach. Co-ordination in Government needs to be led within Defra, which has a concordat with the Environment Agency. The DTI needs to do the same. We need a single website; we need to have one unit.
The example of the landfill directive and all the other waste directives to which I have referred in my short address demonstrates that we have most inadequate data, definitions and objectives. If we are to have anything like consistent implementation across Europe, now is the time for the European Commission to take a long, hard look at the effectiveness of regulations. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government should look at their own ability to transpose such directives into law in this country.
7.58 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for asking this Question today. I also express my gratitude for the way in which
1198
he chaired Sub-Committee D for quite a long time. It was a pleasure to work with him and I am sorry that he has gone. It has been a long time since this report was published. In fact, it is so long that I would have expected to see more results than those that have materialised.
Waste will always be with us, but there are measures that can be taken to manage it. Since 1975, the European Union has developed a waste management hierarchy that is based on prevention, reuse and recycling, energy recovery and final disposal. Disposal to landfill, used extensively in the UK, is seen as a last resort.
It is said, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". There is also a saying, "All talk and no do". If ever there was an organisation to which both those sayings might apply, it is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I know that the Minister will not like to hear me say that. As we deliberated the EU legislation on waste management, we were told constantly that groups of people were having talks or were consulting, both within the UK Government and with their European counterparts. No one seemed to be willing to take any firm decision about what action was required. No individual or even units within a particular department seemed to have been given responsibility for overall management of EU waste legislation. The result is a lack of leadership, accountability and direction from government to stakeholders. I look forward to hearing the results of the review being undertaken by the Cabinet Office. Can the noble Lord give any indication of how soon is "soon"?
The failure of Government to learn from past experience—dare I mention the word "fridges"?—to stop talking, to take a grip on the timing of the implementation of legislation and to do something about developing a comprehensive and consistent policy has led to a state of confusion among those responsible for the disposal of waste. Local authorities and others responsible for implementing the law are too often found to be unable to meet the practical requirements of EU legislation which our Government have endorsed simply because they have not been consulted at an early stage.
For example, with less than a month to go to the deadline for ending the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, I understand that only two sites have been licensed to take a wide range of hazardous waste, two that will take asbestos and one that will take contaminated soils, filter cakes and packaging. The Government and the Environment Agency have been accused of weakening the rules for toxic waste tips and for waste that can be categorised as fuel for cement kilns as a result of lobbying by the chemical industries.
Waste industry stakeholders are unhappy about the risks to the environment inherent in the interim rules which mean that the disposal of hazardous waste to landfill before the full EU standards are imposed in July 2005 may well create problems that will have to be dealt with at a later date. Their reluctance to offer sites

1199
for the disposal of hazardous waste is understandable in the face of the liabilities they are likely to have to accept.
There are also serious concerns about the fly-tipping of hazardous waste because of a lack of local facilities for smaller companies to dispose of small quantities of waste economically. Have these companies been told about the new rules? Have they been told what they must do with their hazardous waste? Have they been told what hazardous waste is?
That is just one example of the way things can go wrong because of a lack of understanding by central government of the practical implications that new legal requirements can create for organisations and individuals. The Government have been very much more communicative with stakeholders about the progress of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, but unfortunately they seem to have been hampered by forces beyond their control. In their response to the report, the Government said that they hope to transpose the directive by 13 August. Will this deadline also be missed?
I was pleased to read that the Government, in their response to the report, recognise the importance of reliable data across all waste streams as the basis for waste management policy formation, planning and investment decision making. Throughout our inquiry we were aware of the hampering effect that the lack of data had on those responsible for policy making, drafting legislation and implementing it. It seems extraordinary that, in all the years since the waste framework directive of 1975, no one seems to have faced the fact that such a vast body of legislation—and it is a vast body—affecting the whole of the EU population has been based on conjecture. No business would survive if it operated on that basis.
The Environment Agency has a pivotal role as the waste regulation authority for England and Wales. It was apparent at the time of our inquiry that the agency was not always as involved in decision making as it might have been, a point made by the noble Earl. I am pleased that the Government, in their response, acknowledge the importance of co-operation between Defra, the DTI and the agency. May I ask the Minister at what stage is the formal confirmation of the concordat between the agency and the DTI? I note, too, that the Government acknowledge the need for the agency to be properly resourced. How do they propose to ensure that the agency has sufficient staff, with the appropriate specialist skills, to enable it to be proactive in the early stages of policy development as well as to carry out its regulatory functions? The Government have already indicated that they are prepared to provide the funding.
A great deal of confusion still surrounds EU waste policy and legislation, much of which seems to emanate from the EU. We found little evidence to substantiate Defra and DTI claims that the UK Government were having a major influence in driving strategic thinking in EU waste policy. Is the Minister able to say how many of the recommendations of the
1200
Better Regulation Task Force have been implemented, and are the Government becoming proactive within the EU? I look forward to hearing his response.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, it is sad to think that after all the hard work that went into this report, it is very nearly eight months since it was published. On re-reading it, I had forgotten just how depressing the whole problem of waste is and is bound to become. I believe that waste disposal of any sort or kind, along with energy, are the two biggest problems facing the planet in the immediate future.
Like my noble friend Lady Mar, I too wish to pay tribute to the superb chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. Having served under him on Sub-Committee D for three years, I feel I have learned a great deal, for which I shall always be extremely grateful. We were also so ably served by our committee clerk, Mr Tom Radice, supported by the ever-helpful Marilyn Byatt.
Where this report is concerned, the lines of demarcation seem to be rather confused to say the least, as there are so many different bodies involved in each member state. Indeed, the problem of waste does not appear to come under a single European directive, but I accept that this is a most complex problem.
The noble Earl has succinctly covered most of the vital issues in our report. I think it is very worrying that 430 million tonnes of waste was generated in the United Kingdom last year and on all predictions that figure is probably going to rise by at least 4 per cent per annum in the foreseeable future. I think we must all agree that we are going to face serious problems about how to deal with it.
I do believe strongly that the fundamental and underlying factor about waste is that we must produce less of it in the first place. Mr Bird of Defra agreed this on page 77 in his oral evidence. Yet it was frightening that by his own admission, all we seem to do is discuss it, whereas we need to take firm action now, and not before it is too late.
I too was interested to read the Government's response to this report. I believe that we need to look afresh at our waste policy, and indeed that of all of the members of the European Union; we ought, for instance, to consolidate the 72 separate initiatives. I also believe that an improved investment incentive would help attract funding and a realistic commitment to build new waste management facilities.
The whole recycling policy needs to be re-examined. The Minister's right honourable friend Mr Meacher rightly said recently in a radio interview how pointless it is to make a 10-mile journey with empty bottles to have them recycled. This is, in many ways, the hub of the recycling debate and it is an important subject completely on its own.
As a farmer, I am all too aware that a change in policy or the growing of a new crop cannot just happen overnight and, likewise, waste facilities and all processing plants cannot just spring up at a moment's notice. I believe that the current legislation relating to

1201
waste management, together with mixed messages from government, whether it be central or local, are creating a climate of uncertainty; nobody is going to invest where there is a strong degree of uncertainty.
I believe that waste is the Cinderella of the nation's infrastructure and that time is running out, and fast. The report provides the Government and, indeed, the European Union with an ideal opportunity to take a fresh look at the whole problem. I hope they take it.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, member states can be grateful to the European Union for putting waste firmly on the agenda of every national government. Whether it has been done in the right way by issuing directives with good guidance on their implementation is another question. However, there is no doubt in my mind that, without a push from Europe, not nearly as much would have been done in any member state.
At the same time, every member state—including Britain—bears some responsibility for having too little dialogue with Europe about implementation at an earlier stage. I am grateful to Sub-Committee D for the report, which highlights some of the issues identified.
It is a problem that we should still be talking about "waste". We should change the terminology. I believe that in the report the representatives from the Local Government Association, among others, referred to "resource reuse". Calling it "waste" simply suggests that it should be thrown away.
A couple of years ago I attended a meeting in your Lordships' House with Members of the Indian Parliament. We were discussing the GAP agreement. They explained that, in their view, it was inappropriate for waste companies here to tender for municipal services there because they simply did not recognise that there was such a thing as waste. They simply saw it as resources that would be used in different ways. They did not believe that our waste disposal companies would see their problems in that light.
However, the waste industry here, as represented by Biffa and others, has come to see very clearly that we no longer have rubbish and waste but resources that must be divided up and reused. Very little of the material we are referring to is actually waste.
It is clearly identified in the report that the waste industry—I use the term in its widest sense—is far too divided in almost every way. We have collection authorities and disposal authorities; we have municipal waste, industrial waste, inert waste, clinical waste, hazardous waste and biodegradable waste. The way in which it has been divided historically has been very unhelpful. If we were to re-divide it into categories such as "easy to reuse", "difficult to reuse" and "impossible to reuse", it would be a constructive starting point. The categories would be difficult to unpick but it would be very helpful.
I notice that a new statutory instrument has recently been introduced into Parliament under the environmental protection landfill regulations 2004. The aim of this statutory instrument seems to be to
1202
reduce our current targets to something a little more achievable. Is the Minister aware of any other targets that will need to be reduced in a similar way? Does he believe that the kind of redefinition I have suggested would be helpful?
I declare an interest as a Somerset county councillor. It is difficult for local authorities to get the message across that this is a much wider issue than simply recycling one's bottles, cans and paper. A good start has been made by many local authorities on recycling domestic waste, but as we know—and this was clearly underlined in the report—this is simply the tip of the iceberg. We need a whole life-cycle approach and we are miles away from that at the moment, which we can see from the abandoned car figures alone. I realise that the end of life directive may start to have an effect, but the attitude of the public and small and medium-sized enterprises is still that it is difficult to see what we can do with things that are not categorised in the simple way of paper, cans and bottles.
Another difficulty with the more sophisticated approach is that the Government have resisted a comprehensive labelling scheme to give an idea of the length of life that members of the public should expect from various items. The Minister will remember that I have raised this matter with him before. The Government have made some commitments, and the Minister quoted domestic appliances as a good example of energy-saving labelling. Nevertheless, there is nothing to indicate their expected length of life except for the guarantee. Unless one takes out an extended warranty, one does not know whether one's fridge should have lasted for five years when in fact it lasted only for three and will become part of the fridge mountain.
Along with energy labelling that shows how much energy is consumed while the appliance is running, there should also be labelling showing the level of embedded energy—the energy taken to make the appliance and dispose of it. That should be included for every single item of a substantial size that we buy. That would be a positive step that the public could expect from the Government. The public could then see exactly what sort of disposal problem would arise from the purchase of such products.
The Government should also address the change in attitude needed with regard to the constant wish to renew office equipment and fittings, internal shop fittings and domestic kitchens. A whole industry is built around the constant renewal of items. That emphasis must change. Again, the problem may he addressed by labelling that shows how long things last, but the problem has not been sufficiently addressed by the landfill tax, which has not proved effective to date in reducing this fashion for the constant renewal of perfectly adequate items.
What is being done about inert waste from the construction industry and soil, which is still proving to be far too large an element of that—I am not talking about contaminated soil—which is considered to be waste? It should not be such a problem to reduce the volume of such waste. Also, what is the position with

1203
regard to liquid waste? I understood that provisions had been phased out in 2001. I wonder whether the Environment Agency and others are still finding that there is a problem with people disposing of liquid waste in illegal ways.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House owes a considerable debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Selborne and Sub-Committee D of the European Union Select Committee for their work in creating this report and for making sure that this debate takes place. How fortunate it is that it did not happen yesterday. Yesterday, we had a Statement on the EU Summit. With a great fanfare, the success of Europe moving forward was trumpeted. The United Kingdom was at its heart. This wonderful edifice was to be all-singing and all-dancing and would improve the world. Today, we deal with this report, and find that that whole wonderful edifice cannot even run a waste tip. That discovery would really rather have tarnished the bright shine on yesterday's events. What a difference a day makes.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that the effect of the European Union in waste matters has been that of a catalyst, in that at least things are happening. But she is too pessimistic when she says that things would not have happened without the European Union. It was clear many years ago that we could not go on as we were, because landfill sites were simply disappearing too fast. I declare a sort of indirect historic interest, in that Essex at one time used to take 37 per cent of London's domestic refuse for disposal.
I agree with the noble Baroness's concept of resource reuse, which is something we need to consider very seriously. We need to change our attitudes in that regard.
I recall when the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill went through this House, which, again, implemented an EU directive—in, I believe, about 1990. We were immensely concerned that that Bill was simply enabling legislation that would be wholly dependent on regulations, and that the meaning of the Bill would be obscure, not to say totally hidden. The process was heavily criticised, and I wish that we had had this report before we dealt with that Bill. It would have helped the process enormously, and the Bill would have had to be enacted in a much better form.
This report reveals that the process by which European directives are arrived at is deeply flawed. There is inadequate research, so directives are not even consistent with the definitions in their predecessors. One cannot run any waste disposal business with that sort of problem. My noble friend Lord Selborne has already mentioned batteries, which are subject to four different directives, each with a separate way of dealing with one specific problem. That is no way to run a business.
Paragraph 25 of the report says that,
"Member States sometimes agreed to Directives without fully understanding their scope".
1204
That is not surprising if the process under which the directives were established was flawed. That comment is only part of a damning paragraph, and is capped in paragraph 29, which states:
"The Government were thus in a position of having signed up to legislation without knowing the practical implications; while landfill operators were faced with significant uncertainty and confusion about what the law required".
If we are supposed to be at the heart of Europe, I begin to understand why there is antipathy and bored frustration in the electorate, as was revealed in the elections only 10 days ago.
We cannot deal with all the problems that are highlighted in the report. There are certainly issues on the European side that the report highlights and which, I hope, the European Union administration will take note of. Not the least of our problems in debating this report is that the Minister cannot be held in any way responsible for dealing with that side of the business. All that he can be held responsible for is responding to what I would call the United Kingdom side of the report. However, I would ask him to say something about what is happening in Brussels as a result of the report.
It is clear that one cannot formulate policy without adequate data on what is happening in the first place. Without adequate data, one cannot do a regulatory impact assessment—and without a regulatory impact assessment, one cannot formulate proposals that are likely to produce the effect that one desires. So we have a fundamental problem on the other side of the Channel.
However, at paragraph 84 we see that, on this side of the Channel,
"the Government do not provide convincing evidence of a strategic approach to … waste policy … Currently it appears that the Government's position is essentially reactive".
If we are at the heart of Europe, and all we are doing is reacting, then the heart is not beating very strongly.
At paragraphs 105 and 106, we see that divided departmental responsibility is inhibiting a co-ordinated response to European initiatives. This is a problem that we can do something about. I acknowledge that, in response to the report, a review is being undertaken by a Cabinet committee. This has already been touched on by other members of the committee. It will be very interesting to hear when that report will be published and, more importantly, if it will be implemented when it is published. I know that that is anticipating a great deal but we need action to be taken.
It is very easy to say that this report is unhelpful but that would be completely wrong. It is immensely helpful because it is criticism with a purpose. The purpose is very simple: it is to improve the whole area of waste disposal policy and legislation and the way we handle the issue. The ball is now in the Government's court and I am grateful to my noble friend for the part that he has played in putting it there. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for initiating this debate and, more importantly, for chairing the committee that did such stalwart work in this respect. Just to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I was certainly not going to say that the report was unhelpful. Indeed, the tone of the Government's response will show that we found it a very positive report. Although it has pointed out a few significant problems about discussions at the UK level and European level, the Government can accept the general messages of the report, by and large. Therefore, we are extremely grateful.
The Government do take the issue of waste management very seriously. I do not think it is true that, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, we are sending mixed messages, either on waste prevention and minimisation or on the way in which we deal with waste. But, to address the unusually political point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it is true that there has to be a European dimension to this. We need a coherent Europe-wide approach to waste management. We need to engage with the other member states, as well as with the European institutions, because the environmental impacts of waste management go wider than one country and because markets in waste are international. If there is no EU co-ordination of waste management policy, we run the risk of a "race to the bottom", which is in nobody's interest.
As the report rightly acknowledges, we also need to ensure that the European Union policy is holistic and adopts a strategic approach. In developing and implementing individual directives, we need to follow that holistic approach and to ensure that it is done as cost-effectively as possible. Given the large number of European directives that there have been—some overlapping, as the noble Earl indicated—that is one of the reasons why we support the principles of the communication from the Commission, Towards a Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling. We regard that as a major step forward. Both the communication and the UK Government's response look right across the piece and we need to develop that thematic strategy. It is not just the United Kingdom Government who strongly support that, although we are one of the leading proponents; many of our EU partners do as well.
The UK is very actively participating in discussions that will lead to conclusions at the Environment Council meeting at the end of the month, and those conclusions will steer the Commission's policy from then on. So I do not think we need fear that the United Kingdom is not playing a leading part in the discussions. Whatever the criticisms of past performance in that respect, we are helping the development of future EU policy. Meanwhile the United Kingdom is participating in those negotiations.
1206
In the past, we have often been in the lead in practice. We supported and were senior proponents of the development of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, the End of Life Vehicles Directive and the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. In particular, we tried to ensure that those were delivered in the most cost-effective way. Although we had a variable degree of success, I think that, without the UK intervention, many of those would have been less cost effective and more of a problem for industry.
We would say that the WEEE directive has been a particular success. The UK is the first member state actively to draw up technical guidance for industry to follow on final treatment. In fact, the UK has been asked if the guidance can be used to steer discussion of an informal technical adaptation committee subgroup so as to harmonise the approach with other member states. We are therefore in the lead on that.
I need, however, to deal with a number of criticisms and points made by the committee and in this debate. The noble Earl rightly referred to the Better Regulation Task Force and the action undertaken there. Although it is still early days in some ways, the Government are following through many of the task force's recommendations. Certainly we in Defra hope that those principles run through our approach to both UK and European regulations.
There were comments on the need to engage the Environment Agency more at the European level. I think it is very important that the Environment Agency is involved at the technical level and in policy discussions. We certainly see the need for it to operate fully with Defra, for which the concordat provides. Although the DTI has always accepted the principle of that concordat, we now accept that that needs to be put more formally. We are developing that procedure as well.
I believe that engagement with stakeholders in the UK has improved substantially. There is also better regulation, as the committee requested, between central and local authorities. That is a complex issue and a broad problem that we have debated at various points in various legislation relating to waste management and other local authority powers. Although it is not always easy to see the best way through, it is very important to ensure that progress is made.
The waste implementation programme, for example, provides a strong and direct interface with local government on a full range of waste management delivery measures. The local authority support unit has launched a new portal for all local authorities so they can all have access to case studies, best practice, practical toolkits and so forth. That has been a result of engagement between central and local government.
A number of concerns on specifics were expressed in the debate. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred to the position on hazardous waste and whether there is adequate provision to deal with such waste. It would be wrong to suggest that the capacity to landfill hazardous waste will cease to be available in July.

1207
When co-disposal ends as a result of the directive, merchant landfills will continue to accept hazardous waste and they will have a capacity to accept more than 1 million tonnes per annum. We expect that up to 15 merchant sites and 10 in-house sites will be able to do so. So I think that the numbers referred to by the noble Countess and in the media are a serious underestimate.
While that amount—1 million tonnes—is less than the historic level of hazardous waste, which is closer to 2 million tonnes, there are strong indications that the annual capacity will be sufficient to meet the need for a number of reasons: additional disposal sites will come on stream; we are clearing contaminated soils prior to the ban and therefore the demand is likely to reduce and, of course, there is on-site remediation, which we would encourage to a large extent. Many of the industries see that, far from causing a problem, the end of co-disposal will help them in terms of their on-site management.
A number of procedural issues were dealt with in the report. The Government fully accept the need to strengthen the regulatory impact assessment. We are pleased that the institutional agreement on better lawmaking has now been ratified. We are strongly supportive of the carrying out of impact assessments prior to the adoption of substantive legislative proposals. We are pushing the Commission in that general direction. It is also very important that the RIA gives rather more details than some of the European RIAs have done hitherto, even where they have been carried out.
I refer to responsibilities within government. Clearly, major responsibilities rest with Defra and the Environment Agency. Others—certainly sponsorship of the industry—rest largely with the DTI. Planning issues lie with the ODPM.
The Government are currently considering options for improving the co-ordination of interdepartmental responsibilities in response to the Strategy Unit report, Waste Not, Want Not, and the recommendations of the report that we are discussing.
I cannot give a clearer definition of "soon" except to say that my brief says "shortly" rather than soon. However, I do not suppose that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is any the clearer for that. We shall not need to wait too long but beyond that I cannot give a clear date. Other decisions which were part of the recommendations such as the single website would be dependent on a decision regarding any reorganisation of government but in the mean time we have made significant improvements in relation to the current websites, principally the Defra website.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked a number of questions about the position regarding waste from the construction industry. The mineral planning system and the aggregate levy on that are designed to reduce the increase of raw aggregates and increase recycling of demolition waste. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked whether the transposition date for the WEEE
1208
directive would be met. While major progress has been made on WEEE, the 13 August date will not be met despite our having extremely productive steering discussions both at UK and European level. The aim now is to transpose the directive completely by the end of the year.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to the batteries directive, as did a number of other noble Lords, and the number of directives that impinge on batteries. The Government have learnt from previous waste directives. We are working very hard with other member states to ensure that definitions are clarified at the earliest opportunity and that the duplication and overlap of recommendations relating to batteries are resolved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the definition of waste and whether we should look at material specific definitions or the conceptual definitions that she proposed. Some of these definitions are partly determined by EU legislation. The Commission is looking at material specific recycling targets and so forth that begin to address the issues of how much each material can be used. However, I am not sure that the other structure of definitions is yet being considered at European level.
Many points were made about data collection. We agree broadly with the need to improve data collection. We are working on that in order to report in line with our European obligations and in order to inform our policy and our practical implementation of that policy.
There are a number of questions that I have not answered. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about liquid waste, and I am afraid that I shall need to write to her on that. There are a number of other questions that I am sure that, when I read Hansard, I shall find that I have not answered, and I hope that noble Lords will be content with me writing to them on those matters.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.49 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.40 to 8.49 p.m.]

Children Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 36 [Amendments to notification scheme]:
[Amendment No. 94A not moved.]
Clause 37 [Power to establish registration scheme in England]:
[Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 24, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) The provision which may be made under subsection (2)(a) includes provision that any person who, in an application for registration under the regulations, knowingly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 37 already makes provision for a number of offences for private foster carers under a registration scheme. The amendment is proposed to deal with a situation where a person in an application for registration as a private foster carer knowingly makes a false or misleading statement in a material particular. By doing so, such a person would be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of up to £5,000.
We believe that providing false or misleading information which could lead to the registration of someone who might otherwise have been considered unsuitable to be a registered private foster carer is a very serious matter and one that should carry a severe penalty. Although the amendment might be regarded as relatively minor, it is, none the less, important. It would improve the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 99 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 100:
Before Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY OF SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY IN RELATION TO PUPILS WHO ARE IN PUBLIC CARE
The governing body of a community, foundation or voluntary school or a maintained nursery school shall secure that the teachers in the school are aware of the importance of identifying, and providing for, those registered pupils who are in public care."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to probe further the Government's reluctance to give in legislation a specific responsibility to school governing bodies for the education of children in public care. On the fifth day in Committee, we had a debate on the role of governing bodies in respect of children in public care. However, in her response to the various amendments, the Minister focused on who was the best person to have responsibility for promoting the education of children in care.
In summing up the reasons why children in care have unacceptably low levels of educational achievement, the Minister used the findings of the
1210
Social Exclusion Unit's report, A better education for children in care. She concluded that the unit points to the,
"need to place a duty on the corporate parent. I am not ruling out the importance of schools, but all five key findings lead to the local authority. The local authority, as corporate parent, can deal with the issues of instability, time out of school, lack of extra help, insufficient support and health".—[Official Report, 27/5/04; col. 1471.]
The Minister made a very good point. However, she did not address the role of the school in respect of children in public care. What can the school do to help those children most? Amendment No. 100 tackles that issue by saying that schools should ensure that all staff are aware of the educational needs of looked-after children in general and, where appropriate, staff should know which children are in public care. That is essentially a staff training issue. There is a need to appoint a senior member of staff—a designated teacher—who has responsibility for ensuring that staff know of the educational needs of looked-after children.
Support for that approach comes from the DfEE guidance (as it was in the year 2000 when it was issued), entitled Education of Young People in Public Care, which is still current. This quotation comes from the DfES website:
"The Guidance states at paragraph 5.34
Schools should designate a teacher to act as a resource and advocate for children and young people in public care"
The guidance goes on to ask that LEAs and social services departments co-ordinate suitable training for designated teachers and maintain an up-to-date list of them in schools in their area.
Those who have read the guidance will know that paragraph 5.34 is underlined. The underlining is explained on page iii of the introduction. It states that,
"primary legislation will be needed to give statutory force to paragraph 5.34".
That indicates that someone at the DfEE, as it then was, recognised the importance of placing a statutory duty on schools in respect of the education of children and young people in care.
The Social Exclusion Unit's report, A better education for children in care says a lot about designated teachers. Where designated teachers are in place there have been positive results, but there have been problems in identifying the staff to take on this role. Paragraph 5.13 of the Social Exclusion Unit's report states:
"Every school should have a designated teacher to act on behalf of children in care. The designated teacher role can be adapted to meet local needs. It could include advocating for children in care, monitoring their progress and performance, or providing coaching to other staff on the needs and experiences of children in care".
Problems of finding designated teachers of sufficient seniority and commitment could be overcome in part by placing an explicit duty on governing bodies to ensure that staff know about the educational needs of children in care. Clearly, a specific requirement to have a designated teacher is too specific for primary

1211
legislation, but a more general duty on the governing body, as proposed in Amendment No. 100, is a way forward.
The Minister may not accept that Amendment No. 100 is the best formulation to ensure school staff are aware of the educational needs of children in public care and to meet the Government's stated commitment. However, the commitment has been given. Either the Government should take the opportunity to renege on that commitment or they should bring back a government amendment at Third Reading to support the education of children in care. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for stepping in at the last moment to introduce the amendment for me. I apologise to her for momentarily stepping out of the Chamber.
I strongly support the amendment. I welcome what the Government are doing in Clause 43 to promote the educational attainment of children. As the Minister said, the Social Exclusion Unit's report into the education of looked-after children emphasises the five different ways that local authorities need to raise their game in order to improve the educational attainment of those children.
I also welcome the assurance the Minister gave in Committee that there will be statutory guidance on the designated governor within the governing body. That is also a helpful step forward. In Committee, I raised concerns about the implementation of tools used in schools by the government to promote the educational attainment of looked-after children. First, the designated teacher is a specially trained senior teacher who can advise other teachers about how to work with looked-after children and has a responsibility to liaise with the social service department and the foster carer and ensure that the child is properly ensconced in school.
Secondly, I raised concerns about personal educational plans. Each child in care has a personal education plan. That is filled out by the child, the foster carer or the residential social worker and the teacher. It sets a number of goals for the child to attain. Both tools are good in principle but, regrettably, in practice they do not appear to work properly.
I asked the Minister about the matter in Committee. I felt that her response was a little complacent. She asked where the evidence was that these tools are not effective. In the chapter on schools in the Social Exclusion Unit's report on the education of looked-after children the Minister will see clear evidence that the designated teacher is not being used consistently. Certainly, her advisers—I am sure she has her scouts as I have mine—will tell her that in practice there is a great deal of inconsistency in the use of these tools.
Again, there is little research in this area, but some has recently been published and, having spoken to the researchers, they found that when they talked to the schools with which they were working, sadly, the
1212
personal education plan amounted to little more than a tick-box exercise. Even so, it was to some extent useful because it brought social workers and school teachers together, but it was underperforming its potential.
9 p.m.
So my concern is that, although the steps that the Government have taken are welcome, they will not go far enough to ensure the proper implementation of the measures that we need. Although it is right that there should be a special duty on local authorities to promote the education of children in care, what happens in schools? Surely schools are vital to children's educational attainment and we need to ensure that what happens in school works, as well as what happens in local authorities.
I turn briefly to school governors. They have the strategic role in schools of ensuring that the right policies are in place. If there is a duty on school governors of the kind that we are describing, they may think, "Yes, we will have our designated governor", but when the designated governor comes to the governor's meeting, the school governors as a body corporate will be responsible for asking that person, "Well, what is going on with the looked-after children?" If there are no looked-after children in the school, they must say, "Are we ready to receive such children?"
It was made clear to me in the research that it is necessary for schools that do not have looked-after children to be ready for them when they arrive. The Minister will be well aware that currently, too often, the worst-performing schools are those that receive children in care. That is often because children in care move during the middle of the school year and the school with vacancies is a school that is underperforming and a school to which no one wants to send their child. We hope that the changes in the admissions policy recently made will begin to ease that problem but, as it begins to ease, we must ensure that schools that have not received looked-after children in the past are ready to do so.
I will not go on about the outcomes for those children, because I think that we know them pretty well. But let us consider what happens with teenage pregnancies. In the 1958 cohort of children who went through the care system, young women were found to be two-and-a-half times more likely to be pregnant in their teens when they came out of care. Also, a child born to a parent who has been looked-after is two-and-a-half times more likely to go into care. So we need to address that vicious circle. Education plays an important part in reducing the amount of teenage pregnancy. The Social Exclusion Unit report on teenage pregnancy mentioned that as one of its three key factors in reducing pregnancy rates. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support the amendment, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp and my noble friend Lord Listowel. One

1213
of the many figures concerning looked-after children makes especial sense in this context. About 27 per cent of looked-after children have special educational needs; compared with 3 per cent on average. That puts into perspective how important are the special arrangements and the fact that schools must be thoroughly involved in the whole process.
I have been impressed, not least by the pioneering group of local authorities which reported to a group of us the other day, all of which emphasised the need to work together to identify the specific needs of children. I say that because it was clearly difficult to get the different specialities to work together. There was a clear indication that they would prefer to be made to work together, for which the Bill clearly lays the groundwork.
I have been equally impressed by the number of initiatives that are already under way. We have heard about one of them. The Taking Care of Education project certainly indicated that successful pioneer schemes were under way. Everybody involved with the children, and the children themselves, were involved in working out a plan. Levels of self-esteem, how everybody worked together and the effect on the children seemed to indicate a step in the right direction. There is still a tremendously long way to go. I hope that the Government, having set up and backed the proposals, will do everything possible to ensure that everybody works together.
The General Teaching Council, with which I had a meeting, is very interested in getting its people to work together with the other specialists involved so that at least a core of each speciality is working in the same direction. I hope that this small amendment can be agreed to without too much difficulty. It would operate via governors of schools; there would be a designated teacher where necessary. Obviously, they will be prompted only once a year to see whether they have any looked-after children. It does not seem to be asking too much to have the amendment accepted.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, given the hour I shall say only that a distressingly large proportion of young people who have passed through care end up in conflict with the criminal justice system and very often in prisons and other custodial institutions. That is highly unsatisfactory and has been going on far too long. Therefore this is an important amendment; I urge the Government to accept it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for ensuring that the issue of looked-after children is brought to the forefront, certainly in all the work that I do in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to him for the time that he has spent in discussing the underlying issues with me.
In response to those who spoke on the amendment, we are discussing the means to an end, but I submit that we all seek the same outcomes. We believe firmly that a huge amount of work must be done to support looked-after children to ensure that they receive the
1214
kind of education that is appropriate for them and that they are successful in education, because it is such an important gateway to success in life.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was right to say that I focused on the Social Exclusion Unit report in dealing with the outcomes, and that I focused on those outcomes in the context of the corporate parent. What the report identified as lacking in the lives of looked-after young people relates very much to the role of the corporate parent. That applies especially to young people and children placed out of area, as they have additional problems. I make no apologies for placing the emphasis there, as it is very important.
I would be very upset if I had given the noble Earl any indication that I was complacent because that is not the case. I think that the work of designated teachers is going well, but that does not mean that I do not believe that we should continue to look at such teachers and consider some factors: first, the training and support that they might need; secondly, their level of seniority. We will continue to do that.
We have tried to address the question of admissions through admissions forums. We have made looked-after young people the priority in considering how schools need to support them. That has been done in terms of their arrival out of the normal turnover of children in schools and also more generally in enabling schools to identify that they have a role in ensuring that what we would consider good schools are available to support the education of looked-after children.
The difference between us is that we are moving as far as we possibly can in Every Child Matters, and in our work more generally with schools, to recognise that children arrive on a continuum of need. Looked-after children will fall into different categories of need. These children will sometimes have behavioural problems, special educational needs or disabilities, and the figures are probably understated for those children. They will also come with different reasons in their backgrounds for being in care. They will have different needs in terms of the continuation of their education and disruption of their education. In that sense, they are similar to other children who arrive in schools with different needs for different reasons.
What we are trying to say through Every Child Matters is literally that every child matters. In our education system we should be developing an individualised learning programme for children that enables them to get the best from the education system. This group of children should be able to achieve in schools, because we have put in place all of the measures that support all of our children. That includes looked-after children.
Inevitably, different schools have different communities of children. I have met with the head teachers of some schools that I have visited who have a large number of refugee children. Others, and this is my experience as a chair of governors, have a number of settled Traveller children, who come with needs of their own. Other noble Lords will have experience of

1215
different schools. It is important to allow governing bodies to develop the policies and strategies appropriate to the children in their care.
I hesitate to put a duty overall on schools, while recognising what has been said about making sure that schools that have children who are looked-after, and schools that may have looked-after children in the future, are able with ease to acquire the kind of support, training, advice and guidance that we have discussed in earlier stages of this Bill.
We seek the same ends, but in doing so our concern is to ensure that we recognise that looked-after children in schools need additional support; that they get the support appropriate to their needs, not their category; and that we support all of our schools in developing, for their own governing bodies, the kind of policies appropriate to the population of children that they have. I say this with no complacency. These children deserve our full support, and we hope that they will achieve it through this Bill. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Yes, I understand well that in broad terms we are all talking exactly the same language. Nevertheless, in the amendment that we put forward we were asking the governing body of a school to secure that the teachers in the school are aware of the importance of identifying and providing for these registered pupils. While recognising that there is a need for statutory force behind this, the earlier commitment to think in terms of having a specified designated teacher for children in public care is clearly there in the guidance. The reason for it is still there, and the amendment is useful. This is an opportunity for us to give that statutory force. This is a fairly mild amendment.
I would like to read what the Minister has said in Hansard. We will think about it more, and we may find that we wish to come back with this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Duty of local authorities to promote educational achievement]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 101:
Leave out Clause 43.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment, designed to glean from the Minister what she believes are the practical consequences of this clause. We are all aware how the educational attainment of looked-after children often suffers badly, and how seriously this can affect their life chances. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was eloquent on that point. It is a matter of deep concern to many of us on all sides of the House. Not for a minute would I wish to belittle the desire to tackle the problem, both for the benefit of the children themselves and for the benefit of society as a whole.
The difficulty comes when we try to visualise what local authorities might actually need to do. Clause 43 is short and apparently simple. It confers a duty on local authorities to promote the educational achievement of looked-after children in their own areas. I should be very grateful if the Minister could say a little bit about how they are meant to do this and what the knock-on effect might be for those children who are not looked after.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we have a popular school. The local authority believes that this is the right school for a particular looked-after child. That child, let us also suppose, is competing for a single available place with a non-looked-after child who lives right next door to the school. That other child should, by every right, have a claim to the vacant school place. But what will actually happen? The local authority will be bound by its duty under Clause 43, and may therefore feel it has the legal responsibility to say to the governors of the school, "Look here, we have a duty towards this looked-after child. We believe he would benefit by going to this school. There isn't an adequate alternative, and we formally request you to agree to this".
A request couched in those terms would place the school governors in a very difficult dilemma indeed. Do they accept the child being, as it were, "parachuted in" by the local authority? Or do they do their duty by the child living next door? I should be genuinely interested to know whether the Clause 43 duty has the potential to land schools and local authorities in this sort of predicament. Once you say that a local authority has a particular duty towards one group of children, it means, by implication, that another group of children will, or could, be disadvantaged.
How are we to avoid disadvantaging non-looked-after children in hard cases, once this provision becomes law? I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising this question because it allows me to talk a little bit about how we see this working.
As noble Lords know from our previous discussion, we identified, through the Social Exclusion Unit report, five key factors that underlie the poor performance of children who are looked after: instability; time out of school; lack of extra help with education; insufficient support and encouragement from home; and poor emotional, physical and mental health.
We believe that the key responsibility for tackling these issues lies with local authorities, recognising—as I hope I have in the earlier discussion—the important role played by schools and those who care for young people. Central government have an important role to play. We believe it is very important to transform the life chances of these young people and children, and implementing those recommendations is central to the plan. None the less, it is the local authority that crucially and critically takes on the role of parent on behalf of the state.

1217
I say to the noble Earl, with regard to the particular point he raises, we have real ambitions that, through the admissions forum, there will not be the kind of dilemma he quite rightly outlines. On the one hand, I think the noble Earl would agree with me that these children are probably among the most disadvantaged of children. On the other hand, in organising how best to support them, it is not the purpose of any local authority or government to disadvantage other children.
The reality is that these children have found it more difficult to find appropriate educational settings. There have been concerns that they do not get the additional support that is needed—hence, in a sense, why the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised their concerns about schools.
We have tried to say that it is not for us to force the local authorities to do what the noble Earl is fearful of. The purpose of the admission forum, in everything it does, is to make sure that these issues are debated, discussed and resolved.
In a sense, part of the discussion about admissions, both inside the normal school year and outside, which is another issue, is debated within that group. It is for the schools and their local education authority to sort that out and not for it to be seen as a competing priority.
However, we shall publish guidance on what the duty means in practice. It will cover a number of specific issues, such as ensuring that a suitable school placement is available at the same time as arranging a care placement. Again, there is an important synergy between those two aspects, which is very important for those children who are placed in a different authority. It will cover ensuring that all looked-after children have a personal education plan—the noble Earl identified that as being important—which will identify needs and clarify the expectation of those caring for the child or young person about educational support and will set clear educational targets.
The guidance will also cover monitoring of the admission and exclusion of looked-after children, appealing against non-admission and exclusion where appropriate and making immediate arrangements to provide appropriate alternative full-time education where that proves necessary for those children; ensuring that all staff with responsibility for looked-after children, including designated teachers, will receive appropriate induction training and ongoing developmental support; and prioritising looked-after children in local-authority-wide strategies for improving educational achievement and promoting the inclusion of vulnerable groups of children and young people.
In that guidance, we think that we will encompass what the Social Exclusion Unit has indicated are critical factors. These are among the most vulnerable children in our society. We owe it to them to ensure that they fulfil their educational potential, which, as I have already indicated briefly, is key to their life chances more generally. It is right to put that onus on
1218
local authorities as the child's corporate parent—they have the prime responsibility. That should be done in a way that is clear about roles and responsibilities but does not seek to undermine the needs of other children in organising and supporting these children in particular. That is why Clause 43 is important. I hope that the noble Earl feels that I have responded to his concerns and that he can withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as so often, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Her remarks were very helpful. I would not say that my misgivings are completely assuaged, although they have certainly partly disappeared. I am glad to hear about the guidance. The practical implementation of this clause is of crucial importance to the way in which it is understood at a local level. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 101A:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
"ASCERTAINING CHILDREN'S WISHES
In section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (c.41) (provision of services to children), after subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) Before determining what (if any) services to provide for a particular child in need in the exercise of functions conferred on them by this section, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child's welfare—

(a) ascertain the child's wishes regarding the provision of those services; and

(b) give due consideration (having regard to his age and understanding) to such wishes of the child as they have been able to ascertain.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 101 A, which would have the effect of amending Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. If the amendment is agreed, a local authority, in considering what services to provide for a child in need, will be required to ascertain and to take account of the wishes of the child, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child's welfare. The effect would be to extend what local authorities in England and Wales already must do in relation to the children for whom they are providing accommodation into a more general obligation in relation to children in need to whom they are providing services.
The need to listen to children and to take account of their wishes in making decisions about them is a fundamental element of the Children Act. It is already explicitly recognised in several places. Section 1 places a duty on the court in making decisions relating to the upbringing of a child. Section 20(6) requires that, before providing accommodation to a child in need, the local authority, so far as is reasonably practical and consistent with the child's welfare, should ascertain his or her wishes and give them due consideration having regard to the child's age and understanding. Section 22(5) imposes a similar obligation in relation to decisions about children who are looked after by the local authority.
Although there is no express requirement in Section 17 that concerns children in need, the guidance issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 in relation to Section 17 places considerable emphasis on listening to children and taking account of their wishes. That is good practice which we would all expect to occur, which I believe is followed.
The need to listen to children is at the heart of Every Child Matters and the present Bill. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, recognised the role of the statutory guidance, but nevertheless expressed her concern that without a statutory expression of the need to take account of children's wishes there was a risk of inconsistent response by different local social services departments, and other noble Lords supported that view.
I have reflected on this and I believe that the importance of the issue, along with the need for consistency with the other provisions to which I have already referred, are persuasive arguments. The government amendment now before the House will strengthen the statutory backing to the approach we already regard as good practice and re-emphasise that children really are at the heart of what we are trying to do. I beg to move.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 101A, Amendment No. 101B:
Line 9, after "ascertain" insert "and record"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I begin by expressing a warm welcome to government Amendment No. 101A and thanking the Minister for having listened so constructively to the concerns expressed in Committee on the very important point it addresses. We left the Committee debate at the point at which I said I was unconvinced that the aim of my amendment at the time could be satisfactorily achieved by means of flexible guidance, but I said so in the belief that the Minister's resolve was firmly fixed. I am delighted that this belief has proved to be mistaken. It is very much to her credit that she felt able to have second thoughts on this important issue. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that this is one of the four or five most important issues of principle raised in the whole of the Committee stage.
So, against that backdrop, it probably seems the height of churlishness to suggest that the government amendment is not quite good enough, but I hope that the Minister will not mind considering the remaining point at issue one more time. The point is very simple. If a child's views and wishes are ascertained, they should be formally noted. This is not, as the Minister suggested in Committee, a bureaucratic burden or a recipe for delay. It is merely to transpose the current requirements of good practice into a legal requirement.
Recording a child's views is critical for several reasons: it is critical for professional accountability; it is critical because without it the child's preferences and views may be lost sight of, should there subsequently be, for example, a change of personnel. It is also
1220
particularly critical in order to improve practice with disabled and younger children who are the most vulnerable. Ascertaining the wishes of a disabled child can take time, but once that point is successfully reached, the result should be clearly logged for the benefit of all concerned. Equally, if for any reason it has not proved practicable to consult a child, the reason for that needs to be recorded, if only briefly. Local authorities will then be able to monitor the extent to which children are being included in decision making, allowing them to address any staff training needs that are identified.
On the last occasion the noble Baroness acknowledged how important proper recording was and mentioned the new resourcing materials and training packages available to social workers in that context, which ought to make the requirement to record second nature to the professional in the field. I do think it is reasonable to say to a social worker that if it proves reasonably practicable for him or her to ascertain the wishes of a child, those wishes should be formally noted on the file. It is a simple thing, but very important.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 103. Having conceded the principle in relation to Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, the Government have no conceivable case for not making the same concession in relation to Section 47. The purpose of my amendment is to say that a child's wishes and feelings should be an integral part of any child protection inquiry. I believe and would hope that after the Climbié inquiry, we have moved past the stage of thinking that guidance alone is sufficient to ensure that children are listened to. It is not.
In Committee the Minister objected to this amendment by arguing that sometimes children's wishes can conflict with their safeguarding. I hope that she will not deploy the same argument today. Ascertaining the child's wishes and feelings and giving them due consideration does not mean that the child's views should override all other considerations, such as their immediate safety. Every day of the week professionals have to balance the child's right to have his views taken into account with his right to protection; but, at the same time, there is no doubt that listening to children is a vital part of making them feel safe. The guidance already lays great emphasis on this; all the amendment seeks to do is to transpose good practice requirements into a legal one.
This is not only my idea. The amendment is supported by the Association of Directors of Social Services and by the Local Government Association, the very bodies that represent those who have to carry out child protection investigations. Neither of those bodies believes that the amendment would fetter the discretion of social workers in a detrimental way. On the contrary, they regard it as a way of plugging a serious loophole in the law.
The TCS and the CRAE have particularly requested a meeting with the Minister before Third Reading. It would be very helpful if she felt able to open her door to them.
I hope that the Minister will do with this amendment as she did with the Section 17 amendment and agree that it should be accepted. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I support most strongly Amendment No. 103, which stands in the name of the noble Earl. I also welcome very strongly the Government's new clause at Amendment No. 101A, which requires respect for the views of the child in relation to the provision of services. But I believe that the principle of gaining direct access to children and ascertaining their views is of far greater importance in the context of child protection.
In any case, here we are talking about a right which is clearly set out in Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This makes it a legal obligation. It is not enough to hear reassurance that this is a matter of good practice, or a matter that is or can be covered in guidance. Surely we have all learnt enough from the many tragic investigations into child deaths from violence to know that gaining access to the children themselves and listening to them is completely fundamental to protection. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is just the latest of many to document adult failure to see and hear from the children who become tragedies.
We know that many children—a majority—who suffer serious abuse do so in silence because they fear that interventions will take no account of their views and will be out of their control. We have to create a child protection system that children have the confidence to use, and reflecting the obligation to hear their views in the law is a necessary part of that. Of course, sometimes children's views will have to be over-ridden in the interests of their safety, but they need to know that their views will be heard and carefully considered.
I very much hope the Minister will reassure us that she can accept the new clause. It is a very small step from where she has gone already and it would be quite simple to accept. The clause may need technical attention but it would be of great help. I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am sure that no one in the House would ever consider the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to be churlish. Certainly he was not churlish in the way in which he introduced his two amendments, which I absolutely support. I also welcome the Government's amendment and thank the Minister for it. I hope that she will not take offence when I say "More please" because it does not go quite far enough.
I shall not go through all the arguments again because they have been very ably laid out for your Lordships today. The noble Baroness, Lady David, made a very good point when she said that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires signatories to do something about their laws, not only their best practice and guidance. That is what the
1222
amendments seek to do by amending and adding to the Government's welcome amendment. I support all three amendments.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I also want to add my considerable thanks to the Government and the Minister for bringing forward this clause. I do not think that many of us were expecting it as a result of our conversation last time, so it is all the more welcome. However, I also support the welcome for the amendment to the amendment which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I support what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. It is a very small step to add the word "record" and I cannot see any reason why the Minister should not accept that. I hope that she will.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I support both the government amendment and that moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for two reasons. First, there is often a change of personnel. As personnel change, it is important that children are assured that the sentiments that they express at a given moment abide even when that person, who will have built a good relationship with them, has moved on. I draw attention to the Audit Commission report, Misspent Youth, which shows that, when it came to young offenders, the single most important aspect in restoring a young person to civil society was for an adult to believe them.
I know that great emphasis is laid on the building of a relationship. However, as we all know, there comes a time when a person moves on and the young person can then feel betrayed. They do not understand the niceties of a professional service. Therefore, it is important that there is consistency in the understanding of the young person's position.
Secondly, from my own experience of working with looked-after children, I know that low self-esteem is a real issue for them. It is difficult to get them to believe in themselves. One way of enabling young people to believe in themselves is that, when they speak, what they say is written down and recorded. For the sake of affirmation, to record is important, as well as for all the other good reasons that noble Lords have advanced this evening. I support both amendments.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful for the remarks made about the amendment in my name. We are united in our aims of putting the needs of children first and placing a real importance on listening to children in everything we do. In the government amendment we have sought to reinforce the good practice that exists and also send a clear message that ascertaining the child's wishes whenever we can is not an optional extra. That is important. I am grateful for what has been said. Having been told by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that more is required and being talked to by the noble Baroness, Lady David, about the UNCRC, I am aware that I must respond as carefully as I can to those comments.
On Amendment No. 101B, noble Lords know that the statutory guidance that we have issued is comprehensive. I believe that practitioners at the sharp

1223
end will want to consult the guidance in their daily work rather than look for details in statute. The framework for the assessment of children in need and their families is very clear on the importance of recording information ascertained in the referral and throughout the initial and the core assessments. It includes standard forms for practitioners to use to record information. As I have said before, the guidance issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 is mandatory, so the amendment does not add to that requirement.
I believe that we have captured the spirit of what the noble Earl is looking for in his amendment. I am happy to clarify that further with the noble Earl, but we have statutory guidance that requires information to be recorded and the forms that allow that. I hope that the noble Earl will recognise that guidance for the front line is potentially of more benefit than asking them to look in statute. We are not far apart from the noble Earl in this matter and hope we have covered that point.
On Amendment No. 103, there are two reasons why we have not introduced an amendment of the type sought by noble Lords in terms of Section 47. I have already mentioned the first reason. Where there are urgent concerns we believe that the child's safety must remain the overriding and absolute consideration and social services, or whoever, need to act and act swiftly. We are concerned to ensure that that is paramount. Secondly, it is likely that many children in those situations will be found to meet the Children Act 1989 definition of "children in need", so the amended Section 17 would be applied to them in any case when immediate safety issues had been addressed.
Amendment No. 103 would remove a discretion in the existing Section 47(4) of the Act for local authorities not to seek access to a child if they are satisfied that they already have sufficient information with respect to that child. The two circumstances that we need to consider and pause on are, first, that when a child is in danger, going in to talk to that child may alert inappropriately those who are placing the child in danger. We need to be cautious in that regard. Secondly, occasionally and unfortunately there are those who make malicious allegations, which are quickly proved to be unfounded. In that situation, it might be more distressing to talk to a child when it is clear that the allegation is unfounded.
For those reasons and those reasons alone, we decided not to put the proposed responsibility into Section 47. In a case in which a child is made safe, we should clearly ascertain that child's wishes, as we would under Section 17. I am clear about that. As I said, most children would immediately be covered by that section anyway. But we need flexibility in such cases when it is clear that a malicious allegation has been made, which is dealt with by another professional who says that the allegation is not appropriate or true. It is clear that a child should not be bothered in such a case. Equally, we believe firmly that when a child is in danger, having to go in and talk to that child could alert those placing the child in danger. The danger must be addressed first.
1224
I do not believe that we are in different places on this matter. It is only the impact of the way in which the amendment would work that seems to put us in different places. As I told the noble Earl, I would be happy to meet any organisation or noble Lord who would like to pursue this issue between now and Third Reading. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that was a very helpful and sympathetic reply for which I am grateful. I was particularly grateful for the powerful points made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and for the support given by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The remarks of the right reverend Prelate on continuity and trust were extremely wise and helpful.
Nevertheless, as regards Amendment No. 101B within the context of statutory guidance, I recognise that the Minister has moved in my direction. In fact, I suspect that she may not have moved at all, and that the guidance would have contained the provision in any case. But I recognise the force of the point that she made—that the proposal is as near to being a legal requirement as it is possible for it to be, while remaining in the scope of some flexibility.
As for Amendment No. 103, my fear is that when a child protection process is under way, a Section 17 assessment is quite often not done—it is bypassed. In those circumstances, it would not be incumbent on a local authority to ascertain the wishes and views of a child. However, I shall reflect carefully on the Minister's remarks about malicious allegations, as it seems to me that she has a real point in that regard. I shall think the matter through. If need be, I may return to Amendment No. 103 on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 101B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 101A, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 101A agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley: moved Amendment No. 102:
After Clause 43, insert the following new Clause—
"Duty of prison service to promote educational achievement
In section 562 of the Education Act 1996 at the end of subsection (1) insert "which includes a duty to promote the child's educational achievement"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 102, is supported by Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the Howard League for Penal Reform, NACRO and the National Association for Youth Justice. The purpose of the amendment is two-fold. First, it is to ensure that the Prison Service is under a duty to provide education to children in the secure estate and, secondly, to ensure that the Prison Service is under a duty to promote the educational attainment of children in the secure estate.
Throughout the Bill, there is a very welcome emphasis on including children in the secure estate through the membership of the governor of any prison or secure training centre on the local safeguarding

1225
children board, the arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare and inspection, and now the inclusion of youth offending teams in Clauses 6 and 9, thanks to the Government's concession, which is most welcome. This new clause extends this to cover the education of children in the secure estate.
Children in the secure estate have very low levels of educational attainment. Recent research shows that children of school age had literacy and numeracy levels below the age of 11 and over a quarter of them had levels equivalent to or lower than those of the average 7 year-old. We also know that educational standards have an impact on rates of reoffending. Children who offend are often those who are truanting because they are totally disengaged from their schooling. Young offender institutions are required to provide 30 hours of purposeful activity a week, of which 15 must be education if the child is under school-leaving age. However, this is not enshrined in any legislation and does not have to conform to the national curriculum. A joint report by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales and the Office for Standards in Education, A Second Chance—A Review of Education and Supporting Arrangements within Units for Juveniles managed by HM Prison Service, found:
"There is still a long way to go before the Prison Service is able to deliver effective education and training for the 3,000 children held in its care".
Let me also mention the Audit Commission report, Youth Justice 2004. This review of the reformed youth justice system found that the educational problems of serious and persistent young offenders are significant. Over half of the young people entering custody, most of whom are over 15, have a reading age of below the level of an average 11 year-old. Nine out of 10 young offenders in one particular secure training centre were found to have missed significant periods of education. The report also found that returning to full-time education can help young people to stop reoffending. According to one study, none of those who had full-time education immediately after they were released back into the community on a detention training order were reconvicted whereas one-third of those without such immediate provision were reconvicted. So this is obviously a very welcome development.
A Second Chance found that the establishments were struggling to meet even the bare minimum standards in education. My own conversations with prison education officers confirm this. The report particularly noted that tailored education plans and special educational provision were poor, although some patches of excellent practice showed that a huge difference can be made in the lives of these children through effective education. There are indeed many inspiring education officers in our prisons, to whom I pay great tribute. Over a quarter of the observed teaching sessions were deemed to be less than satisfactory. One in four is a very large proportion. Vocational training and so-called "friendly behaviour courses" were particularly poor and education staff rarely attended initial training plan conferences so,
"As a consequence, recorded educational objectives were so general that they were almost meaningless".
Dyslexia screening was carried out in some, but not all, of the establishments. There was little other special educational input. We all know how commonplace dyslexia is. Years ago, nobody knew what it was. Now we know that a very large number of children suffer from it to some extent. Noble Lords will know how many young offenders have special needs or have been excluded from school.
Children have very limited opportunities to pursue higher level qualifications. The inspectorate was particularly concerned about the impoverished education of unsentenced children on remand and of those who are serving short sentences. The report found that the average spent on education for an under 18 year-old in a young offender institution was £1,810, compared with £16,000 for a child in a secure training centre. It is an enormous difference. In a survey conducted as part of the study, it was found that 73 per cent of surveyed children in custody described their educational achievements as nil, and that 42 and 36 per cent of the very large sample had, respectively, numeracy and reading abilities of a seven year-old child or younger. There is an enormous amount of evidence.
The report drew attention to a number of key issues including the need to ensure that, on sentence, young people are offered a regime of comparable quality to that of the sentenced population; the need to improve the quality of information on the asset form relating to educational background and prior attainment; and the need to improve the quality of initial educational needs assessment, to ensure that learners are placed in suitable provision. The report made six other very important and major recommendations but I shall not go into them at this late hour.
I conclude by mentioning the report on the application of the Children Act 1989 to children in young offender institutions—a report by the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Local Government Association and the Youth Justice Board backed up with the findings of the other reports I mentioned about poor levels of literacy and numeracy. It also found that between one quarter and one third of juvenile prisoners had no educational training available to them immediately prior to custody. In another survey, 84 per cent of young people interviewed claimed to have had periods of exclusion from school and 86 per cent to have truanted.
None of your Lordships will find any of those statistics new; they are all very common knowledge. But it is for those reasons that I recommend our amendment to your Lordships. I think that this amendment is vitally important for the sake of each young life that is ruined by finding itself in the secure estate. It is important, too, for the future life chances of these youngsters; and, of course, for those against whom they may commit more crimes in future if their educational attainment is not addressed. I think that this is a most important amendment. This Bill is a very suitable vehicle for it. I hope that the amendment will receive a fair wind by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord,

1227
Lord Dholakia, on devising and bringing forward this amendment. Experience clearly shows that the reason why a large proportion of young people become involved in crime is that they are virtually unemployable. They have missed out totally on the benefit they should have derived from the school system.
The noble Baroness mentioned special needs in this particular group of people and I am glad that she did. It seems to me that remedial education is what is needed while people are in custody rather than the national curriculum. There is also a real need for continuity of educational provision after people have served their sentences and been released. Could the Minister draw that to the attention of her department, and could she also encourage her department to be in touch with the Home Office so that educational provision, particularly for young people, is not the first thing to suffer when there is a financial shortage?
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on the way in which she has presented the amendment; a more wide-ranging review of the inadequacies of current provision would be very hard to find. All the reports of which we have become aware over the years indicate how few of the resources that are needed in this area are available.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned self-esteem. If there is one thing that helps to improve the self-esteem of a young person in this situation it is acquiring an extra skill or attainment that he did not have before he attended the relevant institution. I well remember the many times I visited children's institutions and children's homes—but I am thinking more of the secure institutions, the Borstals of my day—and was struck by the children's talent. You have only to look at their paintings and drawings to see what is waiting to emerge in a rather more structured environment when they return to the community.
This is a very mild amendment. It does not attempt to do what I should like it to do; namely, to make it a positive requirement that the appropriate form of education is provided, particularly for those awaiting trial. I warmly support the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I add a few words of support from these Benches to the very powerful points put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and others. I very much share her concern for this group of children. I have no doubt that the Minister will feel the same way. I hope that she will warm to the amendment and, if she is not able to accept it, will find some way of delivering its intent by another means.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I remind your Lordships that half of the children we are discussing will have experienced life in care before entering the criminal justice system. Only some 10 per cent will have been involved with the criminal justice system before being taken into care. This evening I heard Margaret Hodge talk of the
1228
success of SureStart. When one intervenes in an adequate manner, one can make such a difference to children's lives. One needs to take every opportunity when they fall through the net to try to catch them and turn them round. The amendment holds out better hope that those children and young people will be turned round. As I say, I support the amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for bringing forward the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is right to point to the need for good working relationships between the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills regarding children's issues. I am pleased to say that those relationships are working well. I have talked to officials in the Home Office who are very supportive of the work that we are trying to do.
I am also grateful to noble Lords who have made clear the link between the potential of education and what happens to young people when things go wrong. We all know that educational outcomes in terms of achievement are not just about economic opportunities but also mental and physical health and life chances in the broadest sense. I recognise completely what noble Lords have said about that.
Unfortunately, I have to point out—this is one of my purposes in life—that the amendment is technically defective because it places a duty upon a local education authority and not the Prison Service to promote the educational achievement of those in custody. I am always cautious when I explain why an amendment is technically defective, as I tell noble Lords how to change their amendments in order to bring them back. However, it is right and proper that I do so.
We accept the evidence put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The work on that matter is now under way. I have a long brief which I intend to cull due to the lateness of the hour. However, I do not want noble Lords to consider that I have not addressed the matter properly. I therefore intend to expand my remarks, perhaps in correspondence with noble Lords, so that they have time to consider them.
My contention is primarily that we are in a process in which we have invested about £40 million over the past three years through the Youth Justice Board, and are making the kind of changes that will, we hope, enhance opportunities for young people. We want to make sure that they have a chance to work.
10 p.m.
I checked, and there is already a statutory duty for arrangements for the participation of young people of compulsory school age through the Prison Service for at least 15 hours a week within the normal working week. The Youth Justice Board has developed a national specification for learning and skills that requires the Prison Service to deliver a full educational and vocational training programme, with a broad and balanced curriculum appropriate to the age of the young person. That has enabled additional resources

1229
to be provided. We recognise that the provision is not what it should be in all circumstances, although I accept what the noble Baroness said in paying tribute to many individuals' work. It is now improving, which is critical.
Our goal is increasingly to introduce national approaches and standards of learning into prisons and young offender institutions. We are developing a new integrated delivery service. Work is about to begin on testing new approaches to the delivery of education provision to those held in custody in the north-east, north-west and south-west of England, as pilot areas. Each of those regions includes an establishment holding juvenile offenders.
I indicated that we are working across government between our two departments, and we have announced our intention to replace existing prison education contracts with a new delivery partnership between the Learning and Skills Council, the Prison Service and, in time, the National Offender Management Service, together with other key players such as Jobcentre Plus that play an important role. Under those proposed new arrangements, in which the Learning and Skills Council will take responsibility for offender education, a new juvenile specification has been developed. The Government have published that specification in draft, and are currently consulting our partners. The outcomes will inform the delivery of the new service, in partnership with the Learning and Skills Council, from next year.
We believe that that will provide a much better basis for the delivery of education and training for juveniles in custody, and improve links between provision in custody and in the community. Shared accountability is envisaged between the Prison Service and the Learning and Skills Council for the provision made available, with prison governors having responsibility to ensure access to available educational provision.
I have briefly described what I think is a new system. I will expand on that. Our ambition is that the developing picture has a chance to work. We think that it will address the concerns rightly raised by the noble Baroness and echoed in the House for those young people. It is about working across government, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, indicated, and I am very happy to correspond on the subject and meet any noble Lord who wishes to address it. However, on the basis that we have addressed a number of points and want the system to have a chance to work, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. When she writes to those of us who contributed to this short debate, will she let us know how much of the amount that she mentioned near the beginning of her response—I am afraid that I do not recall the figure—is new money? Part of the problem is resources, as has been made very clear to me in my correspondence with prison education officers. I was very encouraged by the new arrangements that she outlined, particularly by the fact that the prison education contracts are to be revised, as they have been
1230
part of the problem. I look forward to hearing more about that. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 104:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
"ROLE OF TEACHER TRAINING AGENCY

(1) The Education Act 1994 (c. 30) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1(4) (the teacher training agency), at end insert "and having regard to the functions to be performed by children's services authorities in their capacity as local education authorities by or under the Children Act 2004.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the problem with tail-end amendments is that they are always tail-end amendments. On the previous occasion when we debated the matter, the Minister said:
"I wish that we were having an hour-long debate".—[Official Report, 27/5/04; col. 1512.]
The amendment is probing and not really suitable for discussion at this hour. Perhaps the sensible thing is to explain to the Minister my two questions and ask that she write to me at greater length.
The reason that we have tabled the amendment again is because the issues around training and teacher training are extremely important and, thus far, we have not had sufficient time to debate them in the Chamber and we would like to know a little more about what is happening. The briefing provided by the General Teaching Council says:
"The Bill has implications for the initial teacher training and continuing professional development for teachers. Programmes leading to the award of Qualified Teacher Status are already extensive, and so it is most appropriate for trainee teachers to be expected to have an awareness of their contribution to multi-agency working and to begin to develop the skills and knowledge base to support this role. The induction period should provide the opportunity to develop and demonstrate this capacity in practice. Thereafter, it will be important to consider expectations of teachers' general expertise in this area of their work, and to reflect those expectations in the general standards framework for teachers".
In her reply in Committee, the Minister said:
"I should make it clear that if because of the TTA's new remit it becomes desirable to make any changes to the 1994 Act, we would bring them forward to Parliament at a suitable time".—[Official Report, 27/5/04; co1.1513.1]
In many senses the Bill provides a suitable time. Does the Minister yet know whether it will be necessary to make such changes and, if so, how the Government propose to bring them forward?
Secondly, we are concerned about continuing professional development. With school budgets as tight as they are, CPD is often—again—a casualty. Too often it is seen as something that can be sacrificed to more urgent needs. Carol Adams, the chief executive of the GTC, in an article last October, wrote:
"At a time when the Government is advocating new approaches to pupils' learning, tailored to meet the needs of the individual, it is striking that access to continuous learning and professional development for all teachers continues to be a lottery, determined to an even greater extent by the vagaries of school budgets Why?".

1231
Can the Minister outline the role that the TTA will play in the professional development programmes that will be needed across all services to ensure that frontline professionals can more effectively meet the needs of the children?
Therefore, the issues are: what changes does the Minister envisage in the TTA's induction programmes and so on; what about continuing professional development; and can we be assured that the developments that are needed to train teachers to accept the new integrated service will be there? I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall take the noble Baroness at her word. I should add that I have enormous respect for Carol Adams. She deserves a copy of the response. We are not quite clear yet about what changes will be needed. I stand by my comments in Committee that we would bring them forward at a suitable occasion. The noble Baroness knows that I cannot herald any more than that and I do not know when that suitable occasion will arise. I am clear that it is not now, because the matter needs further development.
As I said earlier, the TTA has rightly risen to the challenge and is looking at its broader remit regarding continuing professional development. However, the noble Baroness is seeking a written answer, detailing these matters properly, in addition to a meeting if she wishes, rather than discussing this matter at the tail end of the day. The noble Baroness is right—the matter is important. I shall address the matter properly and ensure that in doing so we discuss this with Carol Adams as well to allay any of her concerns. I hope that is what the noble Baroness seeks and that on that basis she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister. That would be an excellent response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 104 A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 105:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
"PARENTAL, CARER AND SIBLING CONTACT WITH LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN
(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 22 insert—
"22A PARENTAL, CARER AND SIBLING CONTACT WITH LOOKED AFTER CHILDREN
Where a child is looked after by a local authority, the authority shall allow the child reasonable contact with—

(a) his parents;

(b) any guardian of his;

(c) any sibling of his."

(3) In section 34(1) insert—
"(e) any sibling of his"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a revised version of an amendment, tabled as Amendment No. 246A in Committee, proposed to us by the NSPCC. On that occasion, the Minister said:
"The difficulty with the amendment is that it creates a different legal position for contact between siblings depending upon whether the child is looked after under a care order or under a voluntary agreement … We think that that is a problem and would create confusion in practice".—[Official Report, 27/5/04; col. 1521.]
Therefore, in retabling the amendment, we have tried to address the problem that the Minister has with it. I agree with the Minister that the assumption of contact with siblings should apply to looked-after children as well. There is currently a different legal position in relation to contact, depending on whether the child is looked after under a care order or under a voluntary agreement. Section 34 of the Children Act 1989 deals with parental contact, and so on, with children in care. We have dealt with that in the second part of our Amendment No. 105. But Sections 22 and 23 of the Act do not even mention contact with children who are looked after. That is why we have dealt with it in the first part of the amendment.
The NSPCC research, Your Shout, to which I referred in Committee, deals only with children in care, but the NSPCC working group has concluded that Section 22 of the Children Act 1989 should be amended at the same time as Section 34 to include looked-after children.
In Committee, the Minister said that the existing guidelines already stress the need to maintain contact between siblings. However, it is clear that the guidance is not always being followed. Given the number of children—735—who have expressed their distress on this point, there is a mandate, which comes from the children themselves, for explicit legislation rather than strengthened guidance to ensure that those children are not further isolated from the comfort they may receive from contact with their siblings.
This evening the Minister has already shown her understanding of the importance of listening to children. There are 735 children from whom I can quote, and I hope that she will be in a position to listen to them. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I explained when we considered these issues in Committee, I am hugely sympathetic to what the noble Baroness is seeking to do. The question that remains is simply: how do we best achieve what the noble Baroness seeks?
I agree completely that, for the majority of looked-after children, maintaining family links through contact with parents, siblings, relatives and other people with whom they are connected will be terribly important. Some children will want to have, and should have, regular contact with all those people, while others will want to be more selective. Given the sad circumstances facing many of the children who become looked after, contact with some, or indeed sometimes all, of their family members may not be appropriate—at least, in the short term and possibly, for some, altogether.

1233
We believe it is important that local authorities actively support contact between all looked-after children and their siblings where that is in their best interests. We believe that the existing legal framework achieves that, but we recognise the need for practice in this area to improve.
Through paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, local authorities already have a duty to promote contact between a looked-after child and his parents, friends and relatives. Of course, that includes siblings. Proposed Section 22A in the amendment mirrors Section 34(1) of the Children Act 1989 but without the safeguard of that section which allows the local authority to refuse to allow contact with the permission of the court. There is some overlap because Section 34(1) applies where a child is subject to a care order. It also cuts across the provision in paragraph 15 of Schedule 2.
I am not clear how this new duty would work alongside the two existing duties in practice. Therefore, the words which will inevitably be uttered by me this evening are that the amendment is defective. But I am sure that the noble Baroness will recognise that.
As I said, Section 34 already requires the local authority to allow reasonable contact between a child and his parent or guardian or someone in whose favour a residence order has been made, unless the authority has the permission of the court to refuse contact. Under that section, the child or other persons who have the leave of the court can apply to make an order for contact with any named person. That would allow the child to apply for contact with a sibling or for the sibling to apply for contact if the authority would not allow it.
While we agree wholeheartedly with the importance of contact between siblings, we are not sure that siblings should be treated differently from other relatives. We think that the consequence of the amendment would be to create a different legal position for contact between looked-after children and their siblings than exists, for example, with their grandparents, aunts and uncles.
So we recognise the need for practice to improve this area. Volume 3 of the Children Act 1989 guidance states that,
"contact arrangements should include those made in respect of relatives, sibling, grandparents and unmarried father; all those people with whom the child's contact should be preserved".
I can say to the noble Baroness that when we revise the Children Act guidance we will consider whether we can strengthen the messages given about the importance of contact. We will also think further about what can be done to improve practice in this vital area. On the basis that we think it is important to do that rather than perhaps to go down the route the noble Baroness suggests, I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her commitment to review the guidelines and to look at practice to see that it measures up to our expectations.
Siblings are different. Young people get a certain kind of support from their own generation which they will never get from parents, guardians, other relatives or even grandparents. They obtain support from people whose language they speak. When we listen to younger generations, we do not always understand a word they say because they speak their own language. That is why I think siblings are different and should be specified.
On the idea of a child having to go to court to obtain the right to be in contact with siblings, it is inconceivable that most children in such a situation would have the strength to do such a thing. So I think that we need to make it a lot easier for them.
However, I was very encouraged by what the Minister said. I shall watch very carefully. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Gambling (Regional Casinos)
A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the Government's response to Recommendations 79, 80, 81, 83, 84 and 85 of the report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill (Cm. 6253), which focus upon the definition, location and economic and other implications of the largest casinos, and on the further statement of Government policy on casinos published with Cm. 6253, and have ordered:
That a Select Committee of eight honourable Members be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Lords for this purpose.
That the committee shall have power—

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii) to report from time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

That the committee shall report by 22 July 2004;
And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Lords on Wednesday 23 June at half-past nine o'clock in Committee Room 8 as proposed by the Lords.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past ten o' clock.

  Irish Language Agency
  Irish Language Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster Scots Academy
  Ulster Scots Academy
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland: Loyal Order Parades
  Northern Ireland: Loyal Order Parades
  Cuba
  Cuba
  Helms-Burton Act
  Helms-Burton Act
  People Trafficking: South-east Europe
  People Trafficking: South-east Europe
  Guantanamo Bay and Iraq: Interrogation Methods
  Guantanamo Bay and Iraq: Interrogation Methods
  Cyprus: Sovereign Bases
  Cyprus: Sovereign Bases
  Cyprus: Green Line
  Cyprus: Green Line
  School Sport
  School Sport
  BBC: European Union Support
  BBC: European Union Support
  Identity Documents
  Identity Documents
  Focus Groups: Government Expenditure
  Focus Groups: Government Expenditure

  Travel Advice
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  In his Statement to the other place on 1 April (Official Report, col. 1769), my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary (Mr Jack Straw) presented the review of FCO travel advice (Cm 6158), and invited comments from all quarters on its conclusions and recommendations. A number of associations, companies and individuals, many but not all from within the travel industry, responded to this invitation. The Foreign Secretary held a roundtable on 27 May with key stakeholders to discuss further their views on our travel advice service and how it might be improved. We are now in a position to announce to Parliament the revisions which will be made.

  We have discussed at length the difficult question of how we can best inform the public about the threat from terrorism in individual countries. As the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement of 1 April, our travel advice needs to strike a balance between danger and disruption: making public safety its prime concern while minimising the disruption which terrorists want to cause. Our advice must inform people of the threat from terrorism. When the threat is acute, it will inevitably lead to some disruption in travel in the interests of public safety. But at the same time we must make sure we do not do the terrorists' work for them by causing too much of the disruption which they seek.

  We have therefore decided that in future, in the case of intelligence-based terrorist threats, we shall advise against travel only in situations of extreme and imminent danger—if the terrorist threat is sufficiently specific, large-scale or endemic to affect British nationals severely (Option E on page 22 of the review). The factors which we shall consider in reaching this judgment will include the specificity and credibility of the intelligence information, the recent history of terrorist incidents in the area, the likelihood that the threat could affect British nationals, and the level of protection from the threat available to British nationals. One reason for making this change of emphasis is to maintain the credibility of our advice. We are concerned that many people continue to travel despite our warnings against all but essential travel. The public will be better served if such warnings are used more sparingly. I should add that we shall continue to prescribe against travel in cases of non-terrorist threats (coups, civil unrest, natural disasters) on the same basis as before.

  We have also decided to accept the recommendation on page 28 of the review to establish a standing advisory council of travel advice users. Details of
  WS 54
  membership, timing and agenda are still to be finalised, but the council would bring together representatives of the travel and insurance industries, NGOs and others to advise on issues arising from travel advice and its implementation. It would not be consulted on individual travel advice changes, which would continue to be the responsibility of officials and, ultimately, myself.

  We have also asked officials to implement a number of recommendations from the review, and from the subsequent consultation, to make the travel advice pages clearer and easier to use. Although we have achieved considerably greater clarity over the past year, further refinements have been suggested to ensure that those who consult the FCO website or the telephone call centre take away the key points.

  One fact that has emerged clearly from the review is that, while our travel advice service is heavily used, many different types of customer use it for widely varied purposes. Inevitably, we cannot satisfy all the demands, some of which are mutually exclusive, but I am confident that the adjustments outlined above will improve the overall quality of service and level of customer satisfaction.

  Iraq: Roulements of UK forces in Multinational Division (South-East)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  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 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 4th Regiment The Royal Artillery

  The Queens Royal Lancers 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

  WS 55
  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 (Official Report, col. 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 to 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 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 per cent of the land component) and then further reduce to about 750 over the following months.
  WS 56
  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.

  European Defence Agency
  Lord Bach
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The General Affairs and External Relations Council of the European Union agreed on 14 June to the establishment of a European Defence Agency in the fields of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments. The agency will make a major contribution to the development of the military capability of EU member states, a key UK objective for the European security and defence policy. By rationalising and harmonizing capability requirements, and linking those directly to industrial and research efforts, it will help to improve the military effectiveness of European nations which will benefit both the EU and NATO. The work of the agency will be directed by a steering board consisting of national Defence Ministers to ensure that it is subject to appropriate national control as well as being given the necessary political impetus.

  The Government regret that it was necessary to agree to the establishment of the agency, through a scrutiny override, before parliamentary scrutiny had been completed and before the debate, recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee on 9 June (22nd report, 2003–04, HC42-xxii), could be held. The United Kingdom did not wish to prevent the decision to establish the agency being taken at the Council meeting given the benefits expected from the creation

  WS 57
  of the agency and the influential role played by the United Kingdom in shaping and implementing its formation. I wrote to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee on 10 June setting out this position. The Government are, none the less, fully committed to the need for national parliaments to have proper oversight of EU issues and the establishment of the European Defence Agency will be debated in European Standing Committee B on 22 June.

  Northern Ireland: Forces under Command of General Officer Commanding
  Lord Bach
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  As part of our normal process of keeping force levels under review, the GOC 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 he 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 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.

  British Forces Post Office: Key Targets 2004–05
  Lord Bach
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Key Targets have been set for the chief executive of BFPO for financial year 2004–05. The targets are as follows:

  Key Target 1: To provide a guaranteed 100 per cent absolutely secure Defence Courier Service for the carriage of protectively marked material (PMM).

  Key Target 2: To provide a secure Defence Courier Service for the carriage of protectively marked material (PMM) operating within timescales for scheduled and special items at not less than 98.7 percent of that agreed with customers.
  WS 58
  Key Target 3: To provide a resilient and dependable service for the controlled and specialised handling of defence official mails by operating at least 96 per cent of deliveries within scheduled timings, agreed with customers.

  Key Target 4: To meet 96 per cent of the requirements negotiated and agreed with customers for the transit times for delivery and collection at defence mail centres

  Key Target 5: To meet 95 per cent of the agreed customer requirement for the movement of private and official mails from BFPO London to authorised overseas destinations within agreed timescales.

  Key Target 6: To achieve an overall 2 per cent increase in efficiency.

  Toft Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health (Miss Melanie Johnson) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  In July 2002, the Government's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, commissioned Professor Brian Toft to investigate the circumstances surrounding four adverse events that had occurred in the reproductive medicine units at the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. This followed reports of a mix-up in treatment that led to mixed-race twins being born to a white couple.

  Professor Toft's report is published today. He concludes that a mixture of inadvertent human error and systems failure was involved.

  He makes a number of recommendations for the trust, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the department. He also recognises that significant progress has already been made to address the issues his recommendations raise.

  Responses by the trust, the HFEA and the department to the recommendations directed specifically at them are also published today.

  The Government recognise fully the distress that these mistakes and failings have caused to patients and their families, and the importance of ensuring that lessons are learnt to minimise the likelihood of them happening again. We are grateful to Professor Tort for a thorough investigation, and welcome his report.

  Copies of Professor Toft's report and the responses to it by the trust, the HFEA and the department have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Continuing Care
  Lord Warner
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Community (Dr Stephen Ladyman) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
  WS 59
  I am publishing today figures that detail the progress made on investigations into cases where individuals may have been inappropriately denied National Health Service care.

  Strategic health authorities have been required to investigate cases where individuals may have been inappropriately denied fully funded NHS continuing care since 1996. Where investigations have revealed that care should have been provided the NHS has been recompensing, or will recompense, individuals for the cost of that care. This process has formed part of the department's response to the Health Service Ombudsman's report into long-term care, which was published in February 2003.

  The process began with each SHA reviewing and aligning the criteria for NHS continuing care within its area and ensuring that these criteria conformed with the legal position.

  The department requested that investigations, as far as possible, were completed by 31 March 2004. The number and complex nature of new cases presenting themselves during the three months from January to March 2004 posed significant challenges to meeting that deadline, but the NHS has remained committed to completing investigations as accurately and thoroughly as possible. At the end of March the NHS had completed 57 per cent. (6,713) of all outstanding investigations. This number is greater than the number of cases which the NHS was aware of at the end of December 2003, and demonstrates the NHS's commitment to completing cases promptly once they are received. The department will check that those cases outstanding at the end of March have been completed as of the end of July. From then onwards I will expect any cases to be completed within two months of all the information on the case being received by the SHA. The situation in each SHA is summarised in the table.

  Following the work carried out by SHAs in reviewing, revising and investigating the provision of fully funded NHS continuing care, awareness and application by the NHS is improving. The NHS expects to pay a total of over £180 million when all the cases received by the end of March 2004 have been investigated and restitution made for incorrect decisions. There is a timely appeal process for current cases, so that the need for a retrospective recompense process will decline.

  SHA Name

  Number of cases eligible for recompense

  Investigations completed

  Investigations under way

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire SHA

  0

  281

  370

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire SHA

  34

  102

  110

  Essex SHA

  10

  146

  26

  North West London SHA

  10

  181

  191

  North Central London SHA

  8

  64

  61

  North East London SHA

  0

  169

  11

  WS 60

  SHA Name

  Number of cases eligible for recompense

  Investigations completed

  Investigations under way

  South East London SHA

  60

  183

  90

  South West London SHA

  62

  194

  21

  Northumberland, Tyne & Wear SHA

  27

  126

  172

  County Durham and Tees Valley SHA

  10

  48

  178

  North & East Yorkshire & North Lines SHA

  29

  266

  93

  West Yorkshire SHA

  25

  130

  219

  Cumbria and Lancashire SHA

  15

  154

  186

  Greater Manchester SHA

  5

  102

  240

  Cheshire & Merseyside SHA

  107

  774

  422

  Thames Valley SHA

  4

  181

  202

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight SHA

  30

  386

  121

  Kent and Medway SHA

  24

  186

  44

  Surrey and Sussex SHA

  5

  15

  860

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA

  43

  612

  349

  South West Peninsula SHA

  25

  433

  120

  Dorset and Somerset SHA

  14

  448

  467

  South Yorkshire SHA

  138

  232

  78

  Trent SHA

  0

  236

  79

  Leics, Northants and Rutland SHA

  29

  202

  22

  Shropshire and Staffordshire SHA

  38

  412

  19

  Birmingham and The Black Country SHA

  10

  213

  73

  West Midlands South SHA

  8

  237

  187

  Total-England

  770

  6,713

  5,011

  Cambodia: Adoptions
  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:

  I am announcing a temporary suspension of adoptions of Cambodian children by UK residents.

  The temporary suspension is being introduced in response to concerns raised by and investigated by officials from the DfES who visited Cambodia, by the British Embassy in Cambodia and, separately, by other stakeholders about the intercountry adoption process in Cambodia.

  I believe that the safeguards in the Cambodian adoption system are currently insufficient to prevent children being adopted without proper consents being

  WS 61
  given by their birth parents and improper financial gain being made by individuals involved in the adoption process.

  The specific areas of concern include:

  Evidence relating to the systematic falsification of Cambodian official documents related to the adoption of children;

  Evidence relating to the extensive involvement of adoption facilitators in the adoption procedure in Cambodia even though Cambodian law expressly forbids facilitators participating in the adoption process;

  Evidence relating to the procurement of children for intercountry adoption by facilitators, including by coercion and by paying birth mothers to give up their children and;

  Concern about the prevalence of children trafficking and corruption generally in Cambodia.

  The temporary suspension will take effect immediately and will be imposed on all UK applications to adopt children from Cambodia where the prospective adopter has not yet received a matching report from the Cambodian authorities.
  WS 62
  This is the latest point in the adoption process in Cambodia where a temporary suspension could take effect before a Cambodian adoption certificate is issued.

  Although the UK authorities could intervene where a prospective adopter applies to bring a child into the UK there is a considerable risk that the child might be left in the situation where they have been legally adopted in Cambodia, and as such are no longer an orphan but are unable to enter the UK with their adoptive parents. This would pose a significant risk to the individual child and would clearly be unacceptable.

  I intend to consider reviewing the temporary suspension when the Cambodian Government pass new adoption legislation or if there is another development I consider to be significant, for example if Cambodia were to implement the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption.

  Only in exceptional circumstances will I consider that the temporary suspension should not apply in a particular case. Any decision relating to a particular case will of course take account of what is in the best interests of the child and all the facts of the particular case.