Sitting of 3 March 2004

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

    Animal Quarantine
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What representations he has received on the problems caused to international rescue dog teams by the operation of the animal quarantine rules. [157871]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): On 21 January, my right hon. Friend met representatives of the British search and rescue teams that were deployed in response to the devastating earthquake in Iran. Those met included a team who use dogs in their relief effort. They reported a concern that the necessity to put the dogs into quarantine on return to the United Kingdom had an impact on the immediate availability of trained dogs for future search and rescue responses. As a consequence, some dogs are kennelled overseas rather than returned to the UK.
    Mr. Llwyd: While I fully accept the need for strict quarantine laws, I do not follow the logic of the argument, which apparently is that when dogs are used outside the European Union there is a risk of rabies and so on. Rabies is prevalent in France, but there is free movement across the channel of hundreds of dogs each day, so I do not see the logic The problem with the search and rescue team in north Wales is that there are six highly trained specialist dogs and handlers and, at any given time, two or three dogs may be in quarantine for up to six months. It is a long time out of the life of an intelligent animal, and it is a waste of time.
    Mr. Thomas: I place on the record my appreciation of the work of search and rescue teams, such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in both the Bam earthquake and more recently in Algeria. However, it is worth remembering that in both Iran and Algeria there is a high prevalence of rabies. Our strict quarantine laws have served the UK well over the past 30 years. Under the quarantine regulations dogs can be taken out of quarantine for deployment overseas, even though they have to come back into quarantine on their return to the UK. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for
    880
    animal health has recently informed search and rescue organisations that they will be permitted to set up their own quarantine facilities, where training of the dogs can continue in quarantine. I hope that that is helpful and encouraging to the team about which the hon. Gentleman spoke.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: The search and rescue team to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred is based in my constituency. I welcome my hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Will my hon. Friend undertake to consider, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office Minister responsible, reopening discussions on this very important topic?
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for animal health has only recently informed the search and rescue organisations that they will be permitted to set up their own quarantine facilities, where training can continue. We need time to see how that change is received and settles down before we consider further discussions, but I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.
    Michael Fabricant: Is it not the case that, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, the main concern is rabies, and is it not also the case that anti-rabies vaccinations for dogs exist in the United States and elsewhere? To what extent has the Minister investigated the use of such vaccinations in order to enable rescue dogs to travel freely across different countries?
    Mr. Thomas: There have been extensive discussions across Government, with the lead being taken by the responsible DEFRA Minister. We have found a way forward that will help search and rescue organisations, while maintaining the strict rabies policy that has served us so well over the years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow the new proposal by that Minister to settle down before he considers continuing to press for further relaxation in this area.

    Belize
    Chris Ruane: What aid his Department has given to Belize in the past 10 years. [157872]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development(Mr. Gareth Thomas): The Department has provided more than £37 million to Belize in the past 10 years, supporting, for example, education programmes, public sector reform work and the police.
    We have also provided debt relief of almost £3 million under the Commonwealth debt initiative, supporting conflict prevention work through the global conflict prevention pool in relation to the Belize-Guatemala border dispute, and have contributed further to Belize through our funding of multilateral organisations such as the United Nations and the European Commission.
    Chris Ruane: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive response. He will be aware that we are currently in

    881
    Fairtrade fortnight. What actions can he and his Department take to ensure that we can link the burgeoning fair trade movement in this country to primary producers in Belize?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have provided £225,000 to support cocoa farmers from the Toledo region of Belize, through the Toledo Cocoa Growers Association, to expand the production of their cocoa products and increase their exports overseas. Toledo being one of the poorest areas of Belize, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that that is step in the right direction for the very poorest people in Belize.
    More generally, I would like to place on the record my appreciation, and I am sure the appreciation of the whole House, of the work of the Fairtrade Foundation, and celebrate collectively the fact that the turnover of Fairtrade products in the UK is now about £100 million.
    Mr. Robert Walter: Four years ago, the Government blocked more than £12. 5 million of debt relief to Belize. I am pleased to hear from the Minister that some £3 million has been paid to date, but will he tell us when, under the Commonwealth debt initiative, Belize will receive the rest of the relief that it is due?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the most recent trances of debt relief that I signed off in January this year—for next year and a further two years—was as a result of the reform programme taking place in Belize. I have had good discussions with Prime Minister Musa about the reform programme and I hope that he is satisfied with the progress made on debt relief write-off.
    Mr. George Foulkes: After my questions on Monday and Tuesday, I am tempted to aim for a hat trick of toadying, self-serving sycophancy by saying what a wonderful job the Minister is doing! No doubt, however, I would be accused by the sketchwriters of wanting to become Governor of Bermuda—[Interruption.] What a good idea. Instead, I ask the Minister if he will talk to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about speeding up resolution of the border dispute between Belize and Guatemala, which is limiting the sort of development that is vital for the people of Belize.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his searching and robust questioning of the work of my Department. He will know that the new President of Guatemala has recently been confirmed in office, and that we are putting in £1. 5 million of global conflict prevention money to help with the resolution of the Belize-Guatemala border dispute. We continue to work closely with the Foreign Office to help promote such resolution, but it is a matter that the two countries ultimately will have to resolve themselves. We will continue to support them in that process.
    Tony Baldry: It was from Belize 10 years ago that the first fair trade product, Maya Gold chocolate, came into the UK. Although it is good news
    882
    that shoppers spend some £2 million on Fairtrade products each week, there is still some way to go. For example, only about 4 or 5 per cent. of bananas purchased are Fairtrade ones. Is not Fairtrade fortnight a good opportunity to make it clear that there is a modest way for every consumer to help farmers in developing countries by buying Fairtrade products such as cocoa, chocolate and bananas, whenever possible?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that Fairtrade fortnight provides an excellent opportunity for us, as individual consumers, to do our individual bit to help promote fairer trade. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not be upset by my taking this opportunity to confirm that, by the end of 2003, shoppers were spending more than £2 million per week at the checkout on products with the Fairtrade mark. Furthermore, on Monday the Co-op, which has always been the leading supplier of Fairtrade products, pledged to double the size of its own brand range of such products by the end of this year. If other suppliers follow the Co-op's lead, we can expect the fair trade market to continue to grow, which is good news.

    Millennium Development Goals
    Chris McCafferty: Whether reproductive health supplies security is a key requirement for the attainment of the millennium development goals. [157873]
    The Secretary of State for International Development(Hilary Benn): The millennium development goals will not be achieved without further progress on reproductive health and rights. An essential part of that is ensuring that women and men, including young people, have access both to condoms, contraceptives, medicines and other products, and to the services, information and education that they need to protect their reproductive and sexual health. DFID's bilateral programmes focus on strengthening the capacity of health systems to deliver those services and supplies effectively, and we also support organisations such as the United Nations Population Fund and the global fund.
    Chris McCafferty: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but can he tell the House what role the Government intend to play in bringing to the attention of the international community the very serious issue of reproductive health supplies security; and what are they going to do to encourage recipient countries to prioritise the same issue?
    Hilary Benn: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on issues of reproductive health, in which she has taken a great interest for a very long time. I share her concern about the availability of reproductive health commodities. One thing that we are doing is to take every opportunity within the international community to draw attention to the problem. Secondly, we are providing finance and support to the United Nations Population Fund, which works hard in that field. Thirdly, and most importantly, we are ourselves funding a large number of supply programmes, including many

    883
    social marketing programmes in many of the countries in which we work, to provide condoms and other reproductive health supplies.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Secretary of State will know that wherever he goes in the third world villages always seem to have access to Coca Cola and other such products. What is he doing to ensure that reproductive health supplies, especially condoms, are as available as Coca Cola?
    Hilary Benn: I am not sure that the Department for International Development can hope to match Coca Cola—
    Mr. John Bercow: Be bold.
    Hilary Benn: May I give a practical example in answer to the hon. Lady's question? When I was in Pakistan just after Christmas, I met a group of lady health workers in Peshawar, where we are helping to fund a programme. Part of our increased aid programme in Pakistan is to allow more lady health workers to be employed in poor communities in that country. They work with families and mums on family planning, ensuring that supplies are available, and on child health and maternal mortality. That is a practical contribution and is one of the many examples, of which I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, of ways in which we are trying to address the question she raised.
    Tony Worthington: I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say that many of the millennium development goals cannot be achieved without good reproductive health services, but the fact is that in Africa, supply of those services falls behind demand year by year. What are the international reasons for that and what can be done to give African women the same right to choose the size of their families as we have?
    Hilary Benn: Partly: we need to ensure that in the development programmes that we undertake we give particular priority to precisely the point raised by my hon. Friend—enabling women to have more control over what happens to them. That is one of the most effective ways to ensure that right. The second thing we can do is to increase the size of our international development budget, including the budget for Africa, and by 2005–06 we shall be spending a billion pounds a year bilaterally. That is the expression of a practical commitment to support all that work.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: What are the Government doing to encourage emulation of the example set by the Ugandan Government, who seek to teach young people that promiscuity is not necessary to adult life?
    Hilary Benn: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the leadership that the Government of Uganda and President Museveni have provided, especially on HIV/ AIDS. In that country, we can see the benefit of strong political leadership in telling people, "This is the virus, this is how you catch it" and, crucially, "These are the steps that you can take in order t o prevent yourself from
    884
    being infected". We have seen the prevalence rate in Uganda fall—as it has done in Senegal, too. That is one of the most important things that Governments can do to enable their peoples to protect themselves.

    Iraq
    Mr. David Stewart: If he will make a statement on aid to Iraq. [157874]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): May I first express the House's deepest sympathy to the victims of the appalling bomb attacks that took place in Karbala and Baghdad yesterday? Those responsible clearly chose the Ashura festival as their target and cynically intended to cause the deaths of as many people as possible in an effort to disrupt Iraq's progress towards reconstruction and democracy. That cannot be allowed to succeed.
    In my written statement of 23 February, I announced the publication of DFID's country assistance plan for Iraq. It sets out how the Government will help the reconstruction of Iraq over the next two years by supporting rapid, sustainable and equitable economic growth; effective and accountable governance; and social and political cohesion and stability. At the same time, I announced an initial UK contribution of £65 million to the United Nations and World Bank's international reconstruction fund facility for Iraq.
    Mr. Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that debt relief is a vital ingredient in the rebuilding of the Iraqi economy? Iraq owes about $200 billion in debt and reparations payments, while ordinary Iraqis exist on about $2 per day. Of course, aid is a vital ingredient, but does my right hon. Friend share my view that we must break the millstone of that crippling Iraqi debt?
    Hilary Benn: I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend on this subject. A lot of work is going on to try to achieve that. It will need to be dealt with through the Paris Club. I think that most major creditors now recognise the need for substantial debt reduction and restructuring.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: May I on behalf of the official Opposition express total support for the Minister's comments on the ghastly events of the last 24 hours and make it clear that, as the House knows, the official Opposition support the Government in their determination to see this through? Nevertheless, does not the Secretary of State now regret saying,
    "never mind the planning when we can see the product of the improvement that results from the work that has been done". —[Official Report, 12 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 292.]?
    Does he also regret saying that
    "the security situation is improving throughout the country as a whole. The majority of insurgency attacks remain largely confined to a limited area to the north and north-west of Baghdad"—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 944W.]?
    Is not the truth that the Iraqis and our armed forces are suffering from the lack of post-conflict planning?
    Hilary Benn: I do not accept that and I do not regret a word that I uttered on either of those two occasions,

    885
    because it is self-evidently the case that reconstruction in Iraq is progressing and is succeeding, despite attacks such as the awful one yesterday. Of course our forces, the Iraqi forces, the police officers and the emerging Iraqi army are particularly in the firing line because the people who are planting these bombs do not want the reconstruction to succeed; they do not want the Iraqi people to have the chance of a better life.
    However, it is important that the House recognise that those two things are happening in parallel, and that the process of reconstruction is taking place. Schools and hospitals are being rebuilt. The economy is growing. The increasing freedom of expression is evidenced by the growth of newspapers. Only last weekend the governing council attained the great achievement of agreeing a transitional law, which shows what can be done when the Iraqi people work together to carve out a better future for their own country.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart), the Secretary of State said that the intent of those responsible for the attacks could not be allowed to succeed. Will he take it from one who was shown round his mosque by the imam in Karbala that it is not a simple question of Sunni versus Shi'a? That is over-simplistic, and such things should not be said by people in the west who should know better. But how are we going to stop it succeeding?
    Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is not a simple matter, and nobody said that the reconstruction of Iraq after the 30 years of trauma and suffering that its people had experienced was going to be easy. This is a process, which we have to be determined to see through. What is necessary to maximise the chances of its success? First, it is necessary for the ordinary Iraqis to see that life is getting better as a result of the reconstruction work; that work is happening and people can see that.
    Secondly, and most importantly, there must be a clear political process, which shows the Iraqi people that this is about enabling them to take their own decisions about their own future—something that has been denied them for the last 30 years. With the appointment of the governing council, the appointment of the Ministers, the agreement on the transfer of authority to take place on 1 July this year and, most recently, the agreement on the transitional administrative law, the process demonstrates that the Iraqi people, when they work together, are perfectly capable of charting that path towards a better future. We need to get on with it, because that is the best way in the end for us to undermine those people who are trying to disrupt that process.
    Tom Brake: Yesterday's cold-blooded terrorist outrage makes it even more important that funding for aid in Iraq is guaranteed. Can the Secretary of State confirm what financial arrangements are in place to ensure that the work that, for instance, the Salvation Army is doing can continue beyond the 30 June cut-off point? Does he
    886
    expect aid to Iraq to increase as a result of yesterday's incident, and if so, where would he expect that additional funding to come from?
    Hilary Benn: On the first point, I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty in the continuation of the programme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned after 1 July. If there is a specific problem that he wishes to draw to my attention, I readily undertake to look into it. On the second issue, we have already made clear the extent of our financial commitment up to March 2006. Yesterday's events demonstrate the importance of the whole international community coming together to provide the support now, to further support the reconstruction and to back the political process, because that is the best way in the end of ensuring that Iraq has the better future that it desperately deserves after the nightmare that the people of that country have experienced in the past 30 years.

    Africa
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What discussions he has had on ensuring that aid is targeted towards the poorest areas of Africa. [157875]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): I have regular discussions with African Governments, officials and a wide range of organisations and individuals on where best to target aid. Decisions on where to allocate resources are informed by an analysis of poverty levels, a commitment to poverty reduction and institutional capacity. United Kingdom bilateral assistance to Africa will rise to £1 billion a year by 2005–06.
    Mr. Evans: Prince Harry has recognised that there is a real role for volunteers who want to give up some of their time to go to some of the poorest parts of Africa. It has been announced that he is spending some of his gap year in Lesotho, helping the victims of AIDS. As the Secretary of State will know, there is a skills shortage. A lot of young people are dying of AIDS, and they are the very people who could help out in the epidemic there. I welcome the amount of aid that the British Government are giving to help to combat the epidemic that is ravaging Africa, but can he suggest any practical ways in which we can assist with the effective spending of that money by ensuring that the skills needed to help those who are suffering from AIDS are gained?
    Hilary Bean: I welcome all the efforts that many voluntary organisations are making to try to contribute to the fight against HIV/AIDS, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fundamental question about capacity. In Malawi, for example, teachers are dying of HIV/AIDS faster than they can be trained, creating a fundamental problem that impacts on the achievement of the millennium development goal of getting kids into primary schools. I recognise that we need, as an international community working with developing country Governments, to think more about how we can bolster and support that capacity, perhaps in ways that we have not been using recently. Work that I have

    887
    commissioned on this very issue is already under way in the Department. The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a very big concern, to which we will have to respond.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: My right hon. Friend will know that the Science and Technology Committee is conducting an inquiry into how we can translate the wealth and financial resources that he is making available into scientific and engineering expertise, so that those countries can trade and invest their way out of current poverty levels. Will he welcome that inquiry and assure the House that he will give every assistance in promoting it to reach a satisfactory conclusion in those investigations?
    Hilary Benn: I indeed welcome the inquiry, and we have already given evidence. We are seeking to apply our scientific research in a way that makes the biggest difference in helping the people of Africa to have a better future, not least in encouraging, ideas and proposals—for example, new ways to plant and care for crops. We have to ensure that the ideas that are the product of that research are disseminated as effectively as possible, so that farmers on the ground know that they can do things differently to increase, for example, their agricultural productivity.
    Mr. John Bercow: The motivation behind the establishment of the UN Economic Commission for Africa is to be applauded, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to it. Does the commission intend to consider the reform of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative? Can he confirm whether it will also consider how to address the $300 million funding gap in relief for southern Africa? Will he tell the House what is the yardstick for measuring the commission's success in 12 months' time?
    Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the Commission for Africa, although I have to say that the fact that the Opposition have decided that they would not protect spending on international development would not help in achieving that objective. The Commission for Africa will consider all the things that he mentions and others, as we search for what more we can do to help Africa—but the worst thing that we could do is reduce the aid that we are giving.
    Mr. Bercow: We have decided no such thing, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to be explicitly clear on that point. Given that there is an AIDS levy in Zimbabwe, but that on my recent visit there I encountered people who are getting no benefit whatsoever from the resources raised by domestic taxpayers, will the commission consider the crisis of governance that is killing people, not only in judicial killings but by neglecting the terminally ill?
    Hilary Benn: On the first point, I simply say that the hon. Gentleman ought to talk to his colleagues about what others have decided for his portfolio. On the second issue, yes, the commission will need to consider good governance because everyone recognises that good governance is absolutely fundamental to the future of Africa.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Michael Weir: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 March.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before stating my engagements for the day, may I say that I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathy to the people of Iraq, where 150 or more innocent men, women and children were killed yesterday by terrorism, and to Pakistan where, in a similar attack, more than 40 innocent people died? Both were calculated acts of evil. Both were attacks designed to foment religious strife. The attack in Iraq was plainly designed to stop the progress that Iraq is making toward a stable democratic state under the sovereignty of the Iraqi people, and it has been condemned by Muslim leaders—Sunni and Shi'a alike. Our pledge to the people of Iraq and Pakistan is to work with them to ensure that this evil barbarism is eliminated from all parts of our world.
    This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Weir: Does the Prime Minister agree with Fred Eckhard, the official spokesman for Kofi Annan, that anyone bugging the Secretary-General of the United Nations is in clear breach of the 1946 UN convention and, indeed, has committed an illegal act?
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I said last Thursday on that except to say, yet again, that our security services of course abide by all our legal obligations.
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Now that we have successfully negotiated a peaceful outcome for the people of Iraq, what are we going to do in terms of securing a better solution for those in poverty throughout the world and improving settlements and progress on issues of third world debt?
    The Prime Minister: There has of course been a very important agreement in Iraq, which I hope will be ratified later this week, on a new constitution and a way forward. It is worth pointing out, as my hon. Friend implies, that that will allow people of all religious persuasions in Iraq freedom of worship and the ability to do what they wish to do in accordance with proper human rights. It is a remarkable political achievement by the people in Iraq, which is why whatever the terrorists may try to do, we have to carry on working to establish a peaceful, democratic, stable and prosperous Iraq for the future.
    Mr. Michael Howard: May I first join the Prime Minister in expressing the sympathy of those of us on these Benches to the families of those who lost their lives and those who were injured

    889
    in yesterday's horrific attacks in Iraq and Pakistan? Can the Prime Minister confirm that police in Basra, backed by British troops, captured four suspected bombers who might have caused even more carnage? I also join him in congratulating the Iraqi National Congress on the progress made in agreeing the constitution. Does the Prime Minister agree that we have a continuing duty to the people of Iraq to do everything that we can to help them to build a stable and peaceful country?
    The Prime Minister: In relation to people who may have been arrested by British troops, I cannot give any further information at this stage, but I will tell the House as soon as I am able to do so. It is worth pointing out that British troops and, indeed, those working with them down in the south of Iraq have done a quite magnificent job on behalf of this country and the people of Iraq. Of course I agree with the sentiments in the other part of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said.
    It is worth pointing something out to people who are in any doubt about the importance of what is going on in Iraq today and the struggle there of Iraqi people who are trying to make their country better. Although they are helped by the Americans, the British and 30 other countries, the Iraqi people are taking responsibility for their own affairs and trying to strive forward. These brutal, evil terrorists are prepared to kill any number of people to stop that progress being made. It literally is a fight between the forces of good and the forces of evil, and we should be immensely proud of the part that this country and our troops are playing in that struggle.
    Mr. Howard: Of course I join unreservedly with the Prime Minister in his tribute to British troops. Does he agree that it is the prospect of a stable and peaceful Iraq that represents the greatest threat to the terrorists of al-Qaeda and their associates, and is not that the reason why Iraq has now become the front line in the war against terror? What implications do yesterday's events have for the plans to hold elections in Iraq? Does he agree with the UN special advisor, Lakhdar Brahimi, who says that organising elections by 30 June in the current security climate would be difficult, and that it is unlikely that the necessary mechanisms can be put in place in time?
    The Prime Minister: It will be difficult, for the reasons that the UN representative gives. On the other hand, it is important that we keep to the timetable to bring democracy to Iraq as swiftly as possible. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the first part of his question—of course it is important. There is a clear reason why terrorists from every extremist group in the middle east are pouring into Iraq to try to do as much damage as they can to innocent people there: it is because they know that if Iraq becomes a stable, democratic and prosperous country, a Muslim country where there is tolerance of worship and sovereignty is vested in the Iraqi people, that will not only be a huge signal of hope across the middle east, but it will deal a tremendous blow to the propaganda of the extremists and fanatics who would say that the purpose of any
    890
    conflict in Iraq was to seize the oil or subjugate the Iraqi people. That is why they are doing it—they know what is at stake. I just hope that we do as well.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when he and I sat together in the shadow Cabinet during the Gulf crisis and war of 1990–91, we—the Labour party—gave full, unwavering and undeviating support to the policies of the Government of which the leader of the Conservative party was a member? We never wavered at any time—it was a matter of principle to us—nor did we ask for the publication of the legal justification for the war. Is not that a contrast—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is not that a contrast with the wriggling, squirming mess of opportunist hypocrisy we see on the Opposition Benches?
    The Prime Minister: I only hope that, since we have had an exchange today that was based on consensus, we can continue in that spirit. It is important for our country, our troops and the security of the world that on big issues, in so far as possible, the main parties come to agreement. I hope that we can maintain that position. I honestly believe that that is in the interests of Britain.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Following on from the question put by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, now that one former Prime Minister and two former Foreign Secretaries have said that the Attorney-General's legal advice should be published in full, he should not continue to resist doing so?
    The Prime Minister: No, I am afraid that I do not agree. Actually, I pay rather more attention to what those people did when in government.
    Mr. Kennedy: Where public trust is concerned, the absence of publication of the Attorney-General's full legal advice will only encourage the atmosphere out there of people not believing what they are being told. Publication must be in the interests of the Prime Minister and of the Government. Is not the real danger of the absence of publication the growing perception that perhaps the Attorney-General's advice was itself sexed up?
    The Prime Minister: For some people who have been opposed to the war, it really does not matter what happens. Whether there is another inquiry, whatever is published, and whatever is said, they simply cannot get over the fact that there is a legitimate disagreement about whether the judgment to go to war was right or not. It does not require a conspiracy theory to mount that argument; it simply requires an acceptance of the fact that there was a difference between us—between him and me and between those who were in favour of the war and those who were against it. However, I am frankly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has risen to his feet today and not at least condemned what happened in Iraq yesterday. When we examine what is

    891
    at stake in Iraq today, whatever we thought about the war—whether we agreed with it or not—surely we can agree that the most important thing now is to rebuild Iraq in the interests of that country and of the wider world.
    Mr. Colin Challen: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the publication last week of the report by the International Labour Organisation's World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation, which, among other recommendations, proposes that the ILO should have much stronger powers to carry out its duties? Unlike the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other bodies, the ILO does not have the power to enforce sanctions to ensure that labour rights are recognised around the globe. In particular, the right to join a free and fair trade union is denied to millions of Chinese workers. Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing those sentiments?
    The Prime Minister: The ILO report is wide ranging. It talks about the millennium development goals in Africa, which we are committed to meeting. Aid given by this country has significantly increased in the past few years, which is important. On labour standards, obviously I strongly support proper minimum labour standards across the world, as does the ILO. Indeed, we introduced the right, which was denied for many years, to join a trade union in this country. At the same time, it is important that minimum labour standards do not become a means of protectionism, and that balance must be struck.
    Tom Brake: The Prime Minister says that the UK has some of the toughest arms controls in Europe. If that is the case, can he explain why in 2002 the UK exported arms or weapons components to 12 African countries, many of which are involved in violent regional conflicts? Should the Economic Commission for Africa, which he established last week, investigate that matter; and where do those exports leave his claim that we prevent the sale of small arms to Africa?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps I will set out in writing for the hon. Gentleman exactly what was sold to each of the 12 countries. We should not assume that selling arms to a country is necessarily wrong. The defence industry is an important part of British industry, and many thousands of jobs depend on it. It is not necessarily the case that selling arms to countries is wrong, especially if countries use them to defend themselves.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating all those who have campaigned for and are now involved in the construction of the new £45 million specialist cardiac unit at Blackpool Victoria hospital, which I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health officially launch yesterday? Does he agree that Governments Must demonstrate not only economic competence and a commitment to the core values of the NHS but actual, real, sustained improvements for patients, such as those that that unit will deliver?
    The Prime Minister: The unit is part of a series of centres located across the country that will cut waiting
    892
    lists and waiting times. There is massive additional investment in the health service. Alongside other investments, there are new hospital buildings—I opened one recently—with magnificent, state-of-the-art facilities. They form part of the investment and reform programme in the national health service that is daily improving the lives of people in this country and bringing the national health service back to where it should be—the pride of Britain.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Following the question from the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on the national health service, the Prime Minister will be aware that there is a statutory, three-month implementation period for guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. In the case of photodynamic therapy for those suffering from wet, age-related macular degeneration, the Secretary of State for Health has extended that period to nine months. As a result, the Royal National Institute of the Blind estimates that 2,800 people will go blind unnecessarily. Can the Prime Minister explain why the Secretary of State took that action?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I am not aware of the particular issue to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers, but I will certainly look into it. I am sure that there are good reasons for extending the consultation period—there are often important reasons—in order to make sure that whatever we do is most effective for the patients concerned. However, I am not in a position to respond on the detail of the point today.
    Mr. Howard: Let me see if I can help the Prime Minister a bit. It is not a consultation period that was extended—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Health should restrain himself. It is not a consultation period that was extended but an implementation period. The Secretary of State said in the House last week that the reason for extending that period was a "lack of trained personnel", but the RNIB has said that there are at least 50 centres across the country that could provide that treatment today. Will the Prime Minister now instruct the Secretary of State to deliver that important sight-saving service as a matter of urgency?
    The Prime Minister: I will look into the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making. I understand from the Secretary of State that NICE agreed to the extension of the period, but I will obviously have to look into that very carefully to make sure that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said is right. I cannot answer the particular point because I simply do not know the details at the moment, but I can say that it has been part of the Government's investment programme in the health service massively to increase the number of training places throughout the national health service. I would point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that on each occasion that we have made that additional investment, he opposed it.
    Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the Prime Minister is still missing the point. The people who could provide that treatment, according to the RNIB, are there now.

    893
    The treatment could be provided now—people are going blind because they are not allowed to provide that treatment now. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Secretary of State to make that treatment available now?
    The Prime Minister: I am not going to give him any such instructions until I have investigated whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is being entirely accurate with the facts. If he does not mind my saying so, on previous occasions on which he has put such points of detail to me they have turned out to be not exactly as they were when he put them to me. I shall therefore have to look into the matter, but of course we will do whatever we can. It is important, however, that we do so in consultation with NICE. After all, we are the Government who established NICE, and did so to make sure that we can end the postcode lottery in the national health service. It has worked extremely well, and I am quite sure that the Secretary of State took action on proper advice. Following our exchange today, however, I will make sure that I acquaint myself fully with the facts, and will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so that we can see exactly what those facts are.
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews rose—
    Hon. Members: Ah!
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I plead guilty.
    The Attorney-General has provided three written replies to the effect that he did not rely on any facts in Government dossiers when reaching his opinion that Iraq had failed to disarm. In those circumstances, what factual material was he given by the Government from which he could draw that conclusion?
    The Prime Minister: The Attorney-General was given whatever material he required to make his decision, but the basis of the decision was that Iraq continued in material breach of UN resolutions. I must tell my hon. and learned Friend that in respect of resolution 1441 there was a whole series of things that Iraq was supposed to do under Saddam Hussein. Before he shakes his head, perhaps he would like to listen to what those were—that is what a lawyer should do, after all. The point, surely, is that the Iraq survey group has already found that there was a failure to disclose proper information to the United Nations inspectors and that there was a series of activities and programmes in breach of UN resolutions, so it is completely obvious that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 1441.
    Sandra Gidley: Will the Prime Minister fly me to the moon? Failing that, will he accompany me to Lunar house in Croydon, which has been described as a human cattle shed. Staff and the public are under huge pressure, and my constituents are waiting months, if not years, for their cases to be determined. Is the Prime Minister proud of the service that his Government are providing in that area?
    The Prime Minister: It is extremely unfair to say that about staff at Lunar house. Actually, an immense
    894
    amount of work has been done there. For example, 80 per cent. of asylum claims that used to take an average of 18 months to process now take only two months and, as the hon. Lady knows, the number of asylum seekers has been halved. The staff do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. We try to ensure that we process claims as quickly as possible.
    As for sending the hon. Lady to the moon, I fear that it is too much peopled with Liberal Democrats as it is.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will recall that in the course of the Weston Park agreement Judge Corry was asked to look into the killings in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. He has already had his report published in the Republic, but not yet in this country. Furthermore, he has told the families that he has come down in favour of a public inquiry to ascertain how those people were killed and whether there was any collusion with the security forces of the Crown. Can my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that after the report has been published, public inquiries will be established, as recommended by Mr. Justice Corry, and that there will be no attempt to subsume or absorb those inquiries into any future truth and reconciliation commission, in order to ensure that those responsible for these hideous crimes can properly be held to account?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that no decisions have been taken in relation to any truth and reconciliation commission. Obviously, that could not subsume any such inquiries. I stand by the commitments of Weston Park, but there are particular legal reasons that we have to go through and ensure are in order before we are able to publish the Corry report. We will do so as soon as we can.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Prime Minister confirm that a limit of 480,000 air traffic movements a year at Heathrow was accepted by his Government after the terminal 5 inquiry, and that the Government White Paper is now calling for runway alternation so that 560,000 air traffic movements a year can take place? That will make noise pollution unbearable and could cause catastrophe in the skies over Heathrow. If that happens, will the Prime Minister take responsibility or will he blame somebody else?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Lady's constituency preoccupation. It is of course important that she represent the views of her constituents, and I am sure that they are opposed to any extension at Heathrow. It is in the nature of such developments that it is very difficult to find people who are in favour of them.
    On the other hand, we have to try to take a strategic view in the interests of the country as a whole, in view of the fact that air travel has increased dramatically and will increase dramatically, again over the next few years. A whole series of issues, including environmental issues, must be resolved. That is why we said what we did in the aviation White Paper. The hon. Lady will have to Understand—it is difficult to say, but none the less true—that in the end we will have to take a decision

    895
    based on what we believe to be in the long-term interests of the country; and Heathrow as an airport is of massive strategic importance to the whole of the UK.
    Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that the biggest single problem in Burnley is not the British National party and racism, which he has always condemned, but the 4,500 empty houses there. Later this month, the results of the bid for the housing renewal pathfinder project—Elevate—will be announced. While we are waiting for that, a series of houses that are not included in phase 1 are deteriorating rapidly. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and people in east Lancashire that we will get an early decision to enable us to tackle the problem quickly?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make an announcement on that shortly. We have set aside a £500 million package for housing market renewal, which is a major issue in east Lancashire and in places such as my hon. Friend's constituency, and the obverse of some of the issues down in the south of the country. That is why we thought it so important to establish the pathfinder renewal fund.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Why does the Prime Minister take part in only 5 per cent. of Divisions, according to the Library? I know that he is busy, but does he understand that, while he asks his colleagues to come here to vote for things about which many of them have severe doubts, he can hardly be bothered to vote himself?
    The Prime Minister: We have rather a large majority, and often I do not come here for Divisions. However, the most important thing when holding a Prime Minister to account is questions at the Dispatch Box. In the past six and a half years, I have answered more questions at the Dispatch Box—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answered?"] Let us say that I have given answers to my satisfaction if not the wholehearted satisfaction of others. I have made more statements—the whole Government have made more statements—and I believe that that is a more effective way in which to hold the Prime Minister to account.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Following my right hon. Friend's welcome announcement last week of an Economic Commission for Africa, does he agree that many major issues, such as AIDS, poverty, civil war and civil unrest, remain to be faced in Africa? Does he further agree that poverty is the key issue? What steps does he believe the international community should take to increase income levels so that the challenges can be taken on?
    The Prime Minister: The increase in our bilateral aid to Africa will take it to £1 billion a year in the next couple of years. That is an increase of 50 per cent. in three years. Indeed, we have trebled the amount of money that we were contributing in 1997. It is therefore important to continue with the aid and development budget and not subject it to the cuts with which the Conservative party is apparently intent on proceeding. They would do immense damage to our whole development case.
    Mr. James Clappison: Does the Prime Minister appreciate how fed up people
    896
    are with unneeded name changes such as those proposed to the criminal justice system? Is not that one more example of the Government's propensity to waste money and overlook the pride that ordinary people take in their connection with the Crown?
    The Prime Minister: Something will be said about that later. Surely we can take pride in, for example, a 30 per cent. rise in guilty pleas now that the prosecutors have an active role in charging, a fall in the number of ineffective trials, and conviction rates of 90 per cent. in Crown and magistrates courts. Whatever the service's change of name, it will make no difference to the fact that the Crown mounts the prosecutions. Surely it is far more important to concentrate on the excellent work of many in the Crown Prosecution Service.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: The latest victim of death by dangerous driving in my constituency was eight-year-old Billy Joe Dean. Of greatest concern to me are the drivers who receive short sentences, which are not unusually reduced on appeal, despite the fact that the drivers have been driving under the influence of alcohol, often without licences or insurance, and have usually been involved in previous incidents. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have been far too lenient with those drivers in the past?
    The Prime Minister: I can totally understand and, indeed, share the anger of my hon. Friend and his constituents about such situations. Obviously, I cannot comment on the individual court case. We have given the courts the power to increase the penalty. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving has been increased from 10 to 14 years. I hope that the new sentencing guidelines, which we shall discuss later, will allow us to make sentences more consistent and make it clear that those who cause death by dangerous driving, especially when under the influence of drink, take lives wholly unnecessarily and appallingly, with terrible, tragic consequences for individuals and their families.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Does the Prime Minister accept that one of the responsibilities of Members of Parliament is to represent the interests of those who sent them here? Does he therefore accept that I am deeply concerned about the position of my borough council of Macclesfield, which, despite an increase in resources from central Government to take account of inflation, is in grave difficulty because of additional responsibilities that central Government have placed on local government for which additional resources have not been provided? Is he prepared to meet me or to ask the relevant Minister to meet me to discuss the problems of my council, which is doing its best and is a debt-free borough council? The withdrawal of capital receipts means that it is in grave difficulty.
    The Prime Minister: I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I have to say to him, in relation to councils, that they all—including Macclesfield—have had an above-inflation rise in central Government grant. Of course there will always be difficult decisions for councils, but if we look back over the past few years,

    897
    we see that most councils in the country have had a double-digit real terms increase in their funding. Yes, it is true that they have also had additional responsibilities, but the funding increase has been
    898
    massive. I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the position of his own Front Benchers is to cut, in real terms, the amount of money going to local authorities, not to increase it as we are doing.

Crown Prosecution Service
12. 30 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: To ask the Home Secretary if he will make a statement on his role in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service and on its renaming to delete reference to the Crown.
The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this question.
As Minister responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, the Attorney-General has initiated and is leading a substantial programme of development and reform of the CPS. The Home Secretary fully supports that programme, particularly the closer working between the CPS and the police that it involves. Some months ago, the Attorney-General first raised the question of whether, to reflect that programme of change and reform, the name of the Crown Prosecution Service should be changed. Further discussions are under way. The Attorney-General is making a statement on that in another place this afternoon.
Mr. Grieve: I thank the Solicitor-General for that extremely brief statement, but frankly, I am sorry to see her at the Dispatch Box. The question was specifically put to the Home Secretary, because it is what he said yesterday that requires scrutiny by, and an answer to be given to, this House. It was the Home Secretary who made the comment on the Crown Prosecution Service. In the same speech, he refereed to ensuring that magistrates and district judges hold public meetings to be influenced in their decisions as judges.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett) indicated assent.
Mr. Grieve: I note that the Home Secretary nods with approval
Will the Solicitor-General confirm that neither matter to which I have referred is the Home Secretary's departmental responsibility? Or are we to understand, from yesterday's comments, that there has in fact been a substantial change of policy on this matter? Were the Home Secretary's remarks approved by the Attorney-General and, for that matter—in relation to the judiciary—by the Lord Chancellor prior to being made?
Does the Solicitor-General agree with me that the Home Secretary and the Home Office should have no departmental role in the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service or the judiciary because of the risk of political interference? Is it not for the Attorney-General, through his oversight, to protect the independence of the CPS and for the Lord Chancellor to do so in relation to the judiciary? If so, what are the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General doing about that, in relation to what they have said to the Home Secretary on this matter?
What is the background to the proposal on the CPS? The principle in this country is t hat the Crown is the font of all justice, independent of politics. Prosecutions are brought in the name of the Crown precisely to emphasise that point. A prosecutor, as I well remember, is reminded at the outset that his role is not partisan, but
900
is that of a minister of justice. How does that square with the Home Secretary's comments that he wants the prosecutors to be on the side of the public? The Solicitor-General might have no difficulty agreeing with me that the public interest and the interest of a neighbourhood might not be one and the same.
Why has there been neither an announcement nor any consultation whatever with Parliament on the proposals? Why was the Queen not informed of what the Government have proposed on such an important change?
We learn today that, in response, the Government's spokesman to the Lobby gave the impression that the Government were now retreating on their proposal on the Crown Prosecution Service, emphasising that it was only an idea at the earliest stages of consultation. Will the Solicitor-General please tell the House who is right: the Home Secretary in his utterances yesterday or the Government's spokesman this morning? The House is entitled to know how the matter stands.
The diminution of the role of the Crown is all of a piece with other Government proposals relating to the Prison Service, where officers who derive from the Crown their power to detain are going to lose their—
Mr. Blunkett: No they are not. The hon. Gentleman should not read the Express.
Mr. Grieve: The Home Secretary intervenes from a sedentary position. If he were answering this question—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary will have to be quiet. The shadow Solicitor-General is asking a question.
Mr. Grieve: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not taken the opportunity to answer this question. We shall not have the benefit of his words.
Does the Solicitor-General agree that the problem with all these proposals is that they risk undermining the independence of the judicial system and the administration of justice? They will also undermine the Crown in its central role of ensuring the non-politicisation of the system of justice and, in the process, they will undermine our freedoms. Is it not significant that these comments come at a time when the Home Secretary is seeking vastly to extend his powers into the judicial system by a number of means? They include the removal of judicial scrutiny of asylum cases and the substitution of an administrative system, the desire that judges should conform to his ideas, and the removal of the ability of the Lords of Appeal and the Lord Chief Justice to speak in Parliament. Is it not the case that what is now happening—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Grieve: I am asking a question.
Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman is asking a question, and I am listening. What I am trying to say is that the question is too long—[Interruption.] Order. An urgent question should be an extension of

901
Question Time. The hon. Gentleman is putting such a long series of questions that I must now stop him. I call the Solicitor-General.
The Solicitor-General: I have sought to answer this question because the hon. Gentleman asked about the Crown Prosecution Service. I therefore thought that it would be helpful to him and to the House for me to answer it, as the Attorney-General is responsible for superintending the Crown Prosecution Service. That is why I am here at the Dispatch Box.
I should like to make it clear that there is no risk of politicisation of the Crown Prosecution Service. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he is no more committed than the Attorney-General or me to the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service or to its carrying out its work in the public interest according to the code of Crown prosecutors. We stand by that and defend it, as the hon. Gentleman would expect us to. I think he knows that. The question then is whether it is right for Ministers responsible for the police to work together with Ministers responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, and for them in turn to work together with the Ministers responsible for the courts. Of course it makes sense for there to be a partnership. We have argued, as has the hon. Gentleman, for good partnership at local level between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts, in the public interest and the interest of justice. The hon. Gentleman has been a supporter of that principle, which I welcome.
It is right, too, that this principle should be embodied at area level, through the local criminal justice boards, which we have often discussed in the House. That involves a partnership between chief constables, chief Crown prosecutors and those responsible for the magistrates courts and Crown courts. That, too, is part of the partnership in the public interest and the interest of justice. Of course, people have their own independent responsibilities within that. Nothing changes that, but it is right that they should work in partnership. Just as we are asking people to work in partnership at local and area level, so it must be right that the Ministers responsible for those different agencies work together. That is what has happened.
The hon. Gentleman made a great many other points. He asked why the Home Secretary said what he did. The answer is that he was asked a question. If the Home Secretary is asked a question, it is right that he should answer it. I would point out —[Interruption.] He was asked a question when he was engaged in a consultation. He was making a wide-ranging speech and he was asked a question that relates to an issue on which the Attorney-General has the lead. He was quite right to answer; it would have been very odd if he had not done so, so he answered.
Conservative Members are in danger of getting ahead of themselves, so perhaps I might remind them that there has been discussion of this matter for some time. There is a broad-ranging programme of reform, with which the House has been involved, such as proposals for the criminal justice system under which the Crown Prosecution Service should take over from the police the responsibility of charging. That involves prosecutors working with the police in police stations. That was in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
902
The House was involved in discussing that as well as in discussing the opportunity for prosecutors to be able to appeal against terminal rulings.[Interruption.] Conservative Members wonder why I am raising these points, but I am trying to explain that those are the building blocks of a programme of improvement and change in the Crown Prosecution Service that will make it a self-confident prosecutor in the public interest in all areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Make a statement about it. "] Conservative Members say that we should make a statement, but this has been discussed at Solicitor-General's questions. Such issues have been discussed in Committee and in the House.
Mr. Alan Duncan: What about the name change?
The Solicitor-General: I will come back to the name change. Conservative Members should bear with me, because the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised many more questions in addition to the name change. I think it right that I should try to answer those. I am not trying to avoid the issue of the name change, but I have been asked many other questions.
I understand that prisons will remain known as Her Majesty's prisons, but, as a means to bring together the probation service and the Prison Service, the overall service that employs those who work in probation and in prisons will be called the National Offender Management Service.
Mr. Duncan: Name change?
Mr. Speaker: Order The hon. Gentleman should not shout across the Chamber. I call David Heath.
Mr. Duncan: But what about the name change?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I tell you, Mr. Duncan, that you are defying the Chair. You will not do that. I call David Heath.
Mr. David Heath: I also regret the fact that the Home Secretary is not apparently accountable for his words when he interferes with the business of another Department of State.
I believe that there is a case for the name change proposed for the Crows Prosecution Service, if not least to bring it in line with the nomenclature of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a post that, after all, we have had for 124 years. Indeed, there is a case to be made for increased transparency and effectiveness on behalf of the service. However, is it not important to differentiate between the activities of the prosecution and the judiciary and those of the Executive and the state? Is that not an important differentiation, which is made by the use of the term "Crown" and which needs to be maintained in the dealings of the Crown Prosecution Service?
Will the Solicitor-General confirm that there is no question of changing the practice of mounting prosecutions in the name of the Crown? Will she confirm that for any name change to take place there would need to be primary legislation, not least the amendment of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985?

903
Whatever merits there may be for the case, it is simply not a matter in which the Home Secretary, of all Secretaries of State, should be involved because of that separation of the judiciary and the prosecution from the executive arm of the Home Office. Is this not, yet again, an argument for having a fully effective Department of Justice, which would take away such judicial matters from the province of the Home Secretary?
Lastly, does not this episode smack of the confusion over the removal of the title "Lord Chancellor" and the proposals introduced last year? Is it not time for considered reform of the judicial system, not the disintegration of our systems by press release, Cabinet reshuffle or ministerial asides?
The Solicitor-General: Of course, the Home Secretary is accountable for his words, but the shadow Attorney-General tabled this question, and the Attorney-General, to whom I am the deputy, is responsible for superintending the Crown Prosecution Service. Sometimes, during Solicitor-General's questions, you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that. I get asked questions about the police. I do not say, "That it is not a matter for me, I am not going to answer that question. " If I think that I know the answer, I seek to give the House the information for which it asks and I say, "This is a matter for the Home Secretary, but I understand…" Similarly, if a Member asks a question that relates to issues that are the responsibility of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, I do not say, "Nothing to do with me, go and ask somebody else. " I seek to answer such questions. Similarly, if the Home Secretary is asked at a public engagement a question related to the wider criminal justice system, which finds its centre of gravity within the Crown Prosecution Service, it is perfectly fair for him to answer the question, and he is accountable for his words.
Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. We cannot have joined-up government, joined-up agencies and partnership in the interests of justice, and at the same time a kind of narrow, paranoid departmentalism. I am not in any doubt of the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service, nor do I fear for it. I stand here to defend that, as does the Attorney -General in the other place. All Crown prosecutors know that they have that backing from the Attorney-General and they implement the code accordingly. I therefore urge Members not to read something into the proposal when, on reflection, they know that it is an important programme of reform, of which partnership is an important part, that the Attorney-General is in no doubt about the importance of having an independent prosecution service, and that that is the situation.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who pestered Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, before my right hon. and learned Friend was born, with pertinent questions, may I ask whether this does not show that the Attorney-General should be in the House of Commons? Given the quality of the question asked earlier by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), might not he be an admirable candidate?
The Solicitor-General: It is a matter for the Prime Minister to appoint the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, and I take seriously my responsibility to account to this House for the work of the Attorney-General. I do not therefore think that there is less accountability to this House, as I am absolutely clear and open with the House and speak on behalf of the Attorney-General in this House.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I ask Her Majesty's Solicitor-General what prior consultation there has been with Her Majesty's judges, those who command the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force or officers of regiments with the prefix "Royal"? Does she not understand that this country has a long and proud history, and that the title "Royal" reminds us of that? Does she not understand, too, that few people who are not zealous republicans have any sympathy for the type of policy now being described?
The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that too few people know what the Crown Prosecution Service is, and what it does. We want to make sure that people have confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. They understand what the police do, and they understand what the courts do, but many of them are baffled about what the Crown Prosecution Service does. One of the things that the Crown Prosecution Service has been doing is seeking to engage with local communities to ensure that people understand what it does in the public interest. The question is whether, as part of a whole range of reforms—which I have already set out to the House, and which I do not want to rehearse again—changing the name would contribute to people's understanding of the enhanced and reformed role of the Crown Prosecution Service. Hon. Members should not therefore get too concerned about this.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether judges had been consulted—
Mr. Hogg: Her Majesty's judges.
The Solicitor-General: Her Majesty's judges, or her Majesty's regiments.
There has been discussion within the Crown Prosecution Service, with the Director of Public Prosecutions. When the Attorney-General first mentioned the idea as a possibility, it was reported in the newspapers. It would not be true to say that no substantive change is being made, but I know that the whole House supports that change, and that it will be in the interests of everyone in the country.
Harry Cohen: Having removed the word "Crown" from the title of the Crown Prosecution Service, will the Government proceed to get rid of Crown immunity, especially in health and safety matters?
The Solicitor-General: Having said that government is joined up, I do not think it would be right for me to answer a question about Crown immunity. What I will do is draw my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my colleague who is responsible for such matters.
Mr. John Redwood: Are the Government backing off from the idea of a name change, and how much would it cost if it went ahead?
The Solicitor-General: No, there is no backing off. There is sensible discussion. It would be premature to discuss the cost, but I would say "As cheap as possible".
Chris Bryant: Will my right hon. and learned Friend come to the Rhondda to discuss with my constituents the changes to the Crown Prosecution Service and to its name? I think she would find that they would say, almost universally, "Hear, hear" to what the Home Secretary said yesterday. They would like a Crown Prosecution Service that is on the side of the public, because their experience so far has been, on the whole, that it only makes itself known to them when it is saying no to a prosecution and they are victims of crime.
The Solicitor-General: I think that people have welcomed the changes undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service on the Attorney-General's initiative. I think they want the service to be strengthened, reformed and improved. It will be a good thing if that can be made more visible by means of a name change that will enable the public to understand the process better. People understand the concept of Her Majesty's judges and are familiar with judges, but they are not familiar with the concept of the Crown Prosecution Service. Given that it is a public service that is responsible for prosecutions, it is important for people to know how it works, and how the criminal justice system works to protect their interests.
Lady Hermon: The Solicitor-General will know that the title of the Crown Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland was changed to "Public Prosecution Service" two years ago by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Would the Solicitor-General have a quiet word with her colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to establish whether the sun, the moon and the stars fell out as a consequence?
The Solicitor-General: I congratulate the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland on the extensive changes it has undertaken, and congratulate the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions in particular. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out earlier, the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales is called simply that, and does not have "Crown" in his title.
I urge Members not to run away with themselves, but to focus on the substance. If a name change can assist in terms of the substance, it should be considered and implemented; but the objective is reform and improvement in the Crown Prosecution Service. We are certainly not backing off from the proposal that, as part of that, a name change should be considered.
Mr. George Foulkes: As you will understand, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to ask a question lest I be accused again of toadying, self-serving sycophancy—but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the original question of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was based on synthetic anger, inaccurate newspaper reports, pedantry and semantics? Will she confirm that in Scotland the procurators fiscal are quite capable of conducting prosecutions on behalf of the Crown without having the word "Crown" in their title?
The Solicitor-General: That is true.
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I feel that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is reading rather too much into the proposal; on the other—without wanting to give him too much encouragement—I commend him for taking the accountability of his position seriously enough to present such issues to the House.
Mr. William Cash: Does the Solicitor-General accept that the proposed name change gives the impression of an increasing tendency towards touchy-feely republicanism? It is felt that implicit in the new title is a degree of movement towards state control. This is not just a matter of semantics. As the Solicitor-General knows, I tabled a written question to her on the nolle prosequi issue vis-a-vis the Katharine Gun prosecution—a serious matter, in respect of which she replied to me yesterday. Does she not accept that the role of the Attorney-General as holder of a prerogative right of the Crown to drop prosecutions is one of the most important constitutional issues before us today? Does she not agree that changing the name of the Crown Prosecution Service is actually a retrograde step, at a time when we should be emphasising the importance of the integrity and impartiality of the judicial process?
The Solicitor-General: I do not see any contradiction between the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service and a change in its name. The two are not polar opposites.
The hon. Gentleman says he has gained the impression that this is something to do with touchy-feely republicanism. Perhaps I can put his mind at rest. There is no intention of making the Crown Prosecution Service touchy-feely—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about republicanism?"] I shall come to the point about republicanism. Let me deal with "touchy-feely" first. That is nonsense. We are talking about a serious programme of improvement and reform, involving many more prosecutors who will be able to bring offenders to justice swiftly, look after victims and witnesses properly, and make sure the system works. That is not touchy-feely; it is practical work in the public interest.
As for republicanism, the name change was intended to give the public a better understanding of the new, reformed role of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is about moving closer to the idea that the public can understand the public interest.

The hon. Gentleman did indeed ask me a question about the Katharine Gun case, and I have answered it. The answer to his further question about whether the Attorney-General's ability to issue a nolle prosequi was

907
important is yes, it is. Is it going to be changed? No, it is not. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the Katharine Gun case it was not appropriate or necessary even to consider a nolle prosequi, because it was a question of evidence.
Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind tie House that Back Benchers are allowed only one supplementary question, not four. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) might remember that next time.
Jon Trickett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that then: is a real danger of loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system, much of it focused on the Crown Prosecution Service? There is confusion over its role and timidity in prosecutions, a turf war breaks out between the CPS and the police from time to time, and there is a failure to liaise with victims of crime. For all those reasons, should we not proceed rapidly with reform of the CPS?
The Solicitor-General: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. He is absolutely right about the importance of public confidence in the criminal justice system; he is absolutely right about the confusion and misunderstanding surrounding the important role of the criminal justice system; he is absolutely right in saying that improving the way in which the system works must mean greater partnership; and he is absolutely right about the need for the Crown Prosecution Service, during the process of prosecutions, to give victims more support and information. It is on those issues that the House should focus.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Have Ministers learned nothing from the mishandling of the announcement of the abolition of the Lord Chancellor? The Prime Minister admitted that it was not handled as well as it should have been, and it created anxieties about the independence of the judiciary from government. Given that there is no evidence that replacing the term "Crown" with the term "Public" will in some way enhance public confidence in the CPS—in fact, that it is determined by the factors that Members have referred to today, such as the extent to which account is taken of the concerns of victims of crime—why does the Solicitor-General believe that it is a significant factor in what is otherwise an important process of reform?
The Solicitor-General: A name change for the Crown Prosecution Service will not by itself establish public confidence, but as part of a wide range of reforms it may well contribute to it. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we have learned nothing from matters relating to the Lord Chancellor, but I should remind Members that the Attorney-General has been leading reforms of, and improvements to, the CPS since 2001. This is a long and ongoing programme of reform and change, and there is nothing sudden about it. What is sudden is the shadow Attorney-General's raising in this House the question of the name change, which I am attempting to
908
answer. But there is no sudden programme of reform; indeed, we have discussed this issue continuously in the House.
Mr. John Taylor: Is not the prospect of magistrates' public meetings somewhat reminiscent of Bucharest under Ceausescu?
The Solicitor-General: No, but the question of the judiciary's engagement with the public, in whose interests they do justice, is a difficult and sensitive one, and it is obviously important to get the balance right. However, in respect of the more effective prosecution of domestic violence, for example, I have welcomed seeing the magistracy and occasionally Crown court judges at conferences on such violence. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, it is to be welcomed. We can trust the magistracy and the judiciary to know where to draw the line, and they do not need the hon. Gentleman to point out to them that they have to be independent. They know that, and they guard that independence jealously.
Mr. Edward Garnier: May I assure the Solicitor-General that in the courts in which I sit as a recorder, nobody is in any doubt as to what the Crown Prosecution Service means and what it does? Is she not in danger of becoming involved in an utterly fatuous desire to "modernise" the name of the prosecution service simply because the Government think it a more trendy thing to do? What is important is that the name be maintained, but that the functions of the CPS be improved through all sorts of methods. Changing the name is a simple waste of time and money.
The Solicitor-General: I question whether everyone in the hon. and learned Gentleman's court is in no doubt about the role of the Crown Prosecution Service. I would hope that that is so, but I wonder whether all jurors really understand that role, and I suspect that many do not. I wonder whether all victims really understand that role, but I suspect that many do not. The same goes for witnesses and for those who might have the great opportunity to be in the public gallery when he is sitting as a recorder.
The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the change is a waste of money, but as I said, there will be no waste of money. He also asks whether the change is "trendy", and the answer is no.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The right hon. and learned Solicitor-General, for whom I have a lot of respect, talked about synthetic anger, but surely she must agree that her Government are obsessed with name-changing, political correctness and dumbing down the Crown. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, surely every single penny should be concentrated on the front line.
The Solicitor-General: There is no question that this is part of some obsession with name changing for its own sake, and I absolutely deny that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman asks whether the change is part of dumbing down, but ensuring that the public understand the services that are so important to them is not dumbing down; it is legitimate and in the public interest.

909
I get the sense that half the Opposition Members do not actually agree with what they are saying; in fact, many of them are more sensible than they are making out. Many agree with what we are doing, support the Crown Prosecution Service and understand its work. I ask them not to go off on a political tangent and make this a political issue. As Members will understand, the Attorney-General and I have never sought to use the CPS politically in any way, shape or form. This is not a dumbing down, trendy initiative, and if Members think hard about it, on reflection they will agree.
Mr. Mark Francois: Is the logical follow-on from this proposed change replacing Crown courts with people's courts within a few years? Does the Solicitor-General not realise that we in the United Kingdom are deeply proud of our royal traditions and that we wish to maintain them, instead of having the "people's this" and the "people's that" and becoming some kind of ersatz North Korea?
The Solicitor-General: These thin end of the wedge arguments are wrong. For many years, the Director of Public Prosecutions has led the Crown Prosecution Service, and the fact that he is the DPP has not necessitated any other change anywhere else in the system. So I urge Members to step back, think a bit more calmly about this issue, consider whether they support the process that the CPS is going through—I know that they support the building blocks of the reform led by the Attorney-General—and not to lose sight of the important substance of reform and get themselves into a whirl about the name change.

House Building (Targets)
1. 7 pm
Bob Spink: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local planning authorities to determine the number of houses built in their areas.
As Sebastian O'Kelly, editor of Property on Sunday, says,
"Like distant thunder, war is coming to England's peaceful shires …
Battle is soon to be joined between Government and those who want to save something of the villages and countryside in the South East. It is a clash that will pitch all the power of central government, and the artful pleading of self-interested builders, against local democracy. "
Sebastian O'Kelly exposed a Treasury report that urged the building of 2. 5 million more houses. As he said:
"To build them, the Government needs to overturn the planning process that has existed for 50 years: a process that has spared us again and again from the most appalling excesses of ill-thought-out, speculative development. "
National recognition of the Government's planning changes now extends to local communities. For instance, on 5 January, Castle Point wildlife action group wrote as follows:
"Like a lot of local people, we are very concerned about excessive development in the Borough, which is destroying much wildlife habitat and our quality of life…The Government's massive building programme will hugely exacerbate the problem. "
I congratulate the group on its care of our environment and wildlife, and I seek to legislate to reverse the Government's rapid move towards more building and less democratic local control over it. I should point out, of course, that not all new development is bad. We need more social housing in my constituency—perhaps 100 units or so—and more affordable housing for our children and for public sector workers, but we do not need the thousands of extra houses that the Government are trying to force on us.
Let me illustrate the change in numbers. Castle Point borough council had a target of 2,400 new houses, and although we are well over half way through the planning period, only 700 have been identified and built. That shows how extravagant the target was. Yet the Government now want to impose a massively ramped-up target of 4,000 on Castle Point, to be built by 2021.
Amazingly, though, Castle Point has got off lightly. Thurrock must build. an astounding 18,500 new houses, Basildon 10,700 and Southend-on-Sea 6,000; and so it goes on. The Government are further increasing the target for Essex's house building to an outrageous 6,500 extra houses every year right up to 2021.
The villain of the piece is, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister, who identified four growth areas: the fast-becoming-discredited Thames Gateway; Milton Keynes; Ashford and London; and Stansted and Cambridge. As the campaigning Steve Neale of the Yellow Advertiser put it, "Green belt loss looms" with 43,800 more houses earmarked for south Essex alone in the near future, threatening hundreds of acres of green belt. The Government seek to achieve that massive building by increasing density, packing them in and creating potential ghettos in a planning orgy like that of the 1960s, which created so many sink communities.

911
But the Deputy Prime Minister has a problem. Decent local councillors, who are responsible for making planning decisions, refuse to go along with the Government's plans to build over our beautiful green belt and destroy our quality of life. They do so for very good reason. Local councillors are directly accountable to local people. They live in their local communities and therefore have a vested interest in protecting their environment. They also want sustainable development, which means new jobs, new infrastructure and new investment in public services.
The editor of the Basildon Evening Echo hit the nail on the head on 28 January, writing:
"Without a new integrated system of roads and public transport, the Gateway is just a dead duck in the Essex mud. The cash required to establish the necessary transport development is…£1. 6 billion. Yet the Govt's road-finance plan fails to acknowledge the existence of the Thames Gateway. Or, for that matter, South Essex. "
Even now, we need improved infrastructure, particularly roads and public transport. We need public service improvements and investment in schools, doctors, dentists, sewage treatment plants and waste disposal. And we need to build up flood defences and stop building on flood plains. We need police stations that are open and offer access to the public, and more policemen on the beat to tackle thuggery and street crime levels that are entirely out of control and threatening to spawn dangerous vigilante responses, as I stated in the House last month.
Faced with the local difficulty of councillors and editors protecting their local communities, as they should, the Government are removing planning powers from democratic control in those communities and imposing Big Brother controls from above. The Government's Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill changes the system from one in which there is considerable democratic input with local councils making decisions within local plans that comply with county council structure plans, which in turn reflect Government planning guidance, into one in which the Government will impose a regional "SS"—spatial strategies—abolishing local control and structure plans completely.
Regional housing gestapos called regional housing boards will ensure delivery of the Government's massive increase in building, with cram-them-in densities and green belt destruction, whether communities like it or not. These "SSs" or gestapos, like all gestapos, are unelected, unaccountable, remote and faceless. Yet the Government present this new Labour policy as
"neighbourhood renewal and neighbourhood renaissance".
They use facile language to cover their dubious intent. They refuse to listen to the people as they bulldoze through our local democracy and our environment.
The Minister for Housing and Planning visited my constituency a month ago on his Thames Gateway tour. He told the local papers that he wanted to
912
"protect and improve the environment"
on Canvey Island, which he described as having a "unique diversity". He went on to say:
"I am confident we can develop it. "
He did not seem to understand the irony and contradiction in his statement, which was reminiscent of the Deputy Prime Minister's exhortation that Labour's green belt policy was a great achievement and that they intended to build on it. The people of Castle Point did not need the Minister to tell them that they have a wonderful environment, nor that it needs protecting. They do need him to stop increasing the building targets that will destroy it. Sebastian O'Kelly made the argument against the increased building targets very well when he said that
"nothing much needs to be done to redress the alleged housing shortage in the South East. The housing market itself is already offering a solution.
Thanks to high property prices in the South, for the first time since the Sixties the great cities of the North are coming back to life. Residents are flooding back to the centres of Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds and, now, even Liverpool.
The whole of Britain's economy, that has been dangerously tilted towards the South East, is at last beginning to right itself and wealth is spreading through to the distant regions far more evenly. Do we really want to endanger this laudable trend by building masses of cheap houses for uncertain demand in the South East?"
We all know that when politicians stop listening, the public will vote them out. That is Labour's destiny.
In short, my Bill draws attention to the Government's increase in building targets, removal of local democracy and lack of sustainable infrastructure investment. My Bill would enable local planning authorities to determine the number of houses built in their areas. It would lead, therefore, to the protection of local democracy, a reduction in the number of new houses, higher quality development that is in touch with local needs, environmental protection and improved infrastructure. My Bill would truly safeguard communities. It simply puts trust where it should be—in the people—as opposed to Labour's Big Brother approach of imposing inappropriate targets and destroying democracy. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Bob Spink, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Eric Pickles, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Mark Francois, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Angela Watkinson, Mr. John Baron, Ann Winterton and Mr. John Redwood.

HOUSE BUILDING (TARGETS)
Bob Spink accordingly presented a Bill to enable local planning authorities to determine the number of houses built in their area: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 June, and to be printed [Bill 65].
Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Trade Justice for the Developing World
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Gentleman to move the motion, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  1. 18 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I beg to move,
  That this House shares the concern of the Trade Justice Movement about the plight of the poorest people in the world, and congratulates the Movement on bringing their conditions to the attention of the public; notes with concern the fact that more than one billion people live on less than one dollar a day, that life expectancy in many African countries is declining, that 28 million people in Africa have HIV/AIDS, and that the poorest countries' share of world trade has fallen sharply in the last two decades; recognises that the combination of trade distorting subsidies by rich countries and barriers to products from poor countries have gravely damaged the latter; believes that trade liberalisation and increased international trade offer the best hope of alleviating poverty in the developing world; regrets the breakdown of the WTO talks in Cancun; and urges the Government both to press for the talks to restart and to publish its proposals for the reform of agricultural subsidies and the reduction of trade barriers to give poor countries the fair deal on international trade that will allow them to compete and grow.
  It is a particular pleasure and privilege to move this motion in Fairtrade fortnight and, at least in part, in recognition of the invaluable contribution to development work and political debate that has been made by the Trade Justice Movement.
  I begin by simultaneously pleasing and displeasing. I am not here this afternoon, in valuable Opposition time, on a crucial issue of national and international importance, to pick a fight with the Government; I have no desire to do that. Indeed, I would almost go so far—although perhaps not quite, Mr. Speaker—as to offer to do a deal with the Secretary of State. That would be to say to him that if he would accept what he knows to be true—that there is real merit in the Opposition motion—I would be prepared similarly to concede that there is real merit in the Government's amendment. My purpose this afternoon is not to cavil and not to play political ping-pong. It is to highlight an evil, to describe as best I can the incidence of that evil and to suggest how that evil might best be tackled by people in all political parties who share good will on this matter.
  The subject that we are debating—I know this is often said, but it happens to be true in this case—is equal to, and probably almost greater than, any other in its importance for the future of our world. We are debating the plight of the poor, and the features and manifestations of the plight of the poor are palpable, sometimes endemic, always serious.
  There are currently on our planet 1. 2 billion people who have to exist—I will not say that they live—on less than a dollar a day. There are 50 countries in this world that are poorer now than they were a decade ago. Every minute of the day one woman dies in pregnancy or in labour; in the process of trying to give birth, her life ends. There are 28 million people around the world
  914
  suffering from HIV/AIDS. And, as the Secretary of State knows, the poorest countries in the world have suffered a cut of approximately half in their share of world trade in the last two decades. That is the scale and those are the dimensions of the crisis and—I use the word advisedly—the evil that we are this afternoon considering.
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend rightly mentioned HIV/AIDS. Is he aware that the threat goes far beyond the humanitarian issue? I have had feedback from people working on the ground in East Africa to the effect that the prevalence and growth of HIV/AIDS are being exploited by militants, particularly Islamic militants, to try to establish footholds in those countries. Therefore, not only do we have a humanitarian obligation, but it is in our self-interest to make sure that these issues are addressed properly.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I agree with every word that he has just said.
  We must not be simplistic about this. There is no one cause of poverty in the third world. The problems that the people of the developing countries endure are multifaceted and do not lend themselves to the administration of a simple cure. But upon one point I hope all of us in the Chamber can agree: we have an obligation to do nothing to exacerbate the plight of the poor, and, by contrast, to do everything we reasonably can to tackle and alleviate that plight.
  Mr. Colin Challen rose—
  Tony Baldry rose—
  Mr. Bercow: I give way to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the International Development Committee.
  Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend will be conscious that there was rather a lot of joshing during questions to the Secretary of State for International Development about the 0. 7 per cent. target and commitments to international development aid. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the commitment of the Conservative party and its aspiration to meet that 0. 7 per cent target is no less than the aspiration of the Government to meet the 0. 7 per cent. target? It is a recognition of the difficulty of reaching that target that the Chancellor has moved to the international finance facility, which I understand the Conservative party fully supports.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he has just suggested about the explicit and long stated support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the international finance facility. My hon. Friend knows me well; we are constituency neighbours. He is aware that I have a number of aspirations. One aspiration that I have this afternoon is to make the position of the official Opposition on this subject clear beyond peradventure.
  Mr. Challen rose—
  Mr. Bercow: I shall give way in a moment.

  915
  My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has set out our plans to contain the overall level of departmental expenditure. Individual allocations remain to be decided. We are locking closely at the scope for savings and efficiency in the use of public expenditure. We are also considering the better use of money currently spent on a multilateral basis. Yet make no mistake: a future Conservative Government would be committed to Britain's overseas aid programme, for well directed bilateral Government aid has to remain a significant component of our aid strategy. I hope that the House will agree that that is a crystal-clear statement of the policy intent of the Conservative party.
  Mr. Challen rose—
  Mr. Bercow: I give way to the lion. Gentleman, who has been waiting so patiently.
  Mr. Challen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I absolutely agree with him that there is great deal of agreement between the motion and the amendment before us. I do not think that that is in contention. But the hon. Gentleman referred to an evil. Might he be referring to the last 20 years of trade liberalisation, which his own motion makes clear has probably contributed to increased poverty? I sometimes wonder whether people have really grasped the fact that trade liberalisation has not yet produced the goods.
  Mr. Bercow: I respect the hon. Gentleman's sincerity—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) should endeavour to exercise what self-restraint he is very occasionally able to muster. If he wishes to be patient, I may give way. If he does not, I will not. The position is clear, and the choice is his.
  Let me say to the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) that I greatly respect his sincerity. I do not agree with him where there is a genuine difference of opinion between us. He thinks that liberalisation of trade has been damaging. I believe that it has been beneficial, though there is much more to be done. He will not be surprised to know that I have a great deal more to say on that important subject. Perhaps we can joust in a friend') way, in recognition that we both want a decent end, but we differ about how to achieve it.
  Mr. John Gummer rose—
  Mr. Bercow: I should like at this stage to make some progress, but of course I give way to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Gummer: Before my hon. Friend returns, as I hope he will, to the point that he was talking about, would he not agree that in the world in which we live our interdependence is such in solving such problems as the challenge of climate change or the destruction of the ozone layer, or indeed of world trade, that we have to work together with countries, however poor and however restricted, and that our aid programme is a very important part of that?
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There would not be a cigarette paper, or anything less noxious than that, between us on the point.
  916
  I said that we had an obligation not to worsen the situation, and that we should instead do all we could to improve the plight of the poor. I want to develop this theme. I said that although that was our obligation, it was not, sadly, reflected in public policy on an international scale at present.
  The reality is that the plight of the poor is not a misfortune. It is in very substantial measure an injustice. That trade injustice from which the developing world suffers is not the result of bad weather, defective infrastructure or a natural disaster. Indeed, I go so far as to say that it is not an accident at all. It is the knowing, deliberate and calculated policy of the most powerful Governments on earth. Trade discrimination on a grotesque scale is substantially to blame for the poverty of people in the developing world. It is shameful and shameless, and we have a responsibility to address it.
  I think that I am right in saying that there are three principal components of the problem. First, there is a mismatch between aid policy and trade policy. In 2002 the countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development gave $58 billion to the poorest countries in development assistance. But there was a chronic contradiction between aid policy and trade policy.
  That leads me to the second point, which is that simultaneously the developed world, the rich countries, the most prosperous on earth, were stinging the developing countries to the tune of approximately $100 billion in trade barriers.
  The third feature of the equation is the impact of massive, wholly disproportionate, trade-distorting domestic agricultural subsidies. Those subsidies are on a scale of $300 billion. That is the extent of it—a sum of money that exceeds the entire national income of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. The contradiction between aid policy and trade policy; the impact of tariff and non-tariff barriers; the impact of export subsidies and domestic protection; the effect of tariff peaks on the one hand and tariff escalation on the other—in real measure deliberately targeted on the products and capacity of the poorest people on the planet: all that is truly devastating for those whose condition we wish to improve.
  Mr. John Redwood: My hon. Friend is making a powerful and passionate speech against a gross injustice. I entirely agree that there is a great moral blight on the west and on the European Union for its agricultural policies and protectionism. What advice does my hon. Friend have for the new Secretary of State on how he can get some action out of this lame, weak and feeble Government, who will not stand up to the EU and demand justice for the poor of the world by demanding abolition of the disgraceful policy of agricultural protectionism, which disfigures us all?
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and the short answer is that I want the Secretary of State to put on record this afternoon—I am hopeful that he will—exactly how he intends to advance the process of trade liberalisation.
  Huw Irranca-Davies rose—
  Mr. Bercow: I have referred to the overall components of the problem, but it is worthy of a brief illustration. If

  917

  we examine what is happening to cotton, for example, we can see the damage inflicted by the incredibly selfish and destructive trade policies of one of the most powerful—if not the most powerful—nations on earth. I am talking about the impact of US trade policy on west and central African cotton-dependent economies. The truth of the matter is that Benin and Burkina Faso depend on cotton for 40 per cent., and Mali and Chad for 30 per cent., of their export earnings. Those countries are efficient and cost-effective producers of cotton; they need it; it is crucial to their chances of survival and development.
  The United States is one of the highest-cost, least efficient and most trade-distorting producers of cotton to be found anywhere in the world. Frankly, it is a damnable indictment—I use the expression advisedly—of the US Government that they currently spend more than $3 billion a year subsidising inefficient cotton manufacture. That costs the developing world about $250 million a year and throws people out of work. The US is spending and subsidising its own inefficient cotton production, and feather-bedding 10 rather large US corporations with three times the country's budget contribution to the whole of Africa. That is the scale of what is happening.
  Bob Spink: May I bring my hon. Friend back to Europe? We are, of course, a member of the EU and have a crucial responsibility in Europe. Is it not disgraceful that European protectionism damages the developing world so dramatically?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. He will be aware, and the rest of the House should be reminded, that in 2002 the EU spent $113 billion on domestic agricultural protection. That is wrong; it inflicts harm; and I regret it.
  My hon. Friend has helpfully brought me on to my second example—dairy policy. It is a serious problem. Currently, the EU subsidises every cow to the tune of about $2. 40, when there are 2 billion people in the world who live—or exist—on less than $2 a day. Britain spends approximately £4 billion on the common agricultural policy, while many countries—Kenya, India, the Dominican Republic and many others besides—have had their domestic markets, their prospects of advance and their capacity to improve their condition enormously undermined through the selfish application of that policy over a long period. It has been hugely damaging.
  I am conscious—if I do not make the point, others will remind me—that there is a CAP reform package, aspects of which are welcome. However, the Secretary of State, many right hon. and hon. Members and I would agree that there is still a great deal to do and much further to go. It is not surprising that there is a pervasive cynicism about the likely efficacy of the reform package, for the simple reason that one does not need to look into the crystal ball when one can read the book. We have been there before; there have been earlier reform packages; we have seen changes made. There have been prospective alterations in, and even reductions of, the trade-distorting support, but they have not always worked.
  918
  The reality is that, in its operation over a lengthy period, the CAP has clobbered the consumer. It has clobbered the taxpayer and the small-scale farmer. It has also clobbered businesses that are dependent on agricultural products. Above all, and most central to our debate today, it has clobbered the developing world, which deserves a better deal, a chance to compete and grow, a chance to raise its expectations and to improve living standards. It should have a realistic prospect that public policy will not stop it from doing so. That is the seriousness of the issue that we are debating.
  Mr. Mark Francois: I am listening to my hon. Friend's speech with great interest. Before he makes further progress, does he agree that, although he is an Atlanticist by instinct—as am I—the US bears a particular responsibility on this one issue and that it must make some concessions with its Farm Bill if the rest of the world is to make progress?
  Mr. Bercow: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He and I have been Atlanticists together since we stood against each other for the chairmanship of the Federation of Conservative Students in April 1986. He was a fan of the US then and he is now. I was a fan of the US then and I am now, but that does not stop me criticising the US Government when what they do is wrong. We must address the question of what can be done to improve the prospects of destitute people by way of trade reform.
  Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies rose—
  Mr. Bercow: I shall give way for the last time—and I mean it.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I am grateful. To return to the hon. Gentleman's previous discussion about clarity—I applaud his reasonable approach in the debate and agree with many of his points—he expressed a commitment towards many of the Government's measures, but many people would want to know whether that commitment extends to protecting or enhancing the aid budget. I agree that there must be a multi-faceted approach—there has to be, and trade liberalisation is part of it—but the international aid budget is paramount
  Mr. Bercow: The aid budget is extremely important, so the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I would say in response, however, that I have given the most explicit statement of the current thinking of the Conservative party and I quoted my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe in the process. As far as I am aware, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is not a doctor. If he were, and if he were in the habit of offering his prescription before he had conducted his diagnosis, he would not be a very effective practitioner. 1t seems reasonable to study the budget, to examine what is and is not working well, to assess what measures are most effective at bilateral level and least effective at multilateral level, to reach a conclusion, to produce a policy, to outline it to the

  919
  House, to put it to the country and to await the verdict. That is the eminently reasonable position that the Conservative and Unionist party has taken—
  Chris Bryant rose—
  Mr. Bercow: I am probably doing the House a disservice, but I suppose I had better give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman's generosity is unbounded. He was trying to make out earlier that he was being extremely clear, but his clarity is not very clear. He is trying to suggest that he aspires somewhere towards the 0. 7 per cent. figure, but he offers no guarantee that he will move up towards that percentage at all—unless he expects that, under a Conservative Government, gross domestic product would fall, so he might get closer to the 0. 7 per cent. but the amount of money would remain the same.
  Mr. Bercow: The disadvantage of the hon. Gentleman talking about clarity that is unclear is that it serves only to remind the House that he is in danger of confusing not only it but himself. That seems a regrettable state of affairs and I am not sure that I have done the House a great service by giving way to him—[Interruption.] He has had one go and made a mess of it, and I can assure him that he will not get another opportunity during this debate.
  We have a responsibility to take matters forward. We need to establish freer trade and to go for liberalisation. We know what the estimates are: they range from an increase of $150 billion in world trade, as the consequence of a 50 per cent. cut in tariffs, to the prognosis of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the OECD whereby a figure that ranges from $250 billion to $620 billion will be added to world trade if we go for liberalisation.
  That, of course, is the theory—the prognosis—but again we should be guided by the evidence and consider the example set by countries that have themselves gone for free trade. We can see in China, India, Mexico, Vietnam and Uganda a common thread in their policy and performance: increased productivity, a greater share of world trade, a capacity re bolster their export performance and a demonstrable improvement in living standards. That is obviously good sense.
  Cancun—the breakdown of the trade talks thereat—was very sad. I do not share the view of those who think it was beneficial to the world; it was extremely damaging. It is important that we get those talks back on track and I appeal to the Secretary of State to set out the Government's position explicitly and in detail, because my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are convinced that we need to remind ourselves of the objectives of the Doha development round. We need to remember the negotiating mandate agreed in November 2001; it is about improving market access, reducing export subsidies, cutting and, in many cases, phasing out those subsidies and reducing the level of domestic agricultural trade-distorting subsidy. Those critical tasks must be undertaken, and my submission to the House is that that is all about free enterprise and the practice of capitalism.
  920
  Capitalism is not a panacea; it is not perfect. The Secretary of State's distinguished father spent nearly 50 years in the House eloquently inveighing against capitalism, but in my view it is the best we have. Capitalism has three distinctive advantages. First, it is the greatest wealth-creating mechanism known to mankind; secondly, it has tended to improve living standards in every country in which it has applied; and, thirdly, it is the economic system most compatible with personal liberty. For those reasons, it is in a free-market, trade-encouraging, capitalist-oriented direction that we need to go.
  Ann McKechin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No, not at this stage.
  As we go in that direction, however, those of us in the rich western world have to examine our attitudes; we need to consider how we behave, because we require a wholly different mindset from that which has been deployed hitherto. We need an end to brinkmanship and a start to statesmanship.
  I do not want to dwell excessively on the past, but it was desperately unfortunate that, at Cancun, the European Union made the major mistake of pressing ahead so insistently, for so long and to such disadvantage with the Singapore issues of trade facilitation, transparency in Government procurement, and investment and competition, when the whole purpose and raison d'être of the conference was to achieve a development round. Previously, development rounds had been principally for the benefit of the richer countries—they had focused on manufactured goods and the needs and preferences of the industrialised countries. The task now is to do something for those who have very little, yet what we have witnessed is the exertion of massive power by those who have against those who have not. That seems wrong.
  Present trade policies of which the United States, the EU, sometimes Japan and China, and many others besides are guilty are morally wrong. They are economically counter-productive and politically dangerous. One-nation Tories, of whom there is a plentiful supply on the Opposition Benches today, know that Governments cannot do everything—but they can do something to help. One-nation Tories know that if one is confronted with the choice of giving people $10 a day or enabling them to earn $10 day, the latter is infinitely preferable. One-nation Tories know that it is in our attitude, and that of all democratic politicians, to the liberalisation of agriculture that the sincerity and credibility of our claims to be fighting world poverty will ultimately be tested; for 70 per cent. upwards of the world's poor live in rural areas and depend on agriculture.
  I believe that we must go for free trade, and that we must open markets and liberalise. I believe that the Secretary of State should tell us more about that today, because liberalisation and free trade would be good for poor countries, good for consumers in rich countries, good for the generation of prosperity and good for the state of international relations.
  Members of the House, of whatever party, presumably aspire to bequeath to our children and our children's children a world in which the blemish and scar

  921
  of global poverty have gone. It disfigures the world and, in a very real sense, shames and discredits us. We need to change that. We need to reform and make progress. We need to achieve liberalisation. Let us work together and achieve something for our constituents, but above all, let us achieve something for the most destitute people on the planet. They have suffered too much for too long as a result of too selfish policies. It is time that that was changed.
  1. 46 pm
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes this debate and congratulates the Trade Justice Movement on its efforts to raise public awareness of this vital issue; reiterates the commitment made in the White Paper Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor to improve international trade rules; urges the European Union to make further progress on reforming the Common Agriculture Policy regimes for cotton, sugar, tobacco and olive oil; welcomes the UK's call for action on HIV/AIDS; congratulates the Government on the £160 million it has allocated to trade-related capacity building in developing countries since 1998; welcomes the fact that the UK's aid budget for Africa will rise to over £1 billion by 2005; welcomes the launch of a new initiative, the Commission for Africa, to take a fresh look at the challenges Africa faces; notes that a successful Doha Round could contribute substantially to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; congratulates the Government on the lead it has taken within the EU and the WTO to promote free and fair trade; believes that significant progress must be made to improve access for developing country exports to both developed and developing country markets, including through substantial reductions in trade distorting agricultural subsidies; calls on all WTO members to continue to demonstrate their commitment to the Doha Development Agenda; and underlines this House's commitment to ensuring the Doha Round produces real benefits for the poor."
  I very much welcome the opportunity to hold this debate. I also welcome much of what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said and the passion and characteristic eloquence with which he said it, which got us off to an extremely good start.
  I listened with particular interest to the words that the hon. Gentleman read out about Conservative spending commitments, but I have to tell him in all honesty that I am not much the wiser. It sounded as though the words had been drafted by a lawyer, so although we shall try to appreciate exactly what the Conservative party's aspiration is on the figure of 0. 7 per cent., I hope that he and other colleagues will forgive us if we look at the record. When the Labour Government left office in 1979, we were spending 0. 52 per cent. of our gross national income on overseas aid, but when we returned to office in 1997, spending was 0. 26 per cent. That was the legacy bequeathed us by the Conservatives, so I am afraid that the record of the hon. Gentleman's party hangs like an albatross around his neck. He will have to grapple with that, although I am sure he will do so ably.
  I, too, welcome the fact that the debate is taking place at the beginning of Fairtrade fortnight, which is all about the things that we can do personally to try to remedy the inequities of the current trade system. The
  922
  fair trade movement is all about consumers trying to ensure that poor producers get a fairer return. The idea is simple: it reaches out across the globe and connects buyer and seller, and does not depend on the world trade talks for something to happen. That is what makes it so powerful. We can see the results in the sharply growing market for Fairtrade products—tea, coffee, orange juice, flowers, footballs, bananas—which are increasingly available on the shelves of leading supermarkets. It is estimated that fair trade is worth £100 million a year. We support the Fairtrade Foundation and I take this opportunity to thank it for its work.
  Ethically sourced and fairly traded products are only part of the solution to what the hon. Gentleman rightly described as a series of complex challenges facing poor producers and developing countries. I agree with him that what we really need to do is to help developing countries gain access to the global marketplace and to create fairer trade rules in the World Trade Organisation.
  The first thing for the House to acknowledge, however, is how far, in one sense, we have already come. From the earliest times, the history of human relationships has, in part, been the history of trade and, as trade has grown and become global, we have established systems to try to manage it. For some, trade has brought enormous wealth; for others—especially those denied access to the markets of the world—it has not, and the hon. Gentleman spoke clearly about the consequences of that.
  For almost half a century, the general agreement on tariffs and trade was primarily concerned with tariffs on industrial products and was dominated by the developed countries. Agriculture, which is the issue for developing countries, was included in the multilateral negotiations at the Uruguay round, concluded a decade ago—about the time that the WTO itself was created.
  Today, we are talking seriously in Geneva about an end date for export subsidies. With last summer's historic breakthrough on CAP reform, we are committed to making significant reductions in trade-distorting domestic subsidies. This is a very substantial change compared with a generation ago, and over that same period the link between development and trade has become central to the multilateral trade negotiations. Never mind a decade ago—40 years ago it would have been inconceivable for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to be such passionate advocates of the interests of developing countries in trade talks.
  In the same way, it is inconceivable that 40 years ago we would have seen something like last summer's record-breaking mass constituency lobby organised by the Trade Justice Movement, in which I know many hon. Members took part. That lobby showed the extent of the groundswell of public opinion in support of freer and fairer trade. I take the opportunity, as the original motion and the Prime Minister's amendment do, to pay tribute to the Trade Justice Movement for the work it has done to make this happen and for keeping the issue at the forefront of the public's mind. All that passion, and all that commitment, which is shared by many

  923
  people across the world, helped the UK to play its part in bringing trade and development issues to the fore, including in the result of the Doha round.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What did the Secretary of State find so objectionable in the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition that the Government felt they had to amend it?
  Hilary Benn: There is much in the motion with which I agree, but the amendment includes things that it did not cover, and I invite the House to support the amendment at the appropriate moment.
  Mr. Gummer: The Secretary of State could have agreed with the motion, and we could all have begun Fairtrade fortnight with a united motion. Would it not have been better if he had been a little less churlish and had said that the motion might nom g o as far as he would like but that he would accept it to show that both sides agree on these matters?
  Hilary Benn: I think that the debate has already demonstrated that there is a shared analysis and a lot of common ground—one or two things divide us—but I would return the request to the right hon. Gentleman and simply say, in that same spirit, that I look forward to seeing him in the Lobby in support of the Prime Minister's amendment when that moment arrives.
  Mr. Robert Walter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Hilary Benn: It is a third go but I am a generous soul, so of course I give way.
  Mr. Walter: I have studied the Prime Minister's amendment closely and it uses the words,
  "urges the European Union to make further progress on reforming the Common Agriculture Policy regimes for cotton, sugar, tobacco and olive oil".
  Does that mean that the Government have given up on any further reforms to the common agricultural policy and that we are going to be stuck with European farmers being subsidised to the tune of nearly €50 billion a year?
  Hilary Benn: No, it does not mean that because the Government have clearly set out their view on the need for reform, but the amendment also makes specific reference to the products that the hon. Gentleman has just read out.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend recall that successive Conservative Governments promised to reform the common agricultural policy but singularly failed to do so?
  Hilary Benn: I do indeed, and if the House were being honest with itself it would recognise that reform of the CAP has been a consistent theme running through our political debates in the House for 30 years, which is what makes the agreement that was reached last summer, with the tireless efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, such an achievement.
  924
  If the current round is to succeed, it must address the unfairness of the world trade system, whereby, for example, developing country cocoa producers receive only a fraction of the retail price of products such as chocolate. Developing countries have 90 per cent. of the world market in cocoa beans but just 4 per cent. of global chocolate production. That is just one example of how little of the final value is captured by developing countries.
  Why does all this matter? First, it matters because three quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas and 96 per cent. of the world's farmers live in developing countries. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said recently, when 900 million farmers in poor countries struggle to survive on less than a dollar a day while rich people in rich countries spend millions a day on subsidising agriculture, something is very wrong and it has to change.
  Secondly, it matters because there is a great deal of evidence that the opening up of trade contributes to higher economic growth, which is just what developing countries need. For example, in the 1990s, while average income fell by 1 per cent. a year in developing countries with high trade barriers, it rose by 5 per cent. a year in those with fewer barriers to trade. The World Bank estimates that up to half the gains from eliminating barriers to merchandise trade would accrue to developing countries, which could lift more than 300 million people out of poverty by 2015.
  Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend has made a very correct point about the need to reduce barriers, but does he agree that the least developed countries are not likely to gain as much from trade liberalisation as countries such as China and India, and that the aid budget and the amount of aid that we give in debt relief therefore still remain the most vital elements?
  Hilary Benn: I do agree with my hon. Friend. That is why a rising aid budget—rising support—is so important, and it is also why the way in which countries are asked to open up their trade is so important. I intend to come to that point later.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Hilary Benn: I will give way, although I want to make progress; I know that many other hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence—or even the eloquence of his flow—but it seems to me that in recognising that over decades the common agricultural policy has been the most protectionist racket known to mankind, we need to know in some reasonable measure of detail how the Government intend to proceed. Could the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of what stance the British Government are taking within the European Union, in respect of the CAP as a whole at the development negotiations, and in respect of a number of the commodities to which his amendment refers?
  Hilary Benn: Indeed, I will. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself a little while longer, I intend to come to those important points.

  925
  The third reason why all this matters is that it is through economic development that we stand the best chance of enabling poor people in poor countries to earn and trade their way out of poverty. Africa is the only continent that has actually got poorer in the last generation; its share of world trade has halved. It cannot even hang on to just under half of the savings that it generates each year, and yet we know it needs to grow at 7 per cent. a year if we are to have any prospect of meeting the millennium development goals.
  Fourthly, all this matters because the longer the multilateral trade system fails to deliver for the world's poor, the longer poverty will persist and basic services such as health care and education will be denied. I saw one of the consequences of that during my recent visit to Ethiopia. I shall never forget visiting the health centre in Mekane Salam, which serves a community of 180,000 people but has no doctor. One consequence of the lack of a doctor is that when women come in with complications of pregnancy, and the people who work very hard to run the centre realise that they cannot assist, the women are referred on to the hospital 100 miles away. When I asked what happened to those women, the staff said, "To tell you the truth we have no idea how many of those women make it, because there is no transport to take them to the hospital. There is a bus once a week, but they have to be able to afford the fare, and they might well die of the complications of pregnancy before the bus arrives. " That is really all the illustration that the House needs, and it comes from a recent experience of mine, which demonstrates why this matters, because this is about the daily lives of fellow human beings of ours, who do not benefit from the things that we take for granted. That is one reason why 2005 will be a year both of opportunity and of expectation—expectation that this time we, collectively, the world, will deliver.
  What are we doing? That is the challenge that the hon. Member for Buckingham put to me. We recognise the failure of the Cancun meeting, although the one thing that did come out of Cancun was that the voice of developing countries was heard more loudly and clearly than at any previous world trade talks, and I, for one, unreservedly welcome that.
  Between now and 2005, the US elections will take place, the existing Commission for Africa will come to the end of its life and a new one will be appointed, and elections will take place in many other WTO countries over the next two years. That has led some people to question whether it will be possible to make progress in the world trade talks. I happen to think that progress can be made, not just because of the consensus on trade justice issues that has been expressed in recent debates in the House and elsewhere, but because everyone now recognises that the Cancun meeting was a missed opportunity, a failure of political will. I hope that that will encourage everyone to work much harder next time to ensure that we are successful.
  What do we need to do, and how will we do it? That is the key question. First, we must get developed and developing countries to engage in the round and to open their markets, particularly to the least-developed countries. Secondly, we must secure new agreements on the issues that matter most to developing countries—
  926
  agriculture and non-agricultural market access. We must also push—the hon. Member for Buckingham did not refer to this in his speech—for more effective special and differential treatments, to which I shall return. We will help developing countries to adapt to their new obligations through the development of appropriate adjustment mechanisms. What are we doing to try to help to make that happen?
  The round will not be a true development round if the WTO and its members retreat into protectionism; developed and developing countries must stand up to powerful domestic lobbies. There are some recent encouraging signs of greater engagement and a new resolve to make progress. Both Bob Zoellick and Commissioner Pascal Lamy are now talking to a range of WTO members, and member states are talking about what they need to do to get the round back on track. That underlines the need for, and the responsibility of, the richer WTO members to seize the initiative, show leadership and make meaningful offers and concessions to get the round back on track.
  I agree very much with the point about the new issues, to which the hon. Member for Buckingham also referred, that the International Development Committee made in its very good report on the lessons of the Cancun meeting. The honest truth is that the developing countries have made their position very clear on investment and competition. At the end of the Cancun meeting, those issues were taken off the table, and I have said on a number of occasions that, having disappeared from the table, they should stay off the table. There are sound arguments about why it is good to make progress on public procurement and trade facilitation, but, in the end, they should not stand in the way of achieving a development round, and we need to be absolutely clear about that.
  Chris Bryant: This is, in a sense, a slightly different issue, but my right hon. Friend refers to a series of issues that was taken off the table. Audio-visual and cultural services have been included in previous rounds in a rather negative way— France has tried to protect itself against American trade—but China, which has come into the WTO in the past few years, is trying to ensure that audio-visual services, such as free and independent news, are not made available in China. Could we not use the next round, when one comes along, to ensure that China opens up its market in the interests of ending human rights abuses?
  Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises a number of issues that will be the subject of debate. As a matter of general principle, free news media are very important features of any society that hopes to function and thrive. All our experience demonstrates that independent media help to promote good governance. They make the Government's life difficult from time to time, but we have to live with that in the interests of democracy.
  Mr. Challen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Hilary Benn: I want to make a bit of progress, and then I will give way.
  New developing country groupings emerged at the Cancun ministerial meeting. One of the things that we have to recognise is that the interests of developing

  927
  countries are not uniform, and we saw that with the G20 group and the G90 alliance. They, too, have a responsibility to help to move the negotiations forward. In particular, they need to reduce the barriers to south-south trade because countries such as India, Brazil, China and other significant countries stand to benefit, alongside the poorer producers, from trade liberalisation. South-south trade now accounts for more than a third of developing country exports—about $650 billion.
  The World Bank suggests that, during the past 15 years or so, developing countries' own liberalisation has been the primary channel through which trade reform has expanded their export growth. For example, negotiations on a common market are taking place as we speak between Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Those countries tried to agree on that 20 years ago, but they failed. They are now close to making that happen finally. That is a good example of some of the steps that developing countries can take to help themselves, but the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that there is recognition that, to make progress, the EU and the US must offer more on three main elements of agricultural negotiations: first, market access; secondly, an end date for export subsidies; and, thirdly, a substantial reduction of trade-distorting domestic subsidies.
  Many developing countries have a comparative advantage in agricultural exports, yet, as we have heard, the developed world uses taxpayers' money to block that advantage. We therefore continue to take steps to promote further agricultural reforms to benefit the world's poor, including a reform of the EU sugar and cotton regimes. The hon. Member for Buckingham referred to cotton, and I shall take a moment to address that very issue. He clearly set out why the west African cotton producers face unfair competition.
  We need to find a solution to trade-distorting cotton subsidies, as part of the negotiations on agriculture, but there is a need to move swiftly on to consider what can be done to secure the livelihoods of thousands of west African cotton producers, who would be highly competitive on world markets if it were not for EU and US subsidies. They need our help now and until subsidies that lead to over-production are phased out. Their plight is one of the starkest examples of unfair trade rules. In the US, cotton producers received nearly $4 billion in assistance in 2001–02 That is more than the
  entire gross domestic product of Benin—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—where the cotton industry, which is now in crisis, accounts for 85 per cent. of exports.
  West African states that have followed the prescriptions of the World Bank and IMF and ended all subsidies to producers now and that they have liberalised into a highly distorted market and are paying the price. Unless we make progress, we risk undermining their confidence in the interests of liberalisation and their faith in the WTO. The US and the EU must take steps to resolve that issue. The Government are working to get the EU to agree to significant decoupling, and I discussed that with Commissioner Lamy when I was in Brussels recently. The European Commission has now made a proposal to EU member states, but we need to go further.
  928
  The same is true of sugar, but in the interests of time—other hon. Members wish to speak—I wish to get on to the third issue: the need for WTO agreement to take account of the specific needs of developing countries, which are at different levels of development. Special and differential treatment is the development jargon used to describe that issue, but it must be an integral part of the negotiations, so that poorer WTO members can implement trade reforms at a pace that enables them to exploit the benefits of trade liberalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) referred to that point in his earlier intervention, and if he wishes to intervene now, I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Challen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made clear his philosophical attachment to capitalism. I shall not necessarily ask my right hon. Friend to replicate that, unless he wishes to do so, but I ask him to consider the role of the City and financial institutions in developing fair trade. When we go to coffee or cocoa growers and say, "You must grow this cash crop to sell to us", we end up with a glut and they end up with very little income. As has been said, they receive 4 per cent. of the price. Should we have floors to guarantee prices? Should we ask financial institutions to contribute to the process?
  Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes an important point about commodities. I am afraid that all those devices to which he draws attention have been tried in recent years to deal with the problem of low coffee prices, but the fundamental difficulty is one of oversupply. One of the reasons for that is that there has been a big, new entrant into the market, Vietnam, which has been spectacularly successful in reducing poverty, but there is too much coffee in the system as a consequence, thus depressing the price.
  We may all be travelling in the same direction, but different countries are able to travel at different speeds. We must take account of their interests.
  Part of what we can do over the next 12 months to prepare the ground for further progress on the world trade talks is to work with Governments of developing countries so that they can think through the consequences of the changes that might be made. The money that the Department for International Development gives for trade-related capacity building means that we can work with trade Ministries to provide advice and support to help countries to think through what the changes might mean for them, which is a practical contribution. However, I must say that the trade Ministers whom I have met were extremely capable and able to work out what was in their interests.
  We are just over a decade away from 2015, which is the year when we will be judged and we will judge ourselves on the progress that we have made on helping to lift our fellow citizens out of poverty. We all have the responsibility to ensure that the fine words and commitments that we utter turn not into distant promises but into results. We need to reduce the number of people who live in absolute poverty and ensure that fewer children die before they reach their fifth birthday of diseases that we know we have the means to treat, although those means are lacked in the communities in

  929
  which they live. We should enable more children to have a teacher, a classroom, a desk and a textbook and to go to school—130 million children in the world currently do not go to school.
  Achieving those goals will require us to make progress on not only trade, but aid, conflict, debt, good governance, human rights and the environment. If we get things right and pull the challenge off, 2005 can become a year not of disillusion, but of promise. I hope that it will be a moment that we can look back on as a time when the development movement, the development argument and the development idea truly came of age. I hope that it will be a year in which the people in the community in Ethiopia whom I visited three weeks ago will come to know that the world did not visit them only to look and see, and that we went away, learned, and did something to try to improve their lives.
  2. 12 pm
  Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on securing the debate, which is important at the beginning of fair trade week. I agree that there is a degree of consensus in the House on the matter. Through his oratory, he almost—but not quite—lulled me into thinking that I did not need to highlight some of the problems that he faces in his role—the Secretary of State referred to those problems. However, it is instructive to consider the Conservative party's record, if only to appreciate how much more needs to be done.
  The Secretary of State said that the percentage of our gross national income spent on international aid halved during the period of Conservative government. The hon. Member for Buckingham says that the issue is less about the international development aid budget than about trade, but there are still problems—indeed, he highlighted those himself. Over the past two decades, the percentage of total world trade enjoyed by the least developed countries has shrunk by nearly 50 per cent., so no significant improvements have been made in the international aid budget or the situation of those countries over the past 20 years.
  Mr. Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt, let me tell the hon. Gentleman that overseas aid, including technical assistance, capacity building, the provision of medicines and the establishment of communication networks, is incredibly important, as is the proper recognition of the prerequisite of property rights as a basis for successful free-trade economies. I am simply arguing today about trade, but other things are important, too.
  Tom Brake: Other things are important, but so is the international development aid budget.
  In the spirit of consensus, we will support the motion. Broadly speaking, we are comfortable with its wording. However, it might be worth pointing out slight differences between the motion and what the Trade Justice Movement says. The motion says that the
  "House shares the concern of the Trade Justice Movement about the plight of the poorest people in the world, and congratulates the Movement on bringing their conditions to the attention of the public".
  930
  It goes on to say that the House
  "believes that trade liberalisation and increased international trade offer the best hope of alleviating poverty".
  It is worth pointing out that the Trade Justice Movement's website calls on world leaders to stop
  "forcing…countries to open their markets and champion their rights to manage their own economies. "
  Thus the motion and the TJM put a different emphasis on international trade.
  It is appropriate to consider the new initiatives that the hon. Member for Buckingham has brought to the table. I listened carefully to his speech but was unable to identify any new proposals in it. I had expected him to talk about the advocacy fund to which the Leader of the Opposition referred on Monday. That appeared to have been the announcement of the day—the summary on the Conservative website suggested that it was the single new proposal. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the fund is not a new proposal because the idea has been around for six months or more.
  Mr. Bercow: It is always a pleasure to joust with the hon. Gentleman, but he is on thin ice here. Of course I endorse and regularly promote the arguments for an advocacy fund, as my right hon. and learned Friend eloquently did in his speech to the Conservative party's trade justice forum on Monday morning. That was not the only feature of his speech, nor was it the main feature, and it did not need to feature in my speech today. It is important, but it is part of a picture, and I wanted to develop other parts of the picture today. I should not have thought that that was terribly controversial.
  Tom Brake: I understand that point. I referred to the advocacy fund on1y because it seemed to be the only concrete proposal that was launched—or reannounced—on Monday, but reference was not made today to the fund or to any new concrete proposals that a Conservative Government, if elected, would put in place.
  There are significant contradictions in Conservative party policy. The hon. Gentleman advocated development in India. yet on the Conservative website the shadow trade Minister is critical of the fact that certain jobs have gone to India. I do not want to be misquoted outside the Chamber, so I am not saying that the loss of British jobs is a good thing—clearly, it is not. However, a logical consequence of the reduction of trade barriers is that jobs will go to India rather than remaining in the UK.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman needs a bit of an explanation, given the way in which he misdescribes our policy. We suggest that if the Government regulated a little less in this country, companies might not be forced to send their jobs overseas. We have no objection whatever to jobs being clone in India that can be done much better there.
  Tom Brake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but he should perhaps read the website to find out precisely what the shadow Trade Secretary was saying—
  Mr. Bercow: He is the shadow Trade Secretary!
  Tom Brake: Sorry, I should have said the shadow industry Minister—there is a slight difference. The right

  931
  hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) should refer to what his colleague the shadow industry Minister said on the subject.
  We understand that the question of whether a future Conservative Government would freeze the international development budget will be addressed along with the consideration of other budgets. If a decision has not been taken, it is worth outlining the financial consequences of such a freeze. According to the House of Commons Library, if the, freeze were to be applied at the 2004–05 level, the financial consequences would be about £750 million—a significant sum, which I hope the hon. Member for Buckingham will quote in arguments with his right hon. and hon. Friends to safeguard as far as he can the international development budget. In view of the announcements about a possible freeze, I thought that the Secretary of State would be rubbing his hands in glee and salivating at the 'prospect of taking on the hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Gentleman is a different character from the Secretary of State for Defence and has not taken the opportunity offered by this debate to launch into the proposals.
  The Government have lots of which to be proud—I am happy to put that on the record. Breaking the link between trade and aid was entirely appropriate, as is the focus on the poorest countries. The general trend in the proportion of gross national income contributed is going in the right direction—although the Secretary of State will be aware of the blip that occurred in the last year for which figures are available, when, regrettably, that trend went in the wrong direction.
  There are a couple of issues on which our agreement is less secure and our paths diverge, including the Commission for Africa and the prospect of the international finance facility delivering the goods—the £50 billion. I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate can update us on who is backing the IFF. What happens if, for example, countries cannot deliver on the commitments they made or provide the international development budget that they had intended to provide? What happens in the event of another shock like HIV/ AIDS or some other significant occurrence that causes additional funds to be required? Is there not a risk that the available funds will have been earmarked and further funds will not be forthcoming?
  On the Commission for Africa, I can do nothing better than quote the organisers of a small nongovernmental organisation, who ask whether we need "another talking-shop. " Bob Geldof has said that that is not what the commission will be, and it is not what the Secretary of State wants it to be, but the jury is out on what the commission can achieve. The announcement has been made, but the commission's terms of reference do not mention—at least, the summarised version does not; the detailed documentation might say more—the issue that I raised with the Prime Minister earlier today: the role that UK arms sales to African countries involved in violent regional conflict play in international development terms. The Prime Minister has said on the record, without caveat, that we prevent small arms sales to Africa. Clearly, that is not the case. I would like the Minister to comment on that and say whether the commission will be able to examine the matter.
  Tony Baldry: Surely it is extremely good news that during Britain's chairmanship of the G8 we will again
  932
  focus on Africa and return to the war on poverty, having been for so long preoccupied with the fight against terrorism. Should not the Liberal Democrats support that aspect of our presidency of the G8, which we will hopefully follow up during our presidency of the European Union?
  Tom Brake: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I question whether the Commission for Africa offers any added value. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have said that international development will be a priority for the G8 and EU presidencies, but we shall see. I am open-minded and willing to wait for what the commission produces, but I am not yet convinced that it will deliver the goods.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to answer one question about the membership of the commission. The Prime Minister of Ethiopia is to be a member of the commission, and I hope that that will provide a stronger focus on the Ethiopia-Eritrea issue—or at least that sight will not be lost of that important matter. On Saturday, I had a meeting with representatives of the Eritrean community, who are concerned about the stance adopted by the Ethiopian Government in respect of the boundary commission. The Eritreans consider the rulings to be final and binding. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether he thinks that Ethiopia is breaking the agreement and whether the Commission for Africa offers an opportunity either to examine the issue, or to raise it with the Prime Minister of Ethiopia.
  It is interesting to note that the summary of the commission's terms of reference makes no mention of agriculture. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to confirm that that will be a significant aspect of the task that the commission is to perform.
  The Liberal Democrats believe that free trade needs to be balanced with wider public needs, such as a cleaner environment, civil liberties, protection of local cultures and so on. We accept entirely that the international trade system is stacked against the poorest countries.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the huge concern and, indeed, the deep anger felt in many African countries when trade agreements are reached that force African Governments to privatise public services and utilities and to close many important public services, all in the interests of building an open free trade system, which then becomes easy picking for powerful western-owned privatised utility companies, some of which started life in this country when the Tory Government privatised the utilities?
  Tom Brake: Yes, I am well aware of those issues, although I suspect that I shall not have time to address them in my speech. The hon. Gentleman has made a strong point to which I am sure the Secretary of State will respond. Better regulation of corporate behaviour is clearly needed—for example, regulation to prevent transnational corporations from exploiting individuals, countries or resources. Perhaps transnational corporations should be made accountable here in developed countries for their activities in developing countries.

  933
  The collapse of the Doha round could be seen as a disaster, but I think that it may simply have been a natural adjustment of the various lobbies at work in the World Trade Organisation. There is the potential to reform the WTO to take account of the different interests. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will say how it might be possible to represent both groups such as the G20, which contains strong exporters of agricultural products, and developing countries that are net food importers and would be heavily hit by policies that the G20 countries support. The Government must consider how the different preferences can be reconciled, but the developing countries must state in more detail what they want to get out of the WTO. What they do not want from it is clear; what they do want is much less clear.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to agricultural subsidies, which are key. I sent out a number of e-mails asking people what they would discuss if they were participating in this debate. Someone said, "Agricultural subsidies, agricultural subsidies, agricultural subsidies", which is less succinct than "Education, education, education", but it gets across the message that agricultural subsidies are key.
  To enable other hon. Members to speak, I shall conclude by saying that the debate is less confrontational and more reflective because of the general consensus on the important issues. That should not disguise the fact that the issues are a matter of life and, regrettably, death for people in developing countries. Developing countries do not want compassion, and I have yet to be convinced that they want commissions. They want concrete commitments—indeed, their survival depends on them. If the Secretary of State for International Development secures such commitments when the UK holds the presidencies of the EU and G8, people in developing countries will hold him in high esteem. If he does not do so, the despair in developing countries can only deepen.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Six hon. Members indicated earlier that they want to speak in the debate, and I hope that the length of hon. Members' speeches will reflect that.
  2. 31 pm
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I shall restrict the length of my speech.
  I welcome this timely debate. Whether the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) or the shadow Cabinet secured it, it shows that the House keeps a serious watch on these matters. We all focus on our constituencies and on domestic matters, but what is happening overseas also concerns us greatly. If we can keep the issue on the agenda, we will do ourselves a lot of good—I shall consider that point in a moment.
  I welcome the general mood expressed by both Opposition spokesmen, the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). There is general agreement on the way forward, but differences on some of the detail. I want to give the hon. Member for Buckingham an opportunity to pick up on a point that I know he did not intend to make.
  934
  When we debated this issue one year ago, a Conservative Member made a speech that seemed to advocate old-style, free market economics—unfettered trade, bringing down the barriers and letting all hell loose. I am sure that the hon. Member for Buckingham does not advocate that. Indeed, I saw him nodding when we discussed special and differential treatment as we open up trade. I would welcome an intervention from him because it would do him credit to clarify that point.
  Mr. Bercow: I am happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with the reassurance that he seeks. First, special and differential treatment is important. One can argue the toss about how it works, but the need for it has been established. Secondly, we do not live in utopia, and no such destination is likely. We must work in a practical way with gradual liberalisation in the promotion of free trade and recognise that different countries are in different situations and therefore necessarily start from different positions. We must have a clear target and an end date for some of those reforms.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman's clarification gives us a good basis from which to move forward with, as far as possible, cross-party consensus.
  I want to focus on why we should support the aims of the Trade Justice Movement, the Fairtrade Foundation, which is supporting many events in my constituency over the next fortnight, and the Government. Opposition Members have recognised that the Government are undoubtedly trying to exert pressure in the right places. Although we cannot secure everything that we want—the reform of the common agricultural policy or of World Trade Organisation agreements—the impetus towards satisfying the needs of developing countries is firmly entrenched within the Government's credentials. The more support that Back Benchers and non-governmental agencies provide, the better, particularly as we move into the next round of talks.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend think that we should also put considerable pressure on the United States because of its food-dumping policies? Those policies are, in effect, a subsidy for the farming lobby in the United States. They destroy agriculture in the developing world and lead to poverty, shantytowns and mis-development, which we all dislike.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We also have a lot to do within the European Union. The hon. Member for Buckingham made the point that we cannot aim at utopia, but we must keep pushing at the problem. As Oscar Wilde once said, there is no point in having a map without utopia marked on it. We must move towards utopia, while recognising that we will not get there tomorrow.
  Why is trade justice good for us? It is different from the feel-good factor that we get from putting a donation into a charity box; in fact, it is not charity at all. It is good for us because it will put money back into our pockets, if we can do it correctly. Hon. Members have mentioned the £45 billion of CAP funding that we put into the European Union. However, the position is worse than that because, as fellow Europeans, we spend about £50 billion over and above the odds to pay for subsidised products, and we are doing ourselves down.

  935
  If we can develop effective trade liberalisation that works to the benefit of developing countries and ourselves, and if we can work to bring down barriers in the US and Europe, we will put money back into our pockets, and most importantly back into the pockets of some of the poorest people in my constituency. There is a strong argument to be made.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: To reinforce my hon. Friend's point, it has recently become obvious that every single region of Britain is a net contributor to the European budget simply because of the operation of the CAP. I have made the point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that we are well placed to call for the abolition of the CAP and its replacement by different forms of agricultural subsidy.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: The point is well made. A typical, four-person household spends about £1,000 more than it should every year on the CAP. Forget about council tax reform and the balance of funding review; households are needlessly spending £1,000 a year. We must move away from the archaic CAP funding formula.
  A point was made earlier in the debate about capitalism, but I will not get into ideological warfare.
  Mr. Andrew Love: Oh, why not?
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I will not be tempted down that route. A prime foundation of socialist movements is socialism not only on one's doorstep but internationally, which relates to my next point on intra-generational equity. Rising prosperity in this country is not good enough. In November, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation independently pointed out how many people we are lifting out of poverty —there is much more to do—but we must also lift people out of poverty on a worldwide basis.
  Mr. Bercow: I respect the hon. Gentleman, and wait with bated breath and with beads of sweat upon my brow for his views on intra-generational equity. In all politeness and sincerity, I put it to him that the position is, as Sir Robert Peel once said, that the vice of capitalism is its unequal distribution of blessings; the virtue of socialism is its equal distribution of misery.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Very well put. I am pleased to see that we have a measure of agreement. We cannot have unfettered capitalism, and we need controlled measures to avoid breakdowns in markets, which result in abject poverty.
  I will not go into the realm of intra-generational equity, although I lectured on the subject for six years. If we were to reduce barriers and to away with distorting subsidies, as much as £620 billion—the conservative figure is £250 billion—would he released into the world economy. At least half of that would go directly to developing nations, if it were done in the right way. It has already been said that 1. 2. billion people in the poorest parts of the world live on less than $2 a day, which is lower than the subsidy per capita for a single European cow. There were disappointments at Cancun
  936
  but hopefully, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that will give us the energy to proceed with stronger resolve. However, without a doubt, Cancun showed that we need to strengthen the voice of developing nations. That started to happen at Cancun and, in response to people who say that liberalisation will tear developing countries apart. let me say that I believe that we need to ensure that those countries have a voice at the seats of power, not only in the WTO but in other worldwide non-governmental agencies. The Government share that aspiration, and we must work to make that happen.
  Many church groups, such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Christian Aid, have been involved in the movement for trade justice. The summary that Christian Aid provided for today's debate says that it
  "supports the reform of EU agriculture subsidies and the reduction of trade barriers to give poor countries a fair deal".
  However, it goes on to say that the reform of those subsidies and
  "the reduction of trade barriers …should not be granted in exchange for far-reaching liberalisation in developing countries themselves. In particular the EC should endorse the rights of developing countries to protect their poor farmers from unfair competition. "
  I should be interested to hear how the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (igel Griffiths), defines special and differential treatment, because the history of countries that have developed rapidly and enjoyed long-term prosperity is that in the early stages they needed appropriate measures to prevent all hell from breaking loose in free trade.
  Trade justice is good for the world, international agencies and Governments. If we can make a success of the next round of talks, that will dramatically improve our relations with developing nations. There were disappointments after Cancun, but the members of the G90 are starting to flex their muscles and assert themselves. As far as possible, we must force the pace of CAP reform and discussions with the Americans on their own trade barriers and tariffs. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain his thinking on the so-called Singapore issues, particularly the removal of investment and competition from the agenda, before he goes into the next round of talks.
  I urge the House, people listening to our debate, and those who marched to Parliament last year to crack on with the trade justice agenda, and to ignore the detractors, many of whom will point to the failure of talks. We are moving forward and doing the right things. We should be proud of what we have achieved so far, but should recognise that it is not enough. The Government amendment urges the European Union to make further progress on CAP reform on cotton, sugar, tobacco and olive oil, and takes note of the £160 million that the Government have allocated to essential trade-related capacity building in developing countries since 1998. The aid budget, which I mentioned earlier, will, in the case of Africa, rise to over £1 billion by 2005. We should be proud of those achievements and of the efforts of many people up and down the country. Members of the Trade Justice Movement are reasonable, responsible, well informed and, as we saw last year, well

  937
  behaved in their protests. I pay particular tribute to the branch of the Trade Justice Movement in my constituency. Its members are holding a coffee morning on Friday—I cannot attend, but my sentiments are with them.
  2. 44 pm
  Mr. John Gummer: There is considerable common ground on these issues among Members on both sides of the House. I remind the House of my entry in the Register, because much of the work that I do outside the House is to try to help companies behave better and more effectively in developing countries. We have accepted that there is a common view, and I do not have to repeat my long-term support for trade justice. However, I urge the House to pay attention to the problems that we have to face. I am sorry that the Government do not agree with our motion, but their amendment has the advantage of reminding us of some of those problems. As the Secretary of State has said, the developing countries are not an amorphous mass dealing with the same issues and concerns. They have a great need to trade among themselves but must recognise that some ways of liberalising trade and getting rid of distortions can do huge harm.
  I shall use the example of sugar, which the Secretary of State discussed. Perhaps we should always talk about sugar rather than cotton, because we do not grow cotton, so it may appear that we are pointing the finger at those who do. We do grow large amounts of sugar, which is an important part of crop rotation in constituencies such as mine. We are therefore not making a vague argument about the need to get rid of a dreadful system to help people who manifestly need help; we are talking about changing fundamentally the way in which most of the east of England farms, so it is not surprising that there are considerable concerns. I am certain that we have to take action, but I am less certain that the Government have a plan for helping the European Union to find a solution.
  It is not only our own farmers who are affected. We do not want to give up our markets to countries that are better producers and in greater need, only to find that they are almost all taken by Australia and very large producers in Brazil. Countries such as Mozambique and Togo would lose the markets that they currently enjoy under preferential treatment. I do not pretend to have a simple answer but, if they are to be effective in the EU, the Government must present the House and the public with proposals for change in the EU. Only then will we begin to prepare our own people and the rest of Europe for the considerable alterations that are necessary.
  Problems arise not just from the bad things in the EU but from good ones. I agree with the Secretary of State that we are loth to say how much has been done. We should acknowledge that even at Cancun the EU made a clear commitment to considerable reform. However, the United States was unable to make any such commitment. Some of my friends throw around the term "Atlanticist" as if it were opposed to "European", but the two concepts are necessarily part of the same proper view of the world. Good Atlanticists ought to be prepared to tell the United States, quite honourably,
  938
  that its position on the Farm Bill is intolerable, intolerant and unacceptable. I was at Cancun when the Americans told the peoples of the world that there were reducing subsidies for its farmers—not existing subsidies, but those that would be in place after the Farm Bill was passed. The United States would still subsidise its farmers more than the European Union does its. In effect, that is asking the European Union to repeat what happened at the Uruguay round by doing considerably more than the United States, which means that some markets will go not to those whom we had hoped to help, but to the rich, subsidised producers of north America. That cannot be acceptable. The Government must speak out clearly—politely, of course—to say that that is not the basis for a development round and that we cannot recover Cancun until there is a real willingness on the part of the United States to move on the issue.
  Mr. Hopkins: There are two components to the bad behaviour of the rich in relation to agricultural products: one part is to subsidise their own production for their own use, and the other is to export and dump surpluses on world markets at ridiculously low prices. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we could get rid of dumping in the first instance, that might be a step forward?
  Mr. Gummer: The two issues are intertwined. A country with heavily subsidised products does not need to use dumping techniques to undermine products that are not subsidised, even in home markets, as in the case of European-produced rapeseed oil that competes with coconut oil in the markets of west Africa. The two issues are so closely combined that they must be dealt with together.
  The European Union has gone thus far but must go further. The Government must provide greater clarity on the next steps in the EU, which I hope will take place soon. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has negotiated extremely effectively the results that have been achieved so far, and I pay tribute to her for that, but one effect of her reforms is that many British farmers will have to cope with significant reductions in their incomes. I say to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that the time for offensively attacking the common agricultural policy has passed. CAP reform will make it evident to many people in Britain just how tough the movement from subsidy to non-subsidy will be for agricultural areas. A great deal of explanation will be required by people such as hon. Members who are speaking in this debate and who, because we are committed to the developing countries and to the success of the European Union, are determined to make the necessary changes. During the 10 years of change, we will have to be there, on the front line, among the people who will be significantly disadvantaged.
  Chris Bryant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I shall carry on, because I should sit down in about two minutes.
  The next issue to be addressed—I hope that it will be done carefully—is the way in which we deal with the governance of the countries that we seek to help. I agree

  939
  with the Secretary of State's presentation of the Singapore issues. Our priority is to secure the changes that make the development round move forward, and if that blockage is so great, it is perhaps not worth fighting for those principles. Multilateral terms for carrying out investment are very important to developing countries in a world where the bilateral terms dictated by the United States or the European Union are often unfair. It may be better, although the developing nations may find it difficult, to have minimum arrangements of some kind—I hope that we can. If, however, we have to proceed without them, we must pay much more attention to the need for the benefits of freer trade and lower subsidies to reach the peoples of the developing countries instead of being stopped at the gates. That is where governance, the battle against corruption and the determination to ensure openness and transparency are important. I hope that the Minister will recognise that those issues are of huge importance if ordinary people in developing countries are to benefit from the changes.
  My final point concerns fish. I am chairman of the Marine Stewardship Council, which seeks to ensure that fish production becomes sustainable. Tomorrow, we shall celebrate that cause at a gala that will be opened by the Prince of Wales. We are raising money to help poor communities to ensure that their fisheries are sustainable and thereby derive benefit from the markets in the rich world without destroying their own fish stocks. We need to recognise that the rich always win: if there is a shortage of something, the rich get what there is. In relation to fish, stocks of which have been increasingly depleted through pollution and, largely, greed, it is not the rich who go short, but the poor. The rich reach out ever further to buy other people's fish stocks, while the huge proportion of the world's poor who depend on fish for their protein will lose it in order that we have it in our shops.
  Because it is Fairtrade fortnight, I suggest that we should add to fair trade the use of other mechanisms, of which the MSC is one, to remind people that when they buy products they should do it to the advantage, not disadvantage, of those who produce them. I hope that the Minister will use his position to bring considerable pressure to bear on the European Union to change its arrangements for agreeing fishery deals with poor countries in Africa. Many of those deals are not sufficiently policed, which allows rich nations to take more from the seas than is safe for next year's harvest. That situation could be improved if we in Britain were prepared to take such steps and to press the European Union to do likewise.
  We are agreed on the essential need for urgent action, and the time has come for us to be honest about how difficult that action can be. Perhaps we can discuss it in a spirit of cross-party co-operation, unlike the Liberal party spokesman, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who spoiled the debate by seeking to find division. The real issues are very difficult, and it is in recognising that that vie should find the best kind of bipartisanship.
  We need to move forward in a way that is not disruptive to the poor nations that lag behind the majority or to the rich nations, many of whose members are poor and have benefited from subsidies, and will need to be helped to move into the new world. I hope that the House will see this debate as the beginning of a
  940
  rather different approach to the way in which we deal with the world's greatest problem: the ability to live together—rich and poor, north and south, European and American—in a world in which we increasingly have to act interdependently or perish.
  2. 59 pm
  Tony Baldry: The Select Committee on International Development has published two reports, which I commend to colleagues. One was published before and the other after Cancun. Both the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave evidence. We were also fortunate in having a debate in Westminster Hall and I do not intend to repeat its contents or those of the reports, which, I hope, colleagues will read.
  I want to make three brief points. First, we shall not make progress if nations approach the matter as a mercantilist exercise. The other day, several members of the Select Committee met a trade Minister of a fellow European Union country. I shall not embarrass the country by naming the person, but we were discussing the Singapore issues and that Minister asked, "What are we going to get in return for making concessions on the Singapore issues?" When a mature, fellow EU state takes the purely mercantilist approach that if we take the Singapore issues off the table, the developing countries must make some concession in exchange, it makes one fear that we shall never make progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, the world has to focus on how to make the Doha development round a proper development round, not simply on who can make the greatest gains and who can extract the greatest concessions.
  Secondly, I do not believe that there is any disagreement in the House on the aspects of the second report that dealt with the common agricultural policy. The Select Committee comprises 11 members who represent the three main political parties and its report was unanimous. The Government's response to that post-Cancun report and the various boxes on agriculture shows that there is no disagreement. However, Commissioner Fischler's comments to the European Parliament Development Committee a few weeks ago show that there is clearly some difference between the House's view and that of Commissioner Fischler. He clearly feels that EU support that is anything other than direct agricultural support should not be included in the equation.
  We must work out a way in which to engage with other Parliaments in Europe; otherwise, we shall continue to hold debates among ourselves and agree a view, but without influencing other Parliaments. I hope that the Conservative party will continue to remain engaged with centre-right parties, such as the Christian Democrats, in Europe because it gives us an opportunity to influence parliamentary colleagues in those parties. Many represent farming constituencies, and we need to engage them in discussions on the CAP. We must work out a way in which to do that.
  We must also work out a way of engaging the United States Congress. How do we engage our fellow parliamentarians there? Sadly, few Members of Congress came to Cancun and it was not therefore

  941
  possible to engage them in debate. Some nongovernmental organisations, such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, have been trying to work with, for example, Roman Catholic Congressmen, but parliamentarians too must somehow work with Congressmen; otherwise we shall hold the debate only among ourselves. We need to reach out.
  Thirdly, statistics show that wealth in developing countries is considerably enhanced if we improve the trade position. However, we must accept that even enhancing trade will not necessarily solve every developing country's problems. Last week, I was in Sierra Leone. The Secretary of State will be there next week for the opening of the special court. I visited a part of the country called Bonthe, which used to be a rice-exporting area, where previous Governments planted palm oil plantations. United Kingdom research into specific types of coconut led to coconut plantations being based there. The area also exported piassava, which goes into brooms. Its tragedy is that the country now imports rice, the palm oil plantations are going to rack and ruin and the piassava market has disappeared. Sierra Leone is now a net importer of foodstuffs. I therefore welcome the Government's consultation paper on aid to agriculture. The Secretary of State has heard me banging on about the subject, and I make no apology for doing that again.
  It is good news that the Department has produced a consultation paper on what more can be done about aid to agriculture. I spent days in Bonthe examining the dereliction there. People there had become so poor and existed at such a subsistence level that they did not have the wherewithal to buy the machinery to start growing rice again. They had lost contact with the way in which to establish markets in Loughborough, where broom makers require piassava. They did not have the ability to work out how to get the technology to develop palm oil. That cannot necessarily be done by the state because, in the past, it has often led to corruption. However, those communities must somehow be helped, and not only by the World Trade Organisation, before they can even begin to think about exporting or gaining access to markets. They must first be able to feed themselves. It is a tragedy that the cost of rice in Freetown is higher than it has ever been. It is beyond the means of many people simply to buy rice.
  Whatever we do here about trade justice is brilliant but more must be done to help the poorest countries in the world to attain the bottom level to enable them to trade at all.
  3. 5 pm
  Alistair Burt: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (r. Bercow) for tabling the motion. He builds on the excellent work of his two immediate predecessors, my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who over the years have built a sharp and compassionate platform for Conservative party policy on international development.
  I want to make two brief points. First, although we concentrate on the opportunities that trade provides to help world development, I do not want to forget aid.
  942
  Secondly, I want to reflect on the difficult issue of balancing market liberalisation with sensible interventionist policies to help trade grow in the countries that matter.
  It is crucial not to forget the role that aid still has to play. The motion acknowledges the work of voluntary groups and I should like to thank those people throughout the country who support voluntary aid agencies around the world. They are often unsung, and, in some cases, give their lives to working in places around the globe t o make them better. They are a remarkable combination of people, who use their lives to help their neighbours, however far away. They have been political lobbyists, active on the streets and reflective in their writings, thus contributing to development theory as well as practice. They have engaged millions of others in their activities.
  I pay particular tribute, because of my personal connections, to those who work in Christian-based aid organisations. Tearfund, CAFOD, World Vision and many others have made an extraordinary contribution. Sometimes it is necessary to be reminded of how dreadful conditions are in some places and the hurdles countries have to overcome before they even reach the world stage to discuss finance and trade.
  My former researcher, Anthea, is now a regional officer for Tearfund in Burundi. Since 1993, that country has been engaged in a racially based civil war and hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, yet the patient work of development goes on. Anthea e-mailed me yesterday She wrote:
  "Burundians are in many ways similar to the British, it is difficult to get them to talk about the way they feel and it takes time to get to know them and to have any kind of real friendship. People never talk about the genocide, except as a historic event which they refer to as la crise' so the other day I was really surprised when …our logistics assistant told me what had happened in his family. In 1993 both his father and his brother were killed when all the male Tutsis in the commune where they lived were murdered. That year he said if you include his extended family fifty people were killed. It's hard to imagine how people deal with that kind of loss and yet one of the ways Burundian society seems to have tried to come to terms with the past is to bury it and never mention it; I In: genocide has become a taboo. God's healing is still very much needed before peace will become a reality.
  This month Tearfund are running two peace and reconciliation workshops, one in Bujumbura and one in Kirundo for church leaders. The aim is to encourage the church to play an integral role in the process of healing and reconciliation. Please pray that these workshops really inspire and excite church leaders and that they also go someway towards healing the rifts in the church. "
  By contrast, Habitat for Humanity addresses the basic problem of poverty housing throughout the world. It is a non-profit-making, ecumenical Christian housing ministry, which aims to take poverty housing and homelessness from the world and make it an issue of raised consciousness. That organisation has built more than 150,000 homes and provided more than 750,000 people in 3,000 communities worldwide with decent, affordable shelter. I am proud to be an honorary UK patron of its work, along with Members from each of the major parties. It is a model of sensible international development. It encourages local leadership to get on board, it uses local materials and it helps people, by engaging them in what it calls "sweat equity", to gain access to affordable housing ownership in their

  943
  communities. That is an example of how Christian scripture can act as a basis for professional community development, effective delivery systems and practical action in the community.
  The basic capacity building of homes and the provision of peace and reconciliation in conflict-torn areas are absolutely essential before we even consider how nations can then tackle the international crises that we seek to address through trade, and through negotiation and discussion on such matters as finance. On the reform of trade rules, I sign up unequivocally to the general view that freer trade is likely to be better for people. On balance, that is the way in which the world has worked and progressed, and there is plenty of evidence of how trade regimes that are too restrictive can cause damage. However, on the wider issue of how far that free trade is to go, the evidence suggests that the jury is still out and that there are serious differences between major players, which need to be resolved. Strong, persistent voices from those in a position to know seem to be raised determinedly against the substantial extension of unprotected, unmoderated free trade.
  Mr. Hopkins: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he aware that Joseph Stiglitz, formerly of the World Trade Organisation and a Nobel prize winner, has expressed severe doubts about trade liberalisation and WTO policies?
  Alistair Burt: I think that we are in the same general area of discussion, and I am happy to develop this point for a couple more minutes.
  I raise this point because it is a matter of concern for the world's poor, and for those of us who seek to understand their position and to intervene and speak for them—that there appear to be strong differences of opinion among international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, organisations such as the WTO, individual Governments and, by contrast, the voices of certain development agencies.
  As an example, Focus on the Global South, a regional organisation for policy research, analysis and action, which works in conjunction with the United Nations in Asia and the Pacific, produced a report in October 2003, entitled "Anti poverty or anti poor? The millennium development goals and the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger". It was critical of the World Bank, and quoted a study on structural adjustment programmes and their effects on countries across Latin America, Africa and Asia. That study found, among other things, that indiscriminate trade and financial sector liberalisation devastated local industry, especially the small and medium-sized enterprises that provided the bulk of national employment; that such trade and liberalisation undermined the viability of small farms and agricultural producers, which weakened food security and damaged the national environment; and that macro-level problems have accompanied those local-level failures, which means that the promised gains of efficiency, competition savings and revenues have not materialised.
  944
  World Vision, in a paper that it prepared for me for this debate, says that
  "there are significant dangers for developing countries in having their policy options foreclosed by IMF and World Bank loans, conditionalities and inappropriate, restrictive WTO rules. "

  It might be reasonable to assume that some who work for development agencies are not by nature well disposed toward liberal, free market economics, and they sometimes show a touching faith in state production and institutions of whose effectiveness and success there is scant evidence. However, I find that there are too many well researched, well written papers coming from people on the ground, who ought to know what is happening in practice and what the effects of various measures are, for them to be too easily dismissed.
  I ask my own Front Bench, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise, who is replying to the debate, how we stand on that. Do the Government feel that the conflicts between the agencies and some financial institutions on the extension of free trade can be easily overcome? Is synthesis possible? Do the Government come down on one side of the line or the other?
  The very nature of the debate troubles our constituents, who want to believe what politicians tell them on this matter, but sometimes find politicians' views diametrically opposed by the churches and voluntary agencies that they wish to support, and to which they give their money and time. To put the question simply, is there a way through? Is there a synthesis of opinion, and can the difficulties that the agencies have raised, and the conflict over some free trade issues, be reconciled? I hope that I am not alone in being puzzled by that, on behalf of those who are interested in the matter. In the spirit of debate, I should genuinely be interested to find an answer.
  In conclusion, I think our constituents will be well pleased to find that on occasion, we speak collectively with one voice—on an issue. On this issue, the day for which our constituents are waiting is the day on which, collectively, we can deliver.
  3. 15 pm
  Mr. Robert Walter: I should like to join other colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on introducing this debate on fair trade. Following what the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) said, I can tell the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will be joining me for a Fairtrade tea in my constituency in a week or so.
  I had the honour to serve on the Select Committee on International Development for two years, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). Some former colleagues are present today. I served on that Committee until just before Christmas, and we produced two reports on trade and the issues surrounding the World Trade Organisation and the abortive Cancun summit. I found that preparing those reports was fascinating, if sometimes depressing. During our year of inquiry, we visited the WTO, the European Commission and the European Parliament. We took evidence in Washington

  945
  from trade representatives and representatives of the Department of Agriculture, and we heard evidence from many developing countries, as well as countless NGOs.
  One point that has become clear to me from those deliberations is that Europe and the United States hold the key to the solution of this issue. Europe and the United States appear to pay lip service to that solution, but neither is prepared to undertake the reforms necessary to bring it about. The trade and agricultural policies on either side of the Atlantic ocean are blocking real progress. We heard numerous examples of that, highlighted in the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred: the inability of Indian dairy farmers to compete with subsidised European skimmed milk exports to the Middle East; the damage caused to the Jamaican dairy sector by the dumping of skimmed milk powder by the European Union; and the problems in the sugar industry and the cotton sector, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and others have referred.
  I was particularly struck by the remarks of the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, in his evidence to the Committee, about the inability of Ethiopian producers to compete with subsidised US corn exports to Yemen, which is the Ethiopians' traditional market. He was cautious, although I tried to prompt him, about calling that "dumping", but we all knew what he meant. European leaders seem to have been rather pleased with themselves during the past year over their agreement to the reform of the common agricultural policy. However, that will not tackle directly the problems related to export subsidies, and it will fall far short of stopping the dumping of European Union surpluses.
  Agriculture is the key to fairer trade in both the developed and the developing world. Although it is by far and away the most distorted sector, agriculture is the most important issue for developing countries. As I hinted in my intervention on the Secretary of State, I take issue with the element of generosity and common purpose in the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to the Secretary of State. In the motion, my party urges the Government
  "both to press for the talks to restart and to publish its proposals for the reform of agricultural subsidies",
  whereas the Prime Minister's amendment refers only to urging
  "the European Union to make further progress on reforming the Common Agriculture Policy regimes for cotton, sugar, tobacco and olive oil".
  We have to go much further than that.
  In the Committee's report, we pointed out that three quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas, that 27 per cent. of developing countries' gross domestic product and export earnings comes from agriculture, and that agriculture provides 50 per cent. of employment in those countries. Its importance in the poorest countries is even greater, because it provides employment for more than 60 per cent. of the labour force and represents some 70 per cent. of their exports. The World Bank estimates that up to 70 per cent. of the gains from trade liberalisation would come from the agricultural sector, which could increase developing countries' exports by anything from $30 billion to $100 billion a year. Our report suggests that that could add an extra 1 per cent. to the GDP of Africa.
  946
  So, removing subsidies, ending dumping and reducing barriers to trade will put an end to what one of the witnesses before the Select Committee described as a
  "catalogue of scandalous destruction of livelihoods or missed trade opportunities for developing countries".
  Chris Bryant: It has been clear throughout this debate that everyone shares the hon. Gentleman's desire for change in the common agricultural policy. However, elections are coming up in Spain and Greece in the next few weeks, and both those countries are likely to return Governments with a renewed mandate for keeping—and, indeed, enhancing—the common agricultural policy. How are we to set about the political process of achieving further reform?
  Mr. Walter: I agree, to some extent, with the frustration that underlies the hon. Gentleman's question. This is one of the reasons why we must be firm in our united resolve, on both sides of the House, to get the point across to all our European partners that this situation cannot go on. I shall develop that argument just a little more, if I may.
  This is not just about export subsidies. The United States and the European Union have to deliver wholesale cuts on domestic subsidies as well. I do not believe that the CAP reform that has been negotiated will deliver any such change in this subsidy-dependent culture. I have been a farmer, and I have enjoyed the subsidy regime. It distorts every business decision. People used to ask me what I farmed, and I would reply, rather light-heartedly, that I farmed subsidies and kept sheep to justify them.
  I take issue slightly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in that I believe that British farmers would love to see the back of the subsidy-dependent culture that exists right across Europe. However, it is not the British farmers in my constituency who are defending the indefensible. Many of my constituents would not be prepared to give up their subsidies until their European and American cousins had done the same thing, and if I were still farming, I would feel the same. However, we have to work in a concerted way to achieve that. Any British farmer will tell us that the current system of land-use subsidies, production subsidies, export subsidies, dumping and barriers leads to us all here in the north producing far more than the market demands.
  I should like to say a few words about the reform of the common agricultural policy, because Commissioner Fischler has been referred to briefly. I shall quote from a report by the US Department of Agriculture economic research service, which concluded that US subsidies increase the level of output, even though they are meant to be production-neutral. The report states:
  "Transfers that are not commodity specific can increase the overall level of agricultural production by increasing the wealth (financial well-being) of farmers, thereby expanding agricultural investment and boosting the use of land and other inputs. "
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a characteristically thoughtful speech. Does he not agree that the single most shocking feature of agricultural policy in the United States is that the Farm Act 2002 represents a serious regression from the position established in the 1996 Act?
  Mr. Walter: I agree absolutely.

  947
  I was about to quote from Agra Europe, a well-known research body on this side of the Atlantic, which reported:
  "Overall, the new legislation is expected to increase spending on US farm support by an additional 70 per cent. or $73 billion, over the next ten years. "
  Its specific criticisms of those subsidies were as follows.
  "They guarantee the US farmer a given level of income…
  Lower prices will mean that farmers gain a higher income than they would if market prices were higher—thus sustaining market disequilibrium…
  Since guaranteed income means guaranteed return on everything grown"
  irrespective of whether it is sold, and
  "Resulting increased production will flood the market and further drive down prices".
  Those new subsidies will reduce US export prices, particularly for wheat, which already forms 40 per cent. of the world's total production. That will have a depressing effect on third world prices and reduce the attractiveness of US domestic markets to developing country exporters.
  In 2002, total agricultural support in OECD countries amounted to the equivalent of 1. 2 per cent. of GDP—more than $300 billion—which meant that prices were on average about 31 per cent. above world prices. In the European Union, export subsidies are explicit. In the USA, they are not always quite so clear and straightforward. None the less, they are as great, if not greater. Our Committee reported that the average external agricultural tariff around Europe is 19 per cent., and reaches a peak of 260 per cent. The average external tariff around the United States is 5 per cent., reaching a peak of 350 per cent. We are dealing here with export barriers and subsidies, import tariffs and the overall level of subsidy.
  I leave the House with a simple question. If I were a washing machine manufacturer, and each year the European Commission shared out up to €50 billion among all the washing machine manufactures, just to keep the factories going and for the privilege of telling all my friends that I was a washing machine manufacturer, I imagine that some of the other washing machine manufacturers in the world might get a little upset. They might use terms such as "unfair competition", or get their Governments to impose tariffs or block our washing machine exports. I guess they would. But that is exactly what we are doing in just one sector today—the agriculture sector—and the
  reforms we have agreed make little difference. They do not alter the basic equation. NV', in Europe—this is replicated in the United States—are giving our farmers nearly €50 billion a year, which is not available to our competitors. That is simply not fair.
  3. 28 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The consensus that has emerged this afternoon, both in the remarks from those on the two Front Benches and in the motion and the amendment, is rather striking. It is also valuable. I suspect that the Government tabled their amendment because, like many of us, they had an automatic, instinctive partisan reaction, and felt that they ought to say something of their own in the form of a counterblast. I hope, however, that on reflection they
  948
  will not divide the House. Such a decision would be a positive gesture because we can achieve more on CAP reform if there is a consensus.
  The emphasis of my remarks will differ slightly from that of some of my colleagues, although we all share the objectives involved. Human history teaches us unambiguously that international trade is a prerequisite for growth in output and wealth and for the reduction of poverty. The enormous and, at the time, unprecedented expansion of output and wealth in the 19th century was associated with the even faster growth rate of trade. When that rate began to be reduced at the end of the 19th century by protectionist measures from the continent and from the United States, the output growth rate began to fall.
  In the inter-war period, protectionism was unprecedented, at least since the 17th century, and enormous trade barriers were raised, beginning with the appalling Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the United States in the early '20s. During those 20 years, we had the most disappointing growth rates, and in the 1930s a memorable and appalling recession. Over the last 50 years, the enormous increase in wealth and well-being has been associated with an international trade growth rate many points higher than the output growth rate. That could not have been achieved without the liberalisation measures and, in particular, the creation of the European Union, as well as the international measures that started with the Kennedy round in the `60s, moving through the general agreement on tariffs and trade and now the Doha process.
  Against that background, Cancun is disappointing. At the very least, it is a serious reverse in a favourable process and we are all right to be concerned about that. When it comes to drawing lessons, we must—at the same time and by the same token—assign blame. The most popular target seems to be the EU. A lot of people in this country, for the noblest motives, like to feel that they are being more critical of themselves than of other people. Perhaps that is a good principle in one's private life, but it can sometimes lead one astray in one's political judgments.
  In Cancun, the EU made a considerable effort, which was the decision to go for decoupling last year. It involved considerable sacrifice by many politicians who depend on the farming vote. I am not always nice to the French in this Chamber, but let me say that it was positive, and rather unexpected, that the French went along with that, so they deserve credit.
  What is more, when we got to Cancun Commissioner Lamy made a number of major concessions. He gave away two of the Singapore points—those on investment
  and on competition. Both are sensible proposals that are much in the interests of the developing countries; I shall come to that in a moment. Nevertheless, operating tactically while also showing good will and emphasising the importance of the whole issue, he gave way.
  The Americans did nothing at all. They had done nothing beforehand to prepare for success and, so far as I can see, they did nothing when they got to Cancun to contribute to success. Their Farm Act 2002, which has been referred to several times this afternoon, was a complete disaster, as it went in the opposite direction and increased agriculture support when the EU was at least reducing ours. That was most extraordinary.

  949
  The Americans' record in trade matters recently has been really dreadful. The sudden, arbitrary imposition of steel quotas and the tax subsidies for exporters, which are causing a trade war between us and the United States and which are a serious matter, flowed from entirely selfish, short-sighted and lobby-driven pressures on the US Administration. In so many other ways, I greatly respect and greatly support them because—other colleagues have referred to this—I am a strong Atlanticist as well as a strong and, I hope, good European.
  We have to try to consider things as dispassionately as we can in this matter, but the United States does not come out of it with any credit at all. It will not help the argument at all, nor will it help our relations with the United States, if we are anything less than frank with it about that, as I would expect, among friends and allies, the US to be with us if it had a similar problem.
  Mr. Hopkins rose—
  Mr. Davies: Because of time pressure, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way.
  We cannot end the indictment there. I am about to say something that has not been said and I may be clashing with a consensus that I value, for which I apologise in advance. I have to say that the position taken up by the G90 at Cancun was irrational and very unhelpful. It is not sensible, as the Trade Justice Movement seems to believe, that the slogan should be, "Open up your markets, do whatever the G90 asks for and let them get on with governing their own countries in whatever way they want. " That is not a realistic line to take.
  Even if we could persuade all our EU colleagues to go along with an entirely altruistic policy of making unilateral concessions without demanding anything in return, we would not persuade everyone else in the world who needs to be part of an agreement—the Japanese and the South Koreans, for example, who took a strong line on the Singapore issues at Cancun— to come along on that basis, nor would it be reasonable to expect them to do so. Human affairs are not normally conducted in such a way, so that is bad advice to give anybody. I would be sorry if it were the message that went out from the House this afternoon.
  I also have to say that it is irresponsible of us not to take an opportunity that offers to assist in the cause of good governance and rational economic policies among those poor countries whose poverty we are desperately trying to alleviate. In life, we cannot help people who will not help themselves. We all know that if 50 countries have gone backwards and become poorer in the last 20 years—that is a quarter of the countries in the world, which is an appalling statistic—that is largely because of the policies that they have adopted.
  There are classic, egregious examples of appallingly destructive economic policies, sometimes based on a lot of cloudy rhetoric about socialism, fairness and so forth, that ruined a country—Ghana under Nkrumah and Tanzania under Nyerere are the two classic examples. Perhaps I will not be quite so blunt about people who are still in power, but there are too many of them around, particularly in Africa. They are a major problem.
  950
  With the best will in the world, I believe that we have made all the trade concessions that we want and we provide all the aid and all the development assistance that we want. We are providing $50 billion at the moment, although I know that that is not much. All that can be discounted and made as nothing by self-destructive economic policies adopted by the beneficiary—the recipient—states. So, it is absolutely right, if we are to make this effort, that we should do so alongside the countries that we hope will benefit—on a partnership basis, of course.
  We should indeed seek to exert subtle but effective leverage on the policies of those countries and try to ensure that when we are in a position to give them something that they want we use that opportunity. That is quite normal in human affairs, and is not in any sense a humiliating policy to adopt. We should seek to influence them to tat e a sensible and rational direction. That would be very much in the interest of the world as a whole, but particularly in the interest of their own populations, who are suffering from too much poverty.
  For all those reasons, the G90 should not escape its fair share of the blame for what happened. We should be just as blunt and just as frank with those countries, nor should we patronise them by treating them any differently from normal, adult, responsible human beings with whom we deal in life, politics, business or any other context. We should speak clearly, saying, "We want to help you. We believe that we can and there will be a great effort on our part to remove some of the subsidies, although there will be a political cost. We want to talk through what you can do. We will end up with a blueprint for a batter world. " That is the dialogue that we should be having.
  I have a final point to make. Somebody else should not escape a mention in the debate and a measure of the blame—Senor Luis Ernesto Derbez, the appalling chairman at Cancun, who behaved with an unbelievable lack of imagination, flexibility and competence in chairing a complicated international meeting.
  It was crazy to think that there was any chance of reaching agreement in five days. To close the whole show then—just a few hours after a critical concession had been made by Commissioner Lamy and before anyone had the chance to digest it and work out where we might go from there—was quite extraordinary. I have no idea why the chairman did that, but of course it was a completely mistaken tactical approach. He should have allowed that concession to be absorbed and seen whether some people would come back with some more.
  There is no question but that the problems that we have to deal with in this matter are far too important and far too complex for it to be responsibly expected that they can be dealt with definitively within five days; a great deal longer way necessary. When we get back to business on this one, which I hope we will as soon as possible after the American presidential election, I hope that all those lessons, and indeed many others, will be effectively learned.
  3. 38 pm
  John Barrett: There is clearly consensus on both sides of the House about the vast majority of issues that have been discussed this afternoon. The Government have made much progress,

  951
  but while the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made the most eloquent speech, the Secretary of State was right to raise the Conservatives' track record. The best indication of future performance is past performance—that cannot be airbrushed out of history.
  There is consensus in this place. but the public are mystified. because all that they ask is that we politicians give the poorest, the hungriest and the starving a decent trading system, so that they have a level playing field and can get a leg up and participate in trade. Trade with developing countries is occurring, and not just in agricultural products, although they are clearly the No. I issue. There is trade in mining, a growing trade in tourism, trade in arms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Torn Brake) mentioned, and trade in technology. One thing that has affected my constituency is the trade in financial services jobs, which are going to the developing world.
  Unfair barriers must be tackled Non-tariff barriers make it difficult for products from the developing world to enter our market. It is right that we have high standards, and that we demand that the food that ends up on the supermarket shelf is of the highest standard. The knock-on effect of that, however, is that people who want to enter the food market must comply with the same standards. If we are to help the developing world, we must therefore assist those developing countries in a number of ways to enter our markets.
  The effect of trade on the environment has not been mentioned. If we trade with the developing world in timber, for instance, we must consider the effect that that has on the environment and on greenhouse gases. Clearly, there is not enough time to discuss many aspects of trade, although they have been discussed in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall a few times recently. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has always shown a great interest and has turned up for those debates.
  I have mentioned the national issues, but it is also worth mentioning and recognising local initiatives that are helping. When the Minister replies, he may mention the fair trade policy of Edinburgh university, in his constituency. Our city of Edinburgh has adopted fair trade city status. Fair trade bananas are now on display in my local Tesco, and at a village in my constituency, South Queensferry, people are signing up to participate in fair trade.
  The issue is trade justice, and a number of Members have already mentioned the injustice of EU farm subsidies and the United States Farm Bill. Europe and the United States are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I would like to see some movement on that, and given the special relationship that exists, or is supposed to exist, between the Prime Minister and the US President, it could be emphasised how important it is that they roll back some of the subsidies that they are giving their domestic producers and their exporters, which are effectively destroying markets.
  Aid and trade are also linked. As the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), has pointed out in the past, we must accept that in good years, when developing countries are producing a great deal of whatever agricultural product they produce, the price falls, whereas in bad years of agricultural production, we send out more aid and, once
  952
  again, there is a danger that local market prices can be undermined. We must make sure that we integrate our aid and develop trade at the same time.
  A classic example of things having gone completely pear-shaped is the world coffee market. The Secretary of State and others mentioned the problems of Ethiopia. If Ethiopia is to move forward, with its growing population and huge AIDS crisis, it must develop irrigation, agricultural production, its road system and its education and health systems, all of which will work together in letting it develop as a nation and develop its trade. Coffee production is at the heart of Ethiopia's future potential. While there are new players in the market, such as Vietnam, which was mentioned earlier, one of the problems is that we are paying increased prices for coffee on our supermarket shelves, yet the world coffee price to the local farmer is dropping. On a rough calculation, a coffee farmer must produce enough coffee for 1,000 cups of coffee to be paid as much as we in the UK pay for one cup of coffee.
  As time is moving on, I want to end with what I said when we last discussed this subject:
  "Trade agreements should be developed to help the poor, to protect the environment and to be a force for positive change. If that development does not take place, we shall all suffer as we help to develop a world where the obese watch the poor starve to death on television. All that is being asked for is what is fair. We should settle for nothing else. "—[Official Report, 19 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 315.]
  3. 45 pm
  Ann McKechin: I welcome this debate, which is timely. I add my support for Fairtrade fortnight. I will support one or two fair trade shops in my constituency on Friday.
  I had the privilege to attend last year's WTO summit in Cancun. I want to comment on some of my observations at the conference. First, we need to stop playing the poker game when we arrive at conferences by leaving every decision to be dealt with in four days flat. The capacity of someone from a poor developing country to be able to deal with the wide-ranging and complex issues within such a short period is virtually nil. It would be of great assistance if all nations could concentrate on reaching the majority of decisions in Geneva during the course of the year in normal negotiations rather than leaving everything to the last minute.
  Language is also important, particularly within the European Union. I heard the French Trade Minister talk about the unique cultural quality of his agriculture and how he wanted to refer it to UNESCO. I heard the Italian Trade Minister talk about the unique value of Italian soil. Considering that his audience consisted of Trade Ministers from some of the poorest countries in the world, where 70 to 85 per cent. of the population are involved in subsistence farming, that must have been fairly hard to swallow. The first thing that we could therefore do is to talk about development and truly mean what we say. I give credit to the British Minister who, in complete contrast, emphasised the need for true development and the need of the poorest countries. The United States of America was not even present—despite having more than 250 people in its delegation, one would have been hard-pressed to find them in Cancun, for they spent most of their time hiding away,

  953
  considering the embarrassment of having to speak to Ministers and others representing farmers in west Africa and cotton farmers who are now facing bankruptcy because of the failure of the Cancun talks.
  We also need to differentiate the needs of the G21 group, comprising countries such as India, China and Brazil, which are looking for more access to our markets, and those of the G90, which need more time spent on special and differential treatment as opposed simply to reducing barriers. Different needs exist, and we must find an agreement that will suit both sets of views and needs.
  The Singapore issues have been mentioned. Pascal Lamy left it far too late in the game to make his offer, which was one of the major problems with the Cancun debate. Trade rules are not necessarily a good basis on which to establish an investment agreement. There are different nuances, which require differentiation, not a one-size-fits-all approach. We should remember that the policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund already require developing countries to liberalise without any trade-off. When developing countries attend the WTO, therefore, they have already liberalised many of their markets as a result of World Bank and IMF policies, and have little to offer and negotiate with at the table. It is no wonder that developing countries feel so defensive when attending conferences of this kind.
  We need World Bank, IMF and WTO policies that recognise the fact that countries such as India and China protected their own markets before agreeing to trade liberalisation. They developed their domestic industries before allowing them to be left to the open market. We must consider how the various agencies can best work together to achieve the millennium development goals and economic growth in the world's poorest countries.
  The International Labour Organisation recently held a special commission on globalisation. One of its best recommendations was that we should concentrate not on freer regulation but on actual employment growth. That should be the test of whether we are achieving a reduction in absolute poverty.
  I hope that the Government will consider those points, and that they will form part of our discussions on progress and trade agreements in the coming year.
  3. 49 pm
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: This moving and rather unusual debate has featured the House at its best—with the exception, I am sorry to say, of one speech fairly near the beginning. Although it is a shame that there were only two Labour Back-Bench speeches, we have seen the House united on a subject, and in its language on that subject. The value of that lies in the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, this is one of the world's crucial issues, which affects the living or dying of millions of people.
  I congratulate the Government on the non-partisan nature of both the Secretary of State's speech and his amendment. I have no quarrel with the amendment; my only question to the Secretary of State is whether he disagrees with anything in the motion. I heard nothing
  954
  in his speech that suggested that he did. I think he agrees with the motion but would have worded it slightly differently himself. In his opening remarks, he invited the House to unite in support of the amendment. I do not think we shall have an opportunity to do so, because the Conservatives will not oppose it. Indeed, that will arise only if the Secretary of State takes the step of voting down our motion—with which he agrees, so I hope he will not. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, in an extremely powerful speech, that this debate would provide an opportunity for a good deal of consensus. It can still provide that opportunity.
  As I have said, I accept the amendment, but there are points on which we need more detail. The Secretary of State
  "urges the European Union to make further progress on reforming the Common Agriculture Policy regimes".
  Of course we all do, but what is he doing to achieve that further progress? My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that it was not clear to him that the Government had a plan to help the European Union make such progress, and it was not clear to me, either, from the Secretary of State's speech, welcome though it was.
  The amendment calls for action on HIV/AIDS. Yes, but once we have called for that action, what will we do to achieve something for those desperately poor countries? It calls for a successful Doha round. Of course, but the prospects do not look good at present. The Doha round is intended to finish by January next year, but given the way things are going, that will not happen. The Secretary of State referred to the millennium development goals. He said that there were targets to be achieved by 2015, and that we would be judged on them. That is right, but if we cannot even achieve a successful development round at Doha, how are we to achieve those goals by 2015? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) made a similar point.
  The amendment says that
  "significant progress must be made to improve access for developing country exports".
  But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, such things are very difficult to achieve, so we need some mechanisms through which such progress can be made. Let us consider the question of substantial reductions in trade-distorting agricultural subsidies. In a very well informed speech—as always—my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said that he farms subsidies and keeps sheep to justify them. What are we actually going to do to achieve these substantial reductions in trade-distorting subsidies?
  I therefore accept the Government's amendment; all I suggest is that when the opportunity comes to oppose our motion, they fail to take it.
  Before I finish, I want briefly to discuss the Singapore issues. I welcomed what the Secretary of State said—
  Mr. John Taylor: Before my right hon. Friend moves on. may I draw his attention to the compelling speech of my hon. Friend the Member for

  955
  Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who seeks mechanisms that can couple the aid given to countries that deserve it with stewardship of how it is spent, the economic consequences of the use of that aid, and its effectiveness and efficiency?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: If one is allowed to refer to Lord Copper in this Chamber, I would say, "Up to a point". My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made a characteristically trenchant speech about the Singapore issues with which I entirely agreed. He rightly said—as, indeed, did the Secretary of State—that those issues have considerable value. There is value in reducing corruption in developing countries, and in improving free trade and public procurement. That is all to the good. We need to pursue those issues, and it is important that we do so for the developing countries themselves. But as the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said—I thank him, incidentally, not only for an outstanding speech but for his outstanding Select Committee work and the skill that he brings to it—that should not be done at the expense of more important and urgent issues relating to the Doha round. That is particularly true of agriculture. As the Secretary of State said, the Singapore issues should not themselves stand in the way of the Doha round, however important they are.
  Free trade is sometimes said to be in contradiction with the principle of fair trade, but both freedom and fairness are crucial values in trade, as in all other things. They must be balanced, but the trouble is that all too often, in trade as in other things, we have neither freedom nor fairness. The richest countries—the United States and the countries of the European Union—subsidise and protect their markets. Fairness is of course very important for rich countries, but for developing countries it is more than important: it is a matter of life and death—not just for individual people but for whole communities.
  I should like to draw particular attention to the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who discussed issues relating to Burundi. Freedom to trade is likewise more important to developing countries than to rich countries. Protectionism is not the answer, but it is particularly not the answer to protect rich countries, especially the United States and those of the European Union. Many of us have detected in the Democratic primaries worrying signs of protectionism arising as a positive issue in the United States election, and worrying signs of US behaviour in respect of steel tariffs. I am delighted that the US has now removed them, but I suspect that that was done more out of self-interest than anything else.
  Protectionism in the United States or in the European Union will not help the billion people in the world who live on less than a dollar a day, or the billion people in the world who have inadequate drinking water. We have the opportunity today to send out a message that this House is united in its determination to help those people and to change the world with real answers. Let us take that opportunity.
  3. 59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(Nigel Griffiths): This debate shows the House at its best, with thoughtful points, searching questions and helpful suggestions. I am sorry that I was briefly absent from the Chamber when the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke, but I have notes from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Doubtless the debate will get no media coverage because of that consensus.
  I want to pay tribute to Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, who has greatly enriched these debates and was most respected in this House and outside. Twenty years ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), Alistair Grimes and Alan Sinclair, I was one of the founder members in Edinburgh of Scottish Education and Action for Development, one of the first fair trade organisations in the United Kingdom. I began a journey for justice in developed countries and the elimination of poverty, a journey that will end only when there are no more starving children, no children who do not go to school and no children who cannot get fresh water.
  I am pleased that the Department of Trade and Industry stocks fair trade items, including coffee, tea, chocolate and bananas. I hope that the House of Commons will consider following in our footsteps. At the launch of Fairtrade fortnight on Monday—the tenth anniversary of the Fairtrade Foundation—I was pleased that the Government were able to support the fortnight with almost £1 million to continue the work of ensuring that we have trade justice. I am delighted that the Co-op is doubling the stocking and sale of its own-brand fair trade items; it is showing a great lead. Finally, I am particularly grateful to my constituent Anne Howard for allowing me to help launch Fairtrade fortnight in St. Columba's church in Newington a short time ago.
  It is clear from today's debate that there are many well informed and keenly interested Members. I was grateful for the contribution from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who asked quite rightly about the international finance facility. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and other leading members of the leading world economies are taking a close interest in the World Bank and IMF spring meetings, which will cover the issue. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the boundary commission report on Ethiopia; the Government's position is that this should be implemented fully.
  In an intervention, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee, gave strong support for the commission for Africa. The Prime Minister is on record about the steps that we need to take to prevent small arms sales to Africa. The hon. Gentleman also stressed the need to engage other Parliaments, particularly in Europe—a point echoed by other hon. Members—as well as the need to engage the United States of America. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) spoke of his involvement in engaging the United States. It is important that the international nature of the issue is taken on board.

  957
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made a thoughtful speech and I pay tribute to his work as chairman of the Marine Stewardship Council. He spoke of the pressing need to ensure that the EU agreements on fisheries are fair and equitable to the countries of Africa and do not become yet another opportunity for despoiling the sea stocks. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for the outstanding work on the issue that was done at the end of last year in Cancun.
  The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) also spoke with great knowledge about the need to reconcile what should not be contradictory aims of aid agencies and financial institutions. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets all the large aid agencies regularly, and that we stress the appreciation, shared by everyone in Britain, of the £70 billion of debt relief that the heavily indebted poor countries have benefited from, thanks to both political intervention and the intervention of financial institutions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) spoke of one of the critical needs, which is to develop the voice of poorer and developing nations. He will share my gratitude to my right hon. Friend for ensuring that £160 million is going into capacity building, building the knowledge base, I hope from within, so that those nations are in a good position to enter the negotiating chamber well armed with the facts and with the 21st century skills that are equally needed to negotiate a fair settlement on their behalf. This is an important issue.
  The hon. Member for North Dorset stressed a theme common to all speakers, but did it particularly eloquently, in demanding reforms to the common agricultural policy. Those who were not able to be present today would do well to read the Official Report of the proceedings, including the very thoughtful and challenging comments about the British agricultural position and the realities that we have to face. If all politics were as straightforward and honest with regard to difficult issues, we would all be the better.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) stated something that we all accept: our disappointment with Cancun. He made some challenging and critical remarks about the G90 nations. Of course, their expectations must be tailored to the realities, but we cannot expect them to move without the European Union, the United States of America and other advanced economies moving as well.
  I was grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) for showcasing Edinburgh and what the university, the council, and church and faith groups in our city do. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) for her thoughtful contribution.
  In winding up for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) made a number of points and put a number of fair questions. He stressed the details needed on how we are
  958
  intervening with the CAP. Clearly, we want to build on our good record on textile reform, which has been very beneficial to developing countries in showing that it is possible to ensure that trade is much fairer and much better at boosting their economies.
  Flowers from Kenya are a great market, having reached £35 million from almost nothing in a few short years, because we allow those flowers into the European Union. We must both appeal to consumers and have a good and sensible approach to the agricultural sector. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced such an approach in January and is proceeding with it.
  We are all concerned about HIV/AIDS, and I know the right hon. Gentleman for North-East Hampshire will share my congratulations to my right hon. Friends for increasing our spending in that regard sevenfold.
  With regard to Doha, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will want to work with us to put forward a sensible agenda to secure a result that benefits everyone.
  It has been a pleasure and a privilege to take part in the debate. I thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions and the spirit in which the debate took place. Would that all our proceedings were the same.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 326.

  Division No. 72]

  [4:09 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Amess, David

  Barnet)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Clappison, James

  Bacon, Richard

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Baker, Norman

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Collins, Tim

  Barker, Gregory

  Conway, Derek

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Barrett, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Curry, rh David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Stamford)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Boswell, Tim

  Howden)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Dodds, Nigel

  Surrey)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Brady, Graham

  Doughty, Sue

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Breed, Colin

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Evans, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burnside, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Flight, Howard

  Burt, Alistair

  Flook, Adrian

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Cameron, David

  Francois, Mark

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y,

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Garnier, Edward

  Fife)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Cash, William

  Gidley, Sandra

  959

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Goodman, Paul

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Dinefwr)

  Grayling, Chris

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Randall. John

  Greenway, John

  Redwood, rh John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gummer, rh John

  Rendel, David

  Hague, rh William

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hammond, Philip

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Harvey, Nick

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Ruffley, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Russell Bob (Colchester)

  Hendry, Charles

  Salmond, Alex

  Hermon, Lady

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Selous, Andrew

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Howard, rh Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hunter, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Smyth. Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Spring, Richard

  Keetch, Paul

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Steen, Anthony

  Inverness)

  Streeter, Gary

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Swayne Desmond

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Syms, Robert

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor. Ian (Esher)

  Lamb, Norman

  Taylor. John (Solihull)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Teather, Sarah

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Tredinnck, David

  Lidington, David

  Trend Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Loughton, Tim

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Viggers Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Walter, Robert

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maclean, rh David

  Watkinson, Angela

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Weir, Michael

  Maples, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Atcham)

  Wiggin Bill

  Mates, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Willetts. David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Willis, Phil

  Moore, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Norman, Archie

  (Macclesfield)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Wishart, Pete

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Young rh Sir George

  Öpik, Lembit

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Page, Richard

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Paice, James

  Mr. Mark Field

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Ainger, Nick

  Darwen)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Allen, Graham

  Atkins Charlotte

  960

  Austin, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Baird, Vera

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Banks, Tony

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Battle, John

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Beard, Nigel

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Edwards, Huw

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Efford, Clive

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blackman, Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, rh Derek

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  &Rye)

  Wallsend)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike Ilford S)

  Bryant, Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burnham, Andy

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Grogan, John

  Challen, Colin

  Hain, rh Peter

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Chryston)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Clelland, David

  Rhymney)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hendrick, Mark

  Colman, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Heyes, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Cummings, John

  Sefton E)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  (Copeland)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Urmston)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hutton, rh John

  Davidson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Dawson, Hilton

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  961

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Martlew, Eric

  Highgate)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Merron, Gillian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Michael, rh Alun

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Miliband, David

  Hatfield)

  Miller, Andrew

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mole, Chris

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

  Morgan, Julie

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Mountford, Kali

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Mudie, George

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Kemp, Fraser

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Kidney, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Bow)

  Olner, Bill

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Organ, Diana

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Lammy, David

  Owen, Albert

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Perham, Linda

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Picking, Anne

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lepper, David

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Plaskitt, James

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Linton, Martin

  Pound, Stephen

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Love, Andrew

  E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Prescott, rh John

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McCabe, Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Purnell, James

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Quin, rh Joyce

  MacDonald, Calum

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McDonnell, John

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  MacDougall, John

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  NW)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McKechin, Ann

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruane, Chris

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McWalter, Tony

  Chester)

  McWilliam, John

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Salter, Martin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mallaber, Judy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mann, John (Basset/aw)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Sheerman, Barry

  Shettleston)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

  962

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Trickett, Jon

  Singh, Marsha

  Truswell, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Finsbury)

  Kemptown)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecanbe &

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Lunesdale)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Spellar, rh John

  Ward, Claire

  Squire, Rachel

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Stevenson, George

  Watts, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  White, Brian

  Lochaber)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Williams, Deny \\^uiivvyj Wills, Michael

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Woolas, Phil

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Yarmouth)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow V)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Derek Twigg and

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Mr. John Heppell

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  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 this debate and congratulates the Trade Justice Movement on its efforts to raise public awareness of this vital issue; reiterates the commitment made in the White Paper Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor to improve international trade rules; urges the European Union to make further progress on reforming the Common Agriculture Policy regimes for cotton, sugar, tobacco and olive oil; welcomes the UK's call for action on HIV/AIDS; congratulates the Government on the £160 million it has allocated to trade-related capacity building in developing countries since 1998; welcomes the fact that the UK's aid budget for Africa will rise to over £ 1 billion by 2005; welcomes the launch of a new initiative, the Commission for Africa. t, to take a fresh look at the challenges Africa faces; notes that a successful Doha Round could contribute substantially to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals; congratulates the Government on the lead it has taken within the EU and the WTO to promote free and fair trade; believes that significant pr egress must be made to improve access for developing country exports to both developed and developing country markets, including through substantial reductions in trade distorting agricultural subsidies; calls on all WTO members to continue to demonstrate their commitment to the Doha Development Agenda; and underlines this House's commitment to ensuring the Doha Round produces real benefits for the poor.

  Protection of Vulnerable Children
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the Government's proposed amendment to the motion that is to be immediately before us refers to the publication of the Children's Bill in the other place today. That seems to mean that although it is presented in another place, it will not be available to Members of the House until 7. 30 am tomorrow. In the light of references in "Erskine May" at page 387 to he fact that when Ministers of the Crown read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House, that paper
  "ought to be laid upon the Table of the House,"
  is it not all the more important that when the House is going to vote on a motion that refers to a paper, that paper should equally be laid up on the Table of the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but Ministers are responsible for the wording of the Government amendment. The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is a matter for debate. It is not a matter of order on which the occupant of the Chair can rule.
  Mr. Phil Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State announced that the Bill would be published on 4 March. Indeed, he has made that clear to the House. Yet Ministers refer in the amendment to a Bill that is published in another place. Surely, when the Secretary of State announces that a Bill will be published on a specific day, that is what the House should expect to happen.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that I can usefully add anything to what I have already said. Those are not matters for the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I protest most vigorously that, if the Government amendment refers to a document that presumably will be debated—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that point of order; I do not intend to do so again.
  I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4. 26 pm
  Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that it is now more than 13 months since Lord Laming's Report on Victoria Climbié and that 25th February 2004 marked the fourth anniversary of her tragic death; regrets that the Government has wasted too much time before bringing forward practical measures to make vulnerable children safer despite Laming's contention that 84 of his recommendations could be implemented within six months and even now social services departments are in limbo awaiting Government recommendations in the Children's Bill; is alarmed at the Government's complete inability to clarify the position on data sharing between agencies, which is crucial to child protection
  964
  measures; condemns the Government's failure to address the crisis in recruitment of child protection social workers without whom the necessary improvements will not be achievable; is gravely concerned at their response to the recent Appeal Court judgements involving children taken away from parents on questionable expert witness testimonies, which has failed to take account of potentially thousands of other miscarriages of justice in the family courts; notes the additional pressures that this is adding on already overstretched social services departments; further notes the continued failure of the Government to produce the long promised National Service Framework for Children; condemns recent moves to cut already committed grants to important Children's Fund projects working with vulnerable children; and calls upon the Government to give vulnerable children the priority they need and deserve.
  This is an important subject. I make no apology for saying that—I do so every time that we debate this subject, and it has become no less important since we used Opposition Supply day debating time to discuss it in July 2003 and since various Conservative Members instigated debates in Westminster Hall. Yet, since the Laming report was published on 28 January 2003, no Government time has been given to debate children's issues in the Chamber. Since the appointment of the Minister for Children on 13 June 2003, which we welcomed, no debate in the Chamber on any part of her brief has been instigated in Government time, despite all that the Government have issued in the light of the Laming report, including the subsequent Green Paper consultation, despite recent high-profile cases involving the discrediting of expert witness evidence provided by Sir Roy Meadow and his disciples, and despite the great upheaval among all the children's departments, which are being brought within the Minister's remit. I need not say, of course, that the subject has never been mentioned in Liberal debating time either.
  We have called this debate 13 months after Lord Laming produced his excellent report, with 108 recommendations. He said that 48 of them could be acted on in three months and a further 36 within six months. We have called this debate just over four years after the brutal death of Victor Climbié at the hands of her great aunt and her partner, which we all remember only too vividly.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of protecting vulnerable children. Will he explain why the Opposition completely failed to support amendments that would have protected children who come to this country from abroad and who are in danger of being made destitute under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill?
  Tim Loughton: I do not want to intrude on the private grief between the hon. Gentleman and the Government about their legislation. I shall come to that separate subject later. I want now to deal with several subjects that relate to the broad remit of what has happened since the Laming report and various events since then.
  We all know the horrific figures for the number of children who die at the hands of their carers—an average of 80 each year, with a disgracefully low conviction rate for murder. For that reason, we particularly welcome the Government's moves to legislate to deal with the problem of the joint enterprise loophole, which has left too many murderers going free

  965
  or being indicted on the lesser charge of child cruelty. However, too many children are still subjected to systematic abuse—
  Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Tim Loughton: I am not going to give way a second time.
  There are too many such children whom we will not know about, despite the higher profile that has been given to the subject and the excellent work that is being done, especially by many voluntary bodies.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that over the months since the Laming report the Government have issued detailed guidance, especially to social services departments? That guidance is in place and is helping to protect the vulnerable children to whom he refers.
  Tim Loughton: If the hon. Lady is patient, she will find that I will refer specifically to the checklist and the booklet, which form the basis of the guidance issued since 28 January 2003.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) about advice to social services departments. Will my hon. Friend find time to refer to the role of school nurses? School nurses have a key opportunity—certainly through preventive work—to care for vulnerable children. I am not sure whether the Minister for Children's remit makes it especially easy for her to involve the NHS and school nurses in the process, and she may obviously answer that point for herself. I would, however, be interested to hear my hon. Friend's views.
  Tim Loughton: My right hon. Friend makes an exceedingly good point. I have long been a great fan of what school nurses can do, but I am afraid that there are far too few of them. In all too many cases, school nurses are not doing preventative work because they are responding to cases and, often, performing the role of social workers by looking after children under protection who are not in their places. School nurses have an enormous role to play. I would like there to be many more school nurses who could spend more time on preventative work on health matters in schools and, at the same time, joining with social workers, teachers, the police and other agencies—the Government say that they want that to happen—to bring about the joined-up approach on child protection that we desperately need. My right hon. Friend's point is absolutely right.
  A less publicised problem is the life chances of children for whom the state is the parent—the 60,000 or so looked-after children, on current figures. More than half of looked-after children will leave school with no qualifications, and between a quarter and a third of rough sleepers are people who come from the care system. A quarter of the prison population come from
  966
  the care system. The incidence of mental health problems among such children is much higher than the already worryingly high rate of one in 10 for the rest of the child population, and more than 30 per cent. of children in care have had no immunisations. There is a much higher proportion of looked-after children among ethnic minority populations, and they experience another raft of problems disproportionately.
  I welcome the ongoing BBC "Taking Care" season, which is doing an excellent job of bringing the plight of children in care into everyone's homes and reinforcing the message that these are ordinary children who have often been through extraordinary experiences through no fault of their own and simply need a second chance in a stable family home. I give the innovative monitoring scheme that the BBC is promoting every good wish.
  Jonathan Sdhaw: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentions the BBC's current season. Does he agree that its portrayal of children and young people provides a realistic picture? He used the word "plight", but many such young people succeed despite the events that they have gone through. We should applaud them and provide a balanced view of children in care—it is not all bad news.
  Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have seen many of the programmes, I went to the season's launch and I had a meeting with the producers. The great thing is that the season portrays children in their everyday lives. It shows, with no holds barred, the great successes that many of them achieve and the great problems and challenges that many have to overcome. That is exactly the right way to portray things, and I think that the BBC is doing an excellent job with the season. It may he unfashionable to say it to the Government at this time, but I think that the season is broadcasting at its best.
  The issues are important, and we are determined that the House should be given a proper opportunity to debate them. We need to address several questions: first, are children safer from abuse, and ultimately death, at the hands of their carers or abusers than Victoria Climbié was four years ago?
  Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Tim Loughton: With respect, I would really like to make some progress. I have given way several times and I have quite a lot to say.
  The second question is: are social services departments and other agencies in a position to implement in a practical way the safeguards recommended by Lord Laming, and endorsed by the Government and the Opposition, and to bring about the sustainable improvements that we all want? The Government have so far failed to answer those questions, and the House is entitled to a full report, as are all parents who are concerned about the welfare of their children, and children who are looked after. Those questions require full answers about what practical action has been and is being taken, not just what boxes have been ticked or departmental memos sent out. I intend to focus on the practical action taken since Lord Laming's report was published; to consider the

  967
  particular problems associated with information sharing, which is crucial to effective child protection; to examine the additional problems created by recent revelations from the Court of Appeal regarding the discrediting of expert witness testimony provided by proponents of Munchausen's syndrome by proxy; and, finally, to touch on the future of the Children's Fund.
  On 7 January 2004, the Minister for Children produced her response to the Health Committee report on the Victoria Climbié report. It itemised the Government response to each of the 108 Laming recommendations and subsequent action taken. That seems all very well, until one looks in detail at what action is promised. Many of the important recommendations are met with this observation:
  "In the Queen's Speech on November 26th 2003 the Queen announced that the Government would bring forward a Children Bill this Session to take forward some of the measures in the Green Paper. "
  We know that, and we have been waiting quite a long time for the Bill. Most of the other recommendations are met with the response:
  "The Government will consider what mechanisms are needed to support the Minister for Children in discharging her responsibilities";
  or:
  "This is included in the checklist of good recommendations issued on publication of the report";
  or:
  "Advice is contained in the booklet 'What To Do If You're Worried A Child Is Being Abused' issued by the Minister in May 2003",
  followed by:
  "progress so far—completed".
  I think that that is wishful thinking.
  The fact that the Government are considering something, or that they have issued a checklist or a booklet to local authorities apparently means that the problem has been sorted—the box can be ticked. Recommendation 35 is:
  "Directors of social services must ensure that children who are the subject of allegations of deliberate harm are seen and spoken to within 24 hours of the allegation being;"
  made. According to the booklet progress is completed; problem sorted. Recommendation 53 is:
  "When allocating a case to a social worker, the manager must ensure that the social worker is clear as to what has been allocated, what action is required and how that act ion will be reviewed and supervised. "
  The action recorded is that it is in the checklist of good practice recommendations: pi ogress completed; problem sorted. Recommendation 63 is:
  "Hospital social workers must always respond promptly to any referral of suspected deliberate harm to a child. "
  That is in both the checklist and the booklet: progress completed; problem doubly sorted.
  The problem is that things are riot that simple. Such complicated problems are not solved simply by issuing memos and ticking boxes—the panacea so beloved by the Government. The Government amendment to the motion refers to the Minister as though everything has been achieved by the appointment of a new Minister for Children. We welcomed that, but it is only the start of the journey—and a shaky start it has been at that.
  Mrs. Humble: Earlier, I pointed out that the Government have issued guidance. Is the hon.
  968
  Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Government should not have done that? The checklists consist of more than tick boxes; they place a requirement on managers to supervise properly the social workers who have the difficult task of making decisions and judgments and offering advice and guidance in respect of extremely vulnerable children. Surely the Government have done precisely what they should in issuing clear instructions to social services departments and managers and social workers at all levels.
  Tim Loughton: Of course I am not saying that the Government should not have issued that guidance, and I shall discuss that later. However, that is not the important thing. The important question is: are the people there to put it into action? If they are not, the guidance is worthless.
  Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Tim Loughton: I wish to make a little progress.
  We are told that the Children's Bill, which is due to be published today in another place, but which we shall not see until tomorrow, will propose structural changes, such as appointing a children's commissioner, a director of children's services, which may or may not be a central model, and a new inspection hierarchy. Now that we have given the Minister an opportunity to address the House, perhaps she will provide some details of the Bill. We look at the details and offer constructive scrutiny, but all that will be meaningless and all the responses to Lord Laming's 108 recommendations will be fruitless unless there are sufficient skilled professional child protection officers in social services departments and other agencies, working on the ground, at the sharp end, detecting cases of child abuse, intervening and working to prevent abuse, with the resources necessary to make meaningful interventions available to them. It is highly unlikely that that can be achieved in the cost-neutral fantasy world suggested by the Minister.
  Mr. David Hinehliffe: I am saddened that the debate is becoming politically partisan, because the House is at its best when, as in the case of the Children Act 1989, we discuss the way forward. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who was not a Member of Parliament at that time, recognises that point and I say that the 1989 Act was a credit to the Conservative Government. I started work in child protection in 1971, and I am struck by the clear parallels between the Maria Colwell case in 1971 and the Victoria Climbié case and between Lord Laming's recommendations and the recommendations of the Maria Colwell report. I do not want to make a partisan point, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that Conservative Governments were in power for a total of 21 years after the Maria Colwell case and might have addressed one or two of the points that he raises today.
  Tim Loughton: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's expertise on this subject. Lord Laming made the point that this report must be different and must make a difference. I have already applauded many of the steps that the Government have taken, including

  969
  the appointment of the Minister for Children, for which I called for a long time. If joining up relevant individuals works properly, it is welcome and I applaud the guidance that has been issued, but the test of those actions will be the results that they produce.
  People must be on the ground to put the guidance into effect, but I fear that they are not. In many cases, more people were on the ground when the hon. Gentleman was practising social work. One can have as many children's tsars as one can shake a stick at but their hegemony will be short lived if the workers are not there on the ground. Recent recruitment figures show that the number of whole-time equivalent field social workers in children's services has hardly changed over the past six years, despite the extra requirements placed on local authorities by, for example, the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which sets out requirements to provide adoption support services.
  One local authority that I visited recently told me that it had been advertising for months to find someone to head up its adoption support services and that it had received zero applications. Despite all the requirements in the 2002 Act to promote adoption, the preparation work undertaken by local authorities to respond early to some of the problems highlighted by the Climbié case and the myriad schemes that have hit social services departments, the figures suggest that there are more than 5,000 social worker vacancies, around two thirds of which are in children's posts. Those figures cover services required now, ahead of the recent legislation, but there is still a heavy reliance on temporary agency workers, who simply cannot provide the necessary continuity, particularly in complex cases.
  Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman refers to social worker posts and the work required under the 2002 Act. Do his figures take account of the many voluntary agencies that do that work for local authorities?
  Tim Loughton: Indeed, I have made that point on many previous occasions and shall probably make it later. There are many different schemes involving many different people, and the biggest problem is that they tread on each other's toes. There is an awful lot of poaching from one scheme to another, including the poaching of full-time social workers who work for social services departments.
  I have not mentioned the increasing rush for early retirement by directors of social services, but 40 out of 150 social services directors in England took early retirement in the past year.
  Mr. David Cameron: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), is my hon. Friend aware that some voluntary bodies involved with social services such as the excellent Family Nurturing Network, which is based in my constituency, are concerned that the setting up of the new heads of children's services in every social services department might make it more difficult for them to continue to provide good services to vulnerable children and families? What should the Government do to address that particular point on behalf of important voluntary bodies such as the one that I mentioned?
  Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and underlines the need for much greater local autonomy in the way that local authorities, working in concert with voluntary organisations, provide crucial services to vulnerable children. As I shall explain, the children's fund schemes were about to have the rug pulled from beneath their feet. Much good will and trust has been lost as a result of Government action, which might have undermined many schemes that offer extremely worthwhile activities.
  Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Tim Loughton: No, I will not, as I want to make progress; otherwise there will be no opportunity for Back-Bench Members, among whom there is great enthusiasm and interest, to make speeches. In any case I do not want to deny the House another opportunity to hear the hon. Gentleman rubbish the previous Government, as he does whenever he makes a speech.
  I have spoken to or visited many social services departments throughout the country in recent months, and nearly all of them point to a crisis in recruitment. As one London authority put it:
  "The biggest issue is recruitment and retaining staff and maintaining a consistent direction, which is hard with so many initiatives being pushed our way. We have had Quality Protects, Sure Start, Connexions, Children's Trusts, the Climbié audit, the Hillingdon Judgement, the CPA, the SSI, and the Leaving Care Act—all of which impose different sets of Priorities' on a frequent basis…Resources which are already scarce are being redirected on a continuous basis by government intervention. "
  Jim Knight rose—Jim Knight rose—
  Tim Loughton: One moment, I have more. One shire authority reported:
  "The biggest problem is money, with a forecast overspending for children's services of £4. 6 million or 18. 9 per cent. for the year 2003/04. We have 563 children looked after compared with 521 in 2001, 440 new referrals in December 2003 and increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining foster carers. We currently have 226 registered foster carers compared with 265 in 2001. "
  Jim Knight: What conversations has the hon. Gentleman had with the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)? Is it not the case that in his announcement of a future Tory Government's spending plans the right hon. Gentleman made no mention of children's services, which would he frozen for two years? After that, there would be an increase of only 2 per cent., which would result in huge cuts in social services funding and huge problems for vulnerable children.
  Tim Loughton: Yet again the hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, and no doubt his Front-Bench colleagues will do so as well. He should remember that at the forefront of those proposals was continued spending on health and education.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills(Mr. Charles Clarke): It was health and schools.
  Tim Loughton: It was health and education, and there will be pooled budgets, which the Minister for Children

  971
  is trying to pool in any case. Children's services would not be affected, so let us not hear airy more nonsense—[Interruption.] Members on the Front Bench can scoff as much as they like it, but I am afraid that that expenditure is a plain fact that the) chose to ignore.
  One west country authority proposes to recruit qualified social work staff from Canada. There is also a great shortage of foster carers, whit h is posing a serious problem everywhere. The Fostering Network estimates that although there are 32,000 foster families in England, there is a shortage of more than 6,100 foster families. Just over two thirds of the 60,800 children in public care in England live with roster families, who offer the best refuge for vulnerable children, and their best chance of returning to a stable home environment. As we know, the state makes a bad parent, yet 60 per cent. of foster carers receive no more than a basic contribution towards costs. As no minimum level is set by the Government, allowances vary widely between local authorities.
  Some authorities said:
  "The amount spent on a few expensive placements for a small number of very difficult to place young people continues to escalate."
  Residential placements for looked-after children out of area can cost as much as £4,000 a week, and can skew the spending of the whole budget. Can the Minister for Children tell us how successful or otherwise has been the recruitment campaign first launched in October 2001 by the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), then Secretary of State for Health? It appears to have taken a back seat by comparison with all the publicity devoted to the recruitment of doctors and nurses. In addition, many authorities report that social workers are moving away from the front lime to safer jobs that do not include the monitoring and investigation of child protection.
  Local authorities have been caused major frustration by the Government's delay in coming forward with firm proposals and legislation despite the urgency of the Climbié case, which arose more than four years ago. The Green Paper on child protection was first promised by the Prime Minister in October 2002. The response to Laming, which was promised in spring 2003, eventually arrived as a Green Paper in September last year. That was followed by a short consultation period, but no White Paper. Finally, we are promised the Bill tomorrow. No pre-legislative scrutiny period was allowed, which makes it all the more important to get it right.
  Throughout that time, local authorities have been in limbo, keen to get on with the important business of overhauling their approach to child protection post-Climbié but held back by not knowing what may be imposed on them by the Bill. Will a central model of a director of children's services combining education and children's social services be imposed on everybody? We have been getting mixed messages from the Minister's own departmental colleagues as to whether the director will have a managerial or a strategic responsibility. The position that is being created could be very important, controlling as much as 70 per cent. of a local authority's budget, so it is vital to get it right and to have proper lines of accountability. The Local Government Association says:
  972
  "we are concerned that the proposals for a single director, accountable for children's social services and education are unduly prescriptive. Managerial arrangements must be a matter for local discretion depending on local circumstances; the same arrangements will not work across the board. In many cases the degree of prescription will force authorities to unpick arrangements that are working well to introduce less effective arrangements. "
  Are children's trusts to become the norm in most authorities or in all? As Councillor Alison King, chairman of the LGA's social affairs and health executive, says,
  "Councils and their partners are best placed to organise the management of services for children, according to local circumstances, not civil servants in Whitehall"—
  a point that she has made to her local MP, the Secretary of State, on many occasions.
  There has been concern that central Government have been slow in integrating children's services in the way the Green Paper proposes local authorities and their local partners should. As one northern shire authority puts it,
  "The Government seems to have forgotten to tell NHS colleagues that they are supposed to be involved, and have given the PCTs and other health trusts a set of priorities which don't include children and young people's services. "
  Overall, valuable time has been wasted—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Members on the Treasury Bench should not keep chattering while the hon. Gentleman is addressing the House—they would not expect the same if the situation were reversed.
  Tim Loughton: They can express their discomfort at the appropriate time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but they will have to listen to this.
  Overall, valuable time has been wasted despite the very substantial efforts of local authorities, and social workers in particular, to respond positively and practically to Lord Laming's recommendations.
  A key area that is essential in pushing forward the whole child protection agenda is that of information gathering and data sharing, yet it looks as though the Bill will avoid the whole issue and defer to reports from the identification, referral and tracking project trailblazers, which are not due for some time, and for which, as the Minister admits, funding has not yet been guaranteed. Laming identified information sharing as a key priority, and a weakness in the system that directly led to Victoria Climbiés death. As it stands, the police, social services, schools, health officials and other agencies are unclear about their legal position as regards how long they can retain their own information, let alone as to whether they can share it with another agency that may be able to add to the jigsaw to build a picture that reveals a strong possibility of child abuse.
  There are separate problems to do with the position of GPs, whom the Minister has been unduly hasty in berating despite their professional confidentiality obligations. Hence the Soham loophole, which revealed different police forces interpreting the same parts of the Data Protection Act 1998 in completely different ways,

  973
  thereby missing crucial pieces of the jigsaw that might have prevented the tragedy in Soham. That led to the setting up of the Bichard inquiry, which has only just started its work.
  The Minister has left everyone involved in a state of complete confusion. We started off with what looked like a back-door ID card scheme that sought to establish files on all 11 million children in this country. Now the Government appear to be building a local intelligence hub that may address the problem of local information sharing through a central source, but offers no solution for dealing with, say, the seven-year-old with constant bruising noted by a GP in Newcastle, where police have been repeatedly called to the parents' address, but who then turns up on the other side of the country in Bristol; or the private foster carers in Manchester who are struck off the local authority's list for malpractice insufficient to lead to criminal proceedings or to place them on the Department of Health's blacklist, but who then turn up in Brighton eager for placements from a local authority that is chronically short of foster carers. It is arguably the transient cases who tend to be the most vulnerable, and we should concentrate on children in relation to whom the authorities have legitimate concerns rather than trying to put all 11 million children on a database that falls foul of all sorts of data protection regulations.
  Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Tim Loughton: I shall give way for the last time, just to keep the hon. Gentleman happy.
  Mr. Dawson: It is a serious point. Does the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge the practical difficulties of his suggestion? Possibly more important, does he recognise the problems of labelling children and young people at an early stage? Is it not essential to include everyone in the system to ensure that it works well for the most vulnerable?
  Tim Loughton: It is essential to have an information-sharing system so that all the agencies that form the vital jigsaw, which Herbert Laming so clearly identified, can do their job. There is no sign that the information-sharing protocols, let alone the required IT systems, have been established or are remotely on the horizon. Without them, there will be further delay. The hon. Gentleman should know that.
  What input will the children have into the information that is held on them and the people to whom access is permitted? The information must be secure against paedophiles and potential paedophiles. Has the Minister for Children considered linking local information hubs to a national mutual reference database, as we would like, which would signpost worried professionals to agencies elsewhere in the country that hold information on a vulnerable child? That could be done without holding detailed files centrally, which would pose all sorts of data protection problems. Decisions about whether action should be taken would remain with the authority in which the child resides.
  There are serious pressures on social services departments, which are keen to make changes but which are held back by Government delay. There is a serious
  974
  shortage of key personnel, who are integral to effecting the necessary improvements, and complete confusion about what can be held on whom by whom, and who can tell what to whom. To add to the work load of all involved in child protection, they may have to tackle a hornet's nest in the light of the Canning verdict in the Appeal Court. Today, two high-profile civil court cases of removal of children from parents are being challenged on appeal for the first time.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: On my hon. Friend's point about who can know what and the information that can be disseminated, I ask him to consider a difficult constituency case in which two of my constituents, who are parents, had their two daughters taken away by court order for permanent adoption. They continue to protest that they have been badly treated. Despite my considerable efforts, I cannot get the information and I do not know whether the correct decisions have been made. Is it not essential to appoint a children's commissioner with proper powers to discover information, so that such cases can be referred and we can be sure that he correct action has been taken?
  Tim Loughton: I take my hon. Friend's point. It is important that justice is done and is seen to be done, and that the proper procedures are followed. It remains to be seen whether a children's commissioner would have a role in that. We do not yet know the Government's proposals, but I want to consider where some of the procedures are going wrong.
  The Solicitor-General has dealt swiftly with the 258 convictions in the past 10 years for the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of a child under two by its parents. Seventy-two apparently relate to persons who are still serving a custodial sentence, and we await further progress reports. Last week, the Minister for Children made an announcement about family court cases, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned, that will rightly prioritise families with sibling children who have been removed or are currently subject to care proceedings up to adoption.
  However, in concentrating on cases that are subject to disputed medical evidence, the Minister has limited the investigation to only the low hundreds. The announcement therefore marked a significant rowing back from the many thousands of cases in which children have been removed from parents in the family courts, often on the expert witness evidence of Professor Sir Roy Meadow and other proponents of his now discredited theories, and poorly prepared parents with inadequate legal representation were often simply unable to challenge the expert witnesses. Despite all that, the Minister strangely prejudged the outcome of all the possible miscarriages of justice by stating that it would not be appropriate for children to be returned to their birth parents across the board if such miscarriage were found.
  Many questions remain unanswered—not least why the Government did not act earlier, given the warnings from child experts which the Department for Education and Skills received and which are on record from as long

  975
  ago as 2000. What new guidance has been issued to local authorities, given the shocking revelations of recent months? All the social services departments that I have visited claim that they received nothing from the Department. Does the guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children", issued in 1999, and "Safeguarding Children in Whom Illness is Fabricated or Induced", issued in August 2002, still pertain, despite its heavy reliance on formal recognition, even though Munchausen's is the condition that dare not speak its name in Government speak?
  What is being done to regulate the expert witness registration procedures? It seems that anyone—such as the Minister or I—can set themselves up as an expert witness by filling in a simple form. including credit card details, and handing that over with a cheque to get on the list. There is minimal checking And no obvious way of removing a person from the list if their expertise is subsequently challenged.
  Vera Baird: I might want to intervene again in a moment to comment on what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I rose lo comment on what he said a moment ago, which it has taken me a while to digest. Amazingly, he criticised the Minister for failing to say that anyone who had been involved in a case in which Professor Meadow had given evidence would automatically get their child back. The hon. Gentleman expected her to say that those children would automatically go back. Let me tell him that I appeared in a case in which Professor Meadow gave evidence, and in which there was powerful other evidence to the extent that he was almost unnecessary. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting, from the Opposition Front Bench, such gross irresponsibility?
  Tim Loughton: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Lady misheard me, or whet her I did not express myself properly, but that is entirely and utterly not what I said. What I said was that—as the Minister had led us to believe would happen—all those cases in which there had been expert witness testimony that was now being called into question should be available to be reviewed. If the result of any such review was that there had been a miscarriage of justice, it should then be available to the parents to apply, where suitable and appropriate, for the children to be placed back with them. That is all that I said.
  Mr. Dawson rose—
  Vera Baird rose—
  Tim Loughton: I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall happily give way to the hon. and learned Lady in a moment.
  Of course, there will be a great many cases—I hope it will be most cases—in which the original judgment will be found not to be flawed. However, we do not know that now, so it is essential that we properly review all those cases. That is why it is curious that the Minister prejudged those cases by saying that, even if they were found in the parents' favour, those children should not be restored to those parents.
  Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands totally how care orders and adoption orders are made.
  976
  If Professor Meadow's evidence had been the sole testimony, and he had been quite wrong, it would not necessarily follow that in each and every case it would be in the child's best interest to be returned—it really would not. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully what he is saying. He could raise false hopes in so many families; his behaviour here today is quite immoral.
  Tim Loughton: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Lady is going completely over the top, given what I have said. I particularly used the phrase "where suitable and appropriate". In some cases—I stress, in some cases—if there is found to be something unsound in the original case, and if a child has been through a series of foster placements or failed adoptions and not been placed in a settled family environment, it might be appropriate for that child to be returned. What is not appropriate is to make a broad-brush statement that it would not be appropriate for any children to be returned to their parents even if it were found that the original case was unsound.
  Vera Baird rose—
  Tim Loughton: I should like to make some progress, and the hon. and learned Lady may well want to make her own contribution later. I ask her, please, not to distort what I have said. I clearly did not say what she claims I did, and it clearly would have been irresponsible for me to do so. What is irresponsible is to say that even if there are found to be flaws, the children have no hope of being restored to their parents. That is unforgivable where the parents who have challenged these cases are concerned.
  What does the Minister intend to do to make family courts fairer for all parties? At the moment, children must be represented by a specialist lawyer from the child care panel, but parents are often unable to secure such expert representation. Too often, the interests of parents and children are put in opposition to each other, instead of our following the continental practice, which more readily encourages local authority involvement to rehabilitate children back into their families, if that is possible and poses no danger.
  As the editor of the excellent new publication Children Now has put it, there is
  "an increasingly widespread view that family courts are in crisis. Add to that the chaos within the children's guardian service CAFCASS"—
  the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—
  "where long delays in children being assigned guardians are resulting in cases being drawn out months longer than they would otherwise need to be…and the fact that the number of lawyers prepared to take on publicly funded cases is dwindling. "
  There is an increasing feeling that the Minister is being badly advised on these matters, not least as a result of people who are closely associated with the ancien régime promoting discredited procedures.
  Vera Baird rose—
  Tim Loughton: I shall wait until the hon. and learned Lady makes her own contribution later.

  977
  I shall briefly touch on the children's fund. We welcomed the Minister's U-turn last week, but the 149 partnerships put in place in very worthwhile schemes that have so far helped more than 300,000 children and families across the country should never have been put in this position in the first place. They are still worried about their funding for 2005–06. I saw a very effective scheme in Bury last week, which was tackling bullying in schools. It was funded by the children's fund, but, having taken on fixed overheads and commitments on a three-year time scale, its future had been seriously cast in doubt.
  The Minister herself has said of the children's fund:
  "It is one of the Government's exciting and successful innovations to invest in services for a group of children who often miss out: the five to 13-year old group. "—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 24 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 56WH.]
  However, the head of the National Children's Bureau, Paul Ennals, has said:
  "The episode has sent shock waves through the children's sector. Many voluntary agencies and local authorities have been scaling down projects and in some cases, laying off staff. And this shambles could have long term consequences and has undermined confidence in the Government's commitment to preventive work. "
  The editorial in Children Now observes that
  "the attitude of some Whitehall officials who still believe that voluntary organisations are second-class subcontractors, more malleable than private companies, owed less obligation and more easily dumped when the going gets rough…threatening to destroy at a stroke all the good will and trust built up between the groups"
  and the Government.
  There are many other problems that we could touch on in this debate, and I am sure that other hon. Members will do so. There has been a big increase in the number of children being trafficked into Britain for sexual exploitation, and there is a desperate need for new procedures for registering and following up children who arrive alone from abroad. There is a big question mark over the inspection of children's homes by the National Care Standards Commission, whose annual report reveals that 10 per cent. of announced inspections of children's homes were not carried out, and that 47 per cent. of unannounced inspections did not take place either. What will the Minister do about that, as the NCSC is about to be merged into the Commission for Social Care Inspection?
  Why have the Government specifically excluded disabled children from full protection in the Green Paper? Experts warn that that will allow disability to disguise abuse. What is the Minister doing about the dramatic increase in child abductions? According to this week's Home Office report, white 10-year-old girls are most at risk in that regard. There were 846 abductions and attempted abductions in 2002–03, an increase of 45 per cent. on the 584 in the previous 12 months. Many of those cases involved looked-after children. The Children's Society has quite rightly highlighted the lack of suitable child protection measures for children in prison, whose numbers have doubled over the last 10 years, and for child asylum seekers. Furthermore, there is still no sign of a national service framework for children or an alcohol strategy.
  978
  We have had many warm words from the Government, and m my "eye-catching initiatives". They have issued many memos, and many departmental boxes have been ticked. However, their record will be judged on how many children have been helped in the field. How many have been rescued from abuse? How many have been saved from cruel torture or death? How many abusers have been deterred from plying their evil trade in the first place? How many looked-after children have been given a genuine second chance to have the kind of normal, stable, conventional upbringing that we all take for granted, and to which they are just as entitled as anyone else?
  The jury is still out on the quality and outcomes of what the Minister has achieved in the last nine months. In terms of the parliamentary time needed to allow input from all hon. Members in debating the necessary measures, there has not been a good start. The Conservatives strongly hope that the Bill to be published tomorrow—and a preparedness to listen to those most affected by its measures—will mark a genuine commitment to bringing about practical action and results, so that we shall never again be faced with the death of another Victoria Climbié as a result of what Lord Laming called "widespread organisational malaise".

  DEFERRED DIVISION
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I now have to announce the result of the Division deferred from a previous day.
  On the question relating to Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism, the Ayes were 370, the Noes were 49, so the Ayes have it.
  [The Division List is published at the end of today'0s debates.]
  5. 9 pm
  The Minister for Children(Margaret Hodge): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof:
  "welcomes the fact that this Government acknowledged the importance of children's issues by appointing the first ever Minister with responsibility for children and young people; congratulates the Government's commitment to Lord Laming's report on safeguarding children, shown in the Green Paper Every Child Matters, and its determination to turn words into action by publishing the Children's Bill in the other place today; acknowledges that the £885 million Quality Protects Programme is already improving the, life chances of vulnerable children; commends the Government for the 8. 7% increase in funding for children's social services in the next financial year; and is alarmed by the Opposition's proposals to freeze spending on children's services. "
  I am delighted that we have the opportunity today, in a debate called at the very time when the Children's Bill is being presented for its First Reading in the House of Lords, to set out both the Government's considerable record on safeguarding vulnerable children and our plans to reform and transform children's services. Ours are plans that will support our ambition to enable every child, including the most vulnerable, to fulfil their potential and to ensure that no child slips through the net. Ours are plans that give us all a once-in-a-lifetime

  979
  Opportunity to reform services so that all children, but especially the most vulnerable, can achieve better outcomes. Ours are plans that are designed to maximise the opportunity for every child and to minimise the risk for every child.
  The Bill that has been presented in the House of Lords today, about which I will say more tomorrow, sets out a legislative framework for children's, services and places the well-being and safeguarding of children and young people, particularly the most vulnerable, at its heart. The Bill supports a much wider programme of reform, which I want to touch on in my contribution, but I have to say that it is a bit rich for this Conservative Opposition to try to claim the protection of the vulnerable as central to their political concerns and spending priorities.
  I do not understand, nor will any rational person listening to the debate be able to begin to understand, how the Opposition can say that they care about vulnerable children, yet make public spending cuts the central theme of their political programme. We are determined to invest in the vital services that will better safeguard and protect the most vulnerable children, but they want to slash public spending and destroy our public services in the name of an ideological obsession with cutting taxation.
  Tim Loughton: I am sorry that the Minister did not listen to the point that I made earlier, because what she is saying is complete and utter garbage. Will she confirm what she has said and is quoted as saying—that all the proposals in the forthcoming Bill will be cost-neutral?
  Margaret Hodge: I have to say first that what I said is not garbage, because the commitment made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Chancellor, is simply to protect health and schools, not education. The hon. Gentleman should go away, re-read the speech and come back to the Chamber better informed for the debate.
  Jonathan Shaw: A central agency involved in protecting children is the police, in respect of whom the Opposition have said they will make dramatic cuts.
  Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend is right to draw to the House's attention the impact that cuts in police spending would have on the police's ability to protect vulnerable children.
  We are determined to invest in the vital services—
  Tim Loughton: Cost-neutral.
  Margaret Hodge: I will deal with that point as well: over time, if I may say so, we have increased spending year on year on social services and children's social services, whereas the Opposition year on year when they were in government, cut expenditure on and investment in children's social services, which protect vulnerable children.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister give way?
  Margaret Hodge: May I make a little progress? I will give way to the hon. Lady in a while.
  980
  I do not understand how the Opposition can claim to want to protect vulnerable children when the shadow Chancellor—I say again what he has clearly and unambiguously stated—says that he will freeze spending on all but schools, and therefore on children's services, in cash terms for two years.
  The shadow Chancellor says that he will allow only a 2 per cent. increase in expenditure after that point, so where will the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) find the money to protect vulnerable children when the Opposition would cut services by £100 million in the first year? Where would he be when that figure rose to £230 million in the second year? What does he intend—9,000 fewer social workers or 3,000 fewer Sure Start programmes? Is that where the cuts would fall? How would those cuts, in the terms of the Opposition's own motion, give vulnerable children the priority they need and deserve?
  Mrs. Laing: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the enormous cuts in Government grant to Essex county council last year, which meant that in my constituency, and throughout Essex, social services, which were trying hard to provide services for children, including vulnerable children, had to be cut, directly because of the red pen of the Deputy Prime Minister?
  Margaret Hodge: That is arrant nonsense. I am aware that Essex social services, along with every other social services department, will get an almost 9 per cent. increase in its spending on children's social services, so it will continue to do the effective job that it is currently doing, building on it and showing the way on the reforms that we want to provide a better chance for vulnerable children.
  Mr. Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for her courtesy in giving way, but I must tell her that she is incorrect. There has been a large movement of resources away from local authorities in the home counties towards local authorities in the midlands and the north of England. When the change was made last year, Essex county council had the lowest grant increase of any authority in the entire country, and it suffered badly because of it. That is the reality, not the spin that the Minister is giving out.
  Margaret Hodge: There has been a year-on-year increase in expenditure across the board on local authority services. That has been coupled with a proper and totally appropriate redistribution so that areas that suffered from lack of investment because they were mainly Labour-controlled local authority areas got a proper slice of the cake in the distribution of local authority resources.
  Mrs. Humble: On the Labour Benches, the increase in resources for social services departments has been very much welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend address the issue that I do not recollect that the Opposition mentioned: child mental health services? Vulnerable children often have behavioural and mental health problems. Is she liaising with her colleagues to ensure that mental health services, as well as social services departments, have additional investment that helps those young people and their families?
  Margaret Hodge: I concur completely with the important point that my hon. Friend makes. Indeed, the

  981
  Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who has responsibility for children's mental health services, will reply to the debate, which shows how closely we work across Government, and he will reflect on the 10 per cent. increase year on year that we are investing in children's mental health services.
  Mr. David Amess: Is the Minister telling the House that for purely party political reasons this rotten Government have given Southend children's social services department only a 2. 4 per cent. increase, which is way below the national average? Is she saying that that is just because we have Conservative MPs in Southend? That is what she has been telling the House.
  Margaret Hodge: I am telling the hon. Gentleman that this good Government have put right the rotten actions of the previous Conservative Government in deliberately —[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister was replying to an intervention.
  Margaret Hodge: I will now make some progress.
  I want to go further, because I do not believe that the Opposition begin to understand what we need to do to provide a stronger framework to support children and families. Let me give some instances. While we want to use the public purse to build a quality child care infrastructure, which will support choice for children and their parents and which will enhance the opportunity for families to climb out of poverty, the Opposition want to use the money to give mothers no choice but to stay in the home. While we understand that we can safeguard vulnerable children and enhance their opportunity only by ensuring that all our mainstream services deliver effectively for children—as well as strengthening the targeted services—they want only to offer the specialist services that families and children see as stigmatised and paternalistic. Poor services for poor children: that is the Conservative mantra. While Labour Members understand that parents want and need support to bring up their children throughout their lives, particularly at key transition points in their development, the Conservatives believe that parenting should always remain the private concern of individuals, with the state intervening only when things go wrong.
  Tim Loughton: This really is rubbish. So far we have heard nothing but attacks on Conservatives for policy that we have never announced—policy that would never be ours. The Government have let it out of the bag that they have shifted funding up north to suit their own political ends.
  Before the Minister starts berating us about fantasy figures that do not exist, she should tell us how she expects social services departments to cope with all the extra responsibilities she has given them on the very small increases that they received? Most of the money has gone to education. We are not suggesting slashing any provision; we are suggesting increasing provision.
  982
  The Minister has been decreasing the portion that goes to social services departments for children's services, particularly in the south of England, and she knows it.
  Margaret Hodge: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the shadow Chancellor's speech on public spending cuts.
  Jonathan Shaw: The Tory council in Kent, which is most certainly in the south-east of England—there is no disputing that—asks d the Government for a 5 per cent. increase and received, I think, 5. 4 per cent. The idea that all the money is going north is a fantasy.
  Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend, who works very hard on behalf of his constituents, understands what we are doing much better than some Conservative Members.
  Jim Knight: Is it not the case that next year Labour councils will receive a. 5. 9 per cent. increase overall, while Tory councils will receive 6. 1 per cent? Meanwhile, council tax is going up by more in Tory areas than in Labour areas. The truth is that Tory councils, most of which are in the south, are receiving more from the Government than Labour councils. That is ridiculous.
  Margaret Hodge: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point.
  Central to this debate is the fact that the Government are committed to year-by-year investment so that—most important—we can abolish child poverty. The Conservatives, whether they talk of one area or another, are committed to year-by-year cuts. That will only increase poverty, and will only widen division. For me, it is the worst and most destructive feature of the Thatcher legacy.
  Let no one forget that it was under the last Conservative Government that child poverty more than doubled, with a third of all children living in poverty when we took office. That was the largest increase in child poverty in any industrialised nation. Those are the facts; that is the Conservatives' record. They created more vulnerable children, and they never delivered for vulnerable children.
  Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: My constituents, who suffered for 18 years under the Conservative party, will take the Conservatives' crocodile tears for what they are, given the criminal underfunding of child and adolescent mental health services in the north-Nest. Where was the money? The Conservatives took it away from the north to subsidise the south. They did not care about our children—the most vulnerable children in the country.
  Margaret Hodge: I entirely agree. I can tell that my hon. Friend feels as strongly as I do.
  The Children's Bill and the reform programme on which we are embarked build on our considerable achievements for vulnerable children since 1997. It is this Government who, through reforms to the tax and benefits system, have lifted more than 500,000 children

  983
  out of poverty—children who were condemned to a vulnerable start through no fault of their own. Would that investment survive the Tory public spending cuts?
  It is this Government who have increased maternity pay, introduced paid paternity leave, increased maternity leave and improved rights, to flexible working, so that parents can balance their working lives with their child care responsibilities, thereby helping all children, particularly vulnerable children. Will the Conservatives now support those moves and work to improve them? It is this Government who have created and funded more than 500 Sure Start programmes in the most deprived communities in our country. They have to be long-term investments, but we are already getting evidence that Sure Start is creating massively better opportunities for our most vulnerable children. Through one programme in Leicester, referrals to emergency social services have been cut by 40 per cent. Through another programme in Corby, the number of children being assessed as having a special educational need when going to school has been cut by 10 per cent. Would the Conservatives not just applaud our Sure Start programme, but sustain and expand this initiative?
  It is this Government who have delivered free nursery education for every three and four-year-old—six months sooner than we said we would. That investment supports every child, but in particular it supports opportunity for the most vulnerable in our community. Will the Conservatives now support an investment that they failed to make during the 18 long years in which they had the power to do so? And it is this Government who will increase spending for children's social services by nearly 9 per cent. in the next financial year. Would the Conservatives, who are committed to cuts in spending, keep our investment in children's social services going?
  It is this Government who introduced the quality protects programme—a five-year investment of nearly £900 million to improve the life chances of some of the most vulnerable children in the country.
  Mr. Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the quality protects programme did extend as far as Essex, and that the money was used very well? In fact, Essex social services developed a pioneering family group conferencing system. Opposition Members would do well to celebrate that fact, rather than constantly denigrate their local services.
  Margaret Hodge: I should tell those Opposition Members who have constituencies in Essex that much very good, innovative and effective practice is being developed by—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.If the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) has a comment to make, perhaps he could make an intervention.
  Mr. Francois rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Margaret Hodge: If the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) had been listening, I was responding—in a way in which I would have thought he would
  984
  welcome—to all Members who represent the county of Essex. Essex county council is developing much excellent, innovative and effective practice, particularly in respect of children's social services. Those Members should be applauding and encouraging that practice, not denigrating it.
  Mrs. Laing: I agree with the Minister unreservedly—the social services department of Essex county council is doing an excellent job. Putting everything in one department under one person was an excellent idea, and the newly appointed director of learning services and social services is doing an excellent job. I have spoken to her about it many times in great detail, but it must be recognised that she and her colleagues are doing that excellent work under the great constraint of the massive budget cuts that the Deputy Prime Minister imposed last year.
  Margaret Hodge: I have to tell the hon. Lady that, when in government, her party cut spending year on year, while we are increasing spending year on year.
  It is this Government—
  Mr. Francois: Will the Minister give way?
  Margaret Hodge: One final time.
  Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for her courtesy in giving way again. For the avoidance of doubt, Conservative-controlled Essex county council has an excellent social services department. I have been briefed on the value of family group conferencing, which can be extremely valuable. I have great praise for Essex county council social services department, which does a very good job, particularly given the financial pressures that it is under because of this rotten Government.
  Margaret Hodge: Perhaps after that lengthy exchange we can now all agree on the good work being done by the county represented by a number of hon. Members.
  I want to describe our record. The Government have enacted a raft of legislation better to safeguard vulnerable children, from the Care Standards Act 2000 to the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the Protection of Children Act 1999. It is this Government who have increased investment in our schools year on year, so that all our children, but particularly the most vulnerable, can achieve more and realise their potential.
  It is this Government who are developing the extended schools programme so that, by 2006, every authority will have at least one extended school, where all the services that vulnerable children in particular need—from study support to sporting facilities; from children's mental health services to advice about drugs—can be accessed in one place, where children are and where they feel safe.
  It is this Government who have funded and created the first programme of preventive services for vulnerable children in every community through the children's fund. The Opposition sought to criticise the Government because, as a result of the programme proving so successful, we have had to identify new and extra money to keep projects funded. Far from cutting these preventive services for children, we have put an

  985
  additional £20 million into sustaining them. What hope would those programmes have under a Conservative Government ideologically fixated on cutting public spending?
  It is this Government who have invested in preventive and restorative youth justice programmes, which have cut reoffending rates by 20 per cent. It is this Government who have virtually eradicated youth unemployment and introduced educational maintenance allowances to support vulnerable young people to stay in education and training. It is this Government who have developed the modern apprenticeship programme, with a record 230,000 young people now taking part in a modern apprenticeship course.
  That is the record on which we want to build; that is a record that only a Labour Government can achieve. That record gives us a sound basis on which to build a further programme of reform, which we heralded in our Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", and which we are putting into practice in part through the Bill we are introducing today.
  Tim Loughton: Before the Minister gets completely carried off to fantasy island, will she confirm that, to make up the cuts that she was proposing in the children's fund, the Government will take money from the youth offending teams programme? Will she confirm also that the budget for children's fund projects in 2005–06 has not been confirmed and is still vulnerable? Will she confirm that all the programmes she is looking at go only to 2006? There has been no commitment from the Government—we have not had the next spending review—on any of the funding being sustained beyond 2006. Before accusing us of cuts that we have never proposed, will she give us guarantees that these schemes will continue after the next election, in the unlikely event that she is still in a position to do something about it?
  Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman must read speeches that are put into the public domain on behalf of the Conservative party so that he is clear on what his party is committed to. I can confirm that we have not cut the youth offending teams programme in any way; I do not know where he got that idea from. He is correct that we will settle the 2005–06 funding for the children's fund programme once we have the outcome of this year's spending review.
  Virginia Bottomley: Much of this debate has been about funding, but I am not clear whether there is a relationship between child abuse and funding. There are two key issues: data sharing, and how one requires a child to be seen whose parents are not producing the child. Will the Minister require a child to be produced for a school nurse or health visitor when there is concern about its well-being?
  Margaret Hodge: The right hon. Lady is correct to draw attention to those two very important points. I shall cover them as I move on. I wanted to set a context, because vulnerable children will be supported to develop their opportunities only if their lives in the round are supported by action from government in the round.
  986
  Since we launched our Green Paper we have seen the richest and most significant debate on children's services for over a generation. I in no way apologise for having engaged in that debate and having had a wide consultation, which enabled us to listen to many voices as we formulated the Bill that we presented in the other place this afternoon. We received 4,500 responses to our consultation. Most gratifyingly, two thirds of the responses were from children and young people themselves. That, I hope, reflects the way in which we intend to work over the coming period.
  We are dealing with vital but difficult issues. We shall succeed only if we ensure that children's voices are at the heart of our endeavours and if we work closely in partnership with all our stakeholders, so that together we can build on what we learn works to improve the outcome for all our children, particularly vulnerable children. That approach, of working in partnership and having children's interests at the centre of our concerns, will inform all our reforms.
  Social services departments have not, as the Opposition suggest, been kept in limbo, waiting for the Children's Bill. They have been fully engaged in working with us to make sure that our proposals are soundly based, workable and right, and that they will help to bring about a step change in the opportunities for the safeguarding of all children.
  I accept that we have much left to do. Lord Laming's report on the events leading up to the death of Victoria Climbié and the joint chief inspectors' report, "Safeguarding Children", set out a number of challenges. However, we have not, as the Opposition suggest, failed to act since Lord Laming published his report. Indeed, of the 708 recommendations, only one has been rejected. We have fully implemented 60 and we have started work on all the others, but I accept that we need to go further.
  We need to tackle the issues identified in both reports, of ill-trained and overworked staff, often not properly supported by their managers. We need to do more to recruit, retain and train good-quality staff to work throughout the children's work force. We need to ensure that senior managers, right up to chief executives, accept responsibly and accountably for the actions of their staff. We need to address the weaknesses identified in the way in which area child protection committees work, with insufficient authority and few resources to carry out their functions. We need to become better at sharing information across professional boundaries and within professional organisations, and across local authority boundaries, so that children are less likely to fall through the net.
  Mrs. Laing: Given what the Minister has just said about sharing information, on which I entirely agree with her, do the Government propose to amend the Data Protection Act 1998?
  Margaret Hodge: We shall ensure that, as we have laid out in the Green Paper, there are no inhibitions within the Act that will prevent the necessary sharing of information between professionals and across local authority boundaries
  We need to develop the very difficult multi-agency working that we know makes sense, and we need to ensure that individual agencies are clear about their

  987
  roles and responsibilities in protecting children. We need further to shift from intervening after things have gone wrong to supporting children and their families to prevent things from going wrong.
  Most important, we need to make sure that the well-being and welfare of children are at the centre of the assessment process and the decision-making process. Nobody asked Victoria Climbié what she wanted or how she was. That must not happen again.
  Our Children's Bill sits within a much wider context of reform. As part of that work, we are preparing the budgets for the next spending review period, and we will sharpen accountability with a more coherent system of targets and a better performance management system with stronger inspection levers. We are creating much simpler and more flexible funding mechanisms, with decisions being taken as close as is practicable to the front line. We will ensure investment in the skills, leadership and motivation of all who work with children, young people and their families. We are strengthening partnership working by developing the children's trusts, children's centres and the extended schools programme and by legislating on duties to co-operate.
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I understand that some children's trusts are now in operation. Given sufficient time, will a full evaluation of their work be published?
  Margaret Hodge: It is extremely important that, throughout the reform programme, we evaluate all the initiatives as they move forward and learn from that evaluation. However, it would be dilatory to wait until we have a full evaluation before moving on to the next step and it might lead to accusations of not working in the best interests of children as quickly as possible. We will continually evaluate and amend what we do to in the light of what the evaluation tells us.
  We shall also support the culture change and the improvement that we want with a programme of support, coupled with proportionate intervention in areas where children's services fall below acceptable standards. As we have already outlined, the Bill will support our reform agenda.
  In a historic move, we intend to establish a children's commissioner for England, and children will help us to choose the first one. The commissioner will be independent of both Parliament and the Government, ensuring that the views of all children, particularly the most vulnerable, are gathered and that they influence the development of policies for children, young people and families.
  Our Bill will ensure that all the agencies that are important in children's lives work together to improve children's well-being and safety. We shall strengthen the safeguarding of children by creating statutory local safeguarding boards with specific duties on the key agencies both to safeguard and protect children within their own organisations and in partnership with other local agencies. The Bill establishes clear accountability for children's services with the appointment of a single
  988
  director for children's services and a lead member in every local authority, building on the good practical experience on the ground in counties such as Essex.
  Our Bill not only introduces statutory duties on organisations in the public, private and voluntary sector to work together, but removes the barriers that prevent them from doing so. We are legislating to establish an integrated inspection framework so that services are judged against common standards and are assessed on how well they work together to achieve better outcomes for children. We are providing for new intervention powers for children's social services to bring them into line with the powers that we already have for education. We are also legislating in the difficult area of establishing a framework to enable better sharing of information across all services. Finally, the Bill also contains proposals to improve the educational attainment of looked-after children and to beef up and improve the regulation of private fostering.
  The Bill is a crucial piece in the jigsaw of reform. It stands alongside the development of children's trusts, which will provide a joined-up approach to the planning, commissioning and delivery of children's services. It stands alongside our commitment to create more extended schools, providing a range of services—often beyond the school day—for children, families and the wider community. We see the development of such structures as supporting our standards agenda and our social inclusion agenda. Only by supporting every child can we raise achievement levels in every school, and only by raising the educational achievement of vulnerable children can we help to ensure that they are given an equal opportunity in our society.
  The Bill stands alongside our work force strategy. We have already raised the number of people choosing to train as social workers. We are looking at new routes into working with children, and are developing training programmes so that all professionals share a vocabulary and an understanding of child development, which will enable them to fulfil their statutory duties properly. We are developing leadership programmes and establishing sector skills councils to help us drive our reforms forward.
  Our programme for change is wide in its range, strong in its component parts and innovative, exciting and important in what it means in terms of better outcomes for children and their families. It is not a hotch-potch of unrelated and opportunistic points to be scored in the comfort of a debating chamber. It is not an incoherent set of gripes cobbled together to little purpose. It is not a less than honest statement that pretends to care about vulnerable children, while being intent on cutting investment in the very services we have to protect and safeguard the future of children.
  Ours is a radical and coherent set of policies and programmes that will help to ensure that every child in our country enjoys the opportunity to realise their potential and really grows up safely to be healthy, to enjoy their childhood, to benefit from a good education, to contribute positively to their community and to find economic well-being. Ours are policies that will ensure that children do not fall through the net.
  All Members who sincerely wish to protect the most vulnerable children in our community have no option but to reject the ill-thought-out proposition put forward

  989
  by the Opposition and to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other members of his Government.
  5. 47 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: I congratulate the Conservatives on choosing this important subject for debate. However, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the Minister for Children were making their speeches, many Members may have been recalling meeting constituents who had been the subject of abuse and for whom the Bill has probably come too late.
  I recall three young men who were systematically abused in a children's home in Harrogate—the life of at least one of them has been blighted by those experiences. If they have been watching the Parliament channel this afternoon, I wonder what they make of a debate that has been nothing but a party political wrangle about who did what to whom and how much each party intends to spend. It is a shame when debate on such an important subject is brought down to no more than a party political wrangle—[Interruption] I can assure the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), that I have no intention of joining in such wrangling but that I shall address the subject of the debate.
  The debate would have had far greater relevance if the Bill had been published in this place and we had read it. We could then have held an informed debate with the Minister, which would have been incredibly useful. Instead, we hear that the right hon. Lady will make a statement tomorrow; presumably, she has chosen to launch the Bill elsewhere in London rather than in the House. If that is not the case, I shall of course be happy to take an intervention from her. We did not have the way forward report, either; if we had, we would have been far better informed about the consultation exercise and its aftermath.
  Ironically, the Conservative party failed, in choosing the wording of the motion, to mention the crisis in two very important areas—the youth justice system and refugee children. During the Queen's Speech, the Leader of the Opposition tramped round the television studios in Westminster, condemning the Government for threatening to remove benefits from children and condemning the fact that they would be incarcerated. It is the height of hypocrisy that he marched his troops into the Lobby in favour of the Bill when it came before the House this week.
  There can be few groups of children in the United Kingdom who suffer more from racial and institutional abuse than refugee children. What other group of children can be detained without limit, without excuse and without having committed any crime other than to be the children of parents who have come to Britain seeking asylum? So far, those in that group can be detained by as much as 20 weeks, simply because they are the children of asylum seekers.
  990
  Following an inspection of the Dungavel immigration and removal centre in October 2002, Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons said that
  "the positive development of children was compromised by the secure nature of the facility and the uncertainty surrounding the length of stay"
  Why are those children not important? Thirty-five children are currently being detained under these laws, yet there is not a word about them from Ministers or the Opposition.
  Mr. Dawson: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said on this subject. Does he, like me. look forward to the day when the areas of youth justice and asylum and immigration currently under Home Office control might fall within the remit of my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for children and families?
  Mr. Willis: I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has a proud record in defence of children's rights, that I do, with one proviso: that the Minister have an independent portfolio, because without that independence it will make little or no difference.
  If the Conservaties are serious about the protection of vulnerable children—I believe that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is, because he asked a significant number of questions on that and we were all informed as a result of those questions—I hope that they will join the Liberal Democrats in pressing for an end to the detention of innocent refugee children in secure prisons, because that is a blight on anything that we do to achieve a better position for vulnerable children. I hope that the hon. Gentleman at least will do so.
  Interestingly, too, the motion makes no reference to children involved in the youth justice system, despite the successive criticisms of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons and the damning comment in the joint chief inspectors' report in January 2003, which found that
  "the welfare needs of children and young people who commit offences were not being adequately addressed by those responsible for their welfare".
  Mrs. Brooke: Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister to consider extending the Children Act 1989 to the Prison Service? A recent High Court judgment found that local authorities have responsibility for children in prison. Given all the terrible tragedies in our prisons, it would make a big difference if the Prison Service were to apply the Act.
  Mr. Willis: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Let me say to the Minister in all sincerity that if we discover, when the Bill is published tomorrow, that the Children Act 1989 will not be extended to prisons and young offenders institutions, she will have a case to answer, and in Committee we shall make a good argument for its extension. The Minister cannot say now whether that is in the Bill, because the Bill has not been published; that is fair enough.
  The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly criticised successive Governments—both Conservative and Labour—for the way in which children in trouble with the law are treated and for our failure as a nation to integrate the

  991
  UN convention on the rights of the child into juvenile justice. Under article 40, we are expected to separate the system for dealing with children from that for adults. Again, that may well be proposed in the Children's Bill, but it is a sadness that that has not yet occurred. Article 3 of the convention says that we should ensure that the interests of the child are a primary consideration in all decisions about them. Article 37 says that custody should be used only as a last resort.
  Those principles are important because, despite the numerous criticisms and child protection failures in the youth justice system, the Government have not set out a clear role for youth offending teams or the Prison Service when dealing with the child protection system. As a distinct group, children in the care of our youth justice system are more likely to die, self-harm and face serious risk to their well-being and future success than almost any other group of children. It is a pity that the Minister does not take on board that powerful statement, which is borne out by all the evidence.
  Although many people are delighted when some young people end up in custodial institutions, we have failed to realise that the vast majority of cases involve highly damaged young people and that the system that operates does absolutely nothing to support them. They are the group most likely to come from homes where abuse is common, neglect is the norm and other systems of care and protection have failed.
  The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right about the delays and confusion in introducing not only the Bill but other commitments, following the tragic death of Victoria Climbié and the Laming inquiry. He is right to point to the appalling debacle of the Minister's handling of the children's fund. The Minister proudly said that she had got £20 million more for the fund as a result of its success. That is stretching credibility. What actually happened is that she stopped the fund. She told groups all over the country—they were sometimes in the middle of three-year contracts—"You aren't getting any more money. "
  The hue and cry of right hon. and hon. Members and voluntary groups throughout the country forced the Minister to reconsider and provide additional money. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those projects have no guarantee of funding even in their third year—never mind beyond that—and the Minister should state in summing up the debate that every current three-year contract will be honoured. If that is the case, I shall feel that at least one successful thing has come from the debate.
  Mrs. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that the apparent lack of consultation before and during the cuts has affected the relationship with voluntary organisations and that a commitment to greater consultation is needed, as well as the pledge of money?
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Sure Start—the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw)—said that the voluntary sector is crucial. I am sorry to refer to a Committee in-joke that relates to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who has now left the Chamber. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the voluntary sector is crucial in terms of the proposed Bill and supporting

  992
  vulnerable children, and the removal of funding from the children's fund was a devastating blow to many of those organisations.
  The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a brief reference to the national service framework for children. The motion refers to the delay in producing that framework, which was announced in 2001 as a huge leap forward. After reading the motion, I was interested about what had happened to the national framework. We know, and it was said earlier, that children's mental health services are in a mess—and were in a mess 10 or 20 years ago. Children's mental health services are one of the absolute disgraces of our health service.
  Three years after the organisation was announced, its director, Professor Aynsley-Green, said in his December newsletter to its staff, who had all been appointed:
  "There are of course many milestones which have been met along the way"—
  he did not mention one—
  "in particular the recognition of the importance of children's mental health services and neo-natal care".
  If, after three years, the organisation's only claim of success is a recognition of what it knew three years previously, my goodness, it is not much of a success. That is one reason why we will support the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham in the Lobby tonight.
  I have much sympathy with the Government's desire to create a lasting framework to address the long history of high-profile abuse cases that have blighted young people's lives for far too long. If the delays are an attempt to get things right and to address the difficult matters of prevention, identification, information collection, transfer and, above all, action, the wait will be worthwhile. If, however, when we see the Bill tomorrow it fails to address those complex issues, the Government will be rightly condemned.
  We have always supported the aims of the Green Paper and have been as one with the Government in welcoming a commitment to a children's commissioner, a single support structure in local authorities and, crucially, direct responsibility for the protection of vulnerable children. A situation such as that in which the former chief executive of Haringey excused failures of child protection because
  "he was not clear in his own mind as to where the line of responsibility lies"
  must never be accepted in the future. The Minister and the Government are absolutely right to say that somebody in every local authority must have ultimate responsibility. I hope that the Bill will make it clear not only that such blatant buck-passing will not be accepted, but that it will be treated as a criminal offence. We will give the organisation teeth by making it clear that the person in charge is responsible under the law, as well as on paper.
  Jonathan Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: No, I am trying to get on because I want to allow others to speak.
  One important benefit of the delay that appears to have taken place is the acceptance by the Minister that there must be a director of children's services and that

  993
  the integration of services will be obligatory. Local authorities will be allowed to develop their own structures and build on what is often excellent practice. The Minister rightly said that many local authorities have first-class structures that integrate children's and education services, and it would be wrong to dismantle those structures for a one-size-fits-all approach. I applaud the Minister for listening to the Local Government Association and local authorities, and changing her mind—if that is what we discover when the Bill is published tomorrow.
  The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was right to be concerned about the interrelationship between the proposed legislation and the Data Protection Act 1988. We have given a cautious welcome to a national children's database and recognise that if information is to be shared, it must be collected—there is little point to the system unless information can be collected, stored and made available. How that will be done, to whom information will be made available, when it will be removed, and when it will become the responsibility of the individual are complex issues. It was sad that the Minister said absolutely nothing about that, despite the fact that several hon. Members intervened on her. If the Under-Secretary's excuse is simply that "the Bill will not be published until tomorrow", that is not good enough. Professionals have been asking about the issues every day since publication of the Green Paper, and the issues have been the subject of much of the correspondence that the Minister has received on the Green Paper.
  As a former head teacher, I would be uneasy to have or to pass on information about a child that was not available to that child or to his or her parents, yet that is precisely the scenario envisaged under the proposed arrangements. I have no answer to that complex problem. Sometimes it is desirable not to hand on such information. People working in the field need clarity so that what happened in relation to the Soham case—an extremely serious issue—is not repeated. Clear guidance must be issued on what information can be released, to whom, and when.
  Jonathan Shaw: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman did not want to give way when he was talking about criminal offences and directors of social services. He turned crimson, so I presume he realised that it was a stupid thing to say.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a head teacher who had information would be in a difficult position, but can he help the debate by giving an example in which he, an experienced and distinguished head teacher, had information that he would not have chosen to pass on?
  Mr. Willis: On occasion, social services gave me information on what was happening in a child's extended family. On another occasion, a child was involved in explicit sexual activities, but there was a problem with the parent: the parent was violent toward the child and had, in fact, burnt the child with a poker. In such cases, there can be difficulties in releasing information that one would normally have given to a parent or a third party. Head teachers will be in the
  994
  position of having to make extremely difficult decisions. There is no easy answer to such problems, and I was honest enough to say that.
  The concept of information being given on a need-to-know basis might satisfy the spirit of the proposals, but it is wide open to misinterpretation. I hope that the Minister for Children will clarify how and when she proposes to give guidance to head teachers and others who might need to know. Will the right hon. Lady or the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet, who will sum up the debate, let us know their thoughts about the disclosure to a young person of information held on that young person? At what point will young people have an automatic right to the information held on them? At what point will a young person aged under 16 have a right to that information? If our aim is to implement the UN convention on the rights of the child, giving information to children is crucial.
  The Conservative motion is slightly misleading, in that it gives the impression that local authorities have not responded to the Laming recommendations and that the process of improving child protection services is simply waiting for the Children's Bill to be published. It would be wrong to leave the House with that false impression. We have some excellent social services departments and some brilliant professionals in the field. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right to point out the shortage of professional staff—whether the damage would be repaired by Conservative spending cuts or Government support is a matter for political debate—but that does not resolve the problem that the vast majority of those professionals, who are brilliant at what they do, are overworked and underpaid. The Liberal Democrats take this opportunity to put on the record our congratulations and thanks to them.
  I wish to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to a specific commitment regarding the protection of children who are looked after. The Minister for Children made only a fleeting reference to such children, and although I understand that she could not say everything in her speech, we should not forget that, in practice, Victoria Climbié was a looked-after child. She was sent from the Ivory Coast to be looked after by her aunt and her aunt's boyfriend. In effect, she had little protection under the existing law, and it is crucial that such private fostering arrangements are effectively covered in the future. Surprisingly, the Green Paper does not refer to private fostering—if I am wrong, the Minister will correct me when he replies.
  The vast majority of looked-after children are not privately family fostered; they are the 60,000 children who at any one time are the responsibility of the state. That group of children is without doubt the most vulnerable and the most complex to support. They do not fall into an easy single category, but have a number of common features: two years ago, a massive 96 per cent. of looked-after children had behavioural or emotional difficulties; 27 per cent. had a physical or mental impairment; 41 per cent. had been abused or neglected, and many will go on to live in abusive relationships; 10 per cent. had been taken into care through family dysfunction; and 31 per cent. had not

  995
  received basic health screening, dental checks or inoculations. Life holds out no great hope for looked-after children.
  Mr. Dawson: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman makes his remarks, but I hope that he will refer to work by Mike Stein of York university, which indicates that the future for young people in care is much brighter than he suggests. Young people leaving care are, in the main, extremely resilient, and a fairly small proportion of care leavers have the sorts of problems that he describes.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is hope, but we must recognise that a significant number of young people—55 per cent—leave care without a single GCSE between them, and that 26 per cent. of them have statements of special educational needs. One in three of our current prison population was a looked-after child. The statistics are chilling, and that so many youngsters who are looked after succeed is an enormous credit to the people who looked after them, our social services and our care homes. It will be desperate if the Children's Bill does not address the minority of youngsters who do not succeed.
  Thank God that many children in care do not catch the headlines like Victoria Climbié Maria Colwell, Jasmine Beckford and Lauren Wright, and the Bill will change the lives of many looked-after children. The real issue is to make sure that the 60,000 children in care have a rosy future free of abuse. Hopefully, tomorrow's Bill will set them on the right path.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Several hon. Members are trying to catch my eye If their comments are brief, all may be successful.
  6. 13 pm
  Jonathan Shaw: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). We have spent quite a lot of time together on the Higher Education Bill.
  I shall begin by quoting the in roduction to Lord Laming's report, which concerns little Victoria Climbié:
  "The food would be cold and would be given to her on a piece of plastic while she was tied up in the bath. She would eat it like a dog, pushing her face to the plate. Except of course that a dog is not usually tied up in a plastic bag full of its excrement. To say that Kouao and Manning treated Victoria like a dog would be wholly unfair; she was treated worse than a dog. "
  That is chilling, but when we debate such sensitive issues it is important that we remind ourselves of the horror that such children experience. Time and again, such reports are presented to Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned Maria Colwell, and I am sure that after that inquiry hon. Members said, "Never again. " Unfortunately, children will die again, but our responsibility as policy makers, citizens, councillors, neighbours and people involved with children is to put our hand on our heart and ask whether we have done our very best. Have we done our best to ensure that mechanisms are in place to protect children like Victoria Climbié, to intervene and save their lives? If we have, we will be able to say that we have
  996
  done the right thing when future inquiries take place. I am sure that when those inquiries are conducted, people will reflect and fingers will be pointed. It is important to learn lessons and continue to improve services.
  Of fundamental significance are Lord Laming's comments on organisational failings, principally in communication between people with responsibility for Victoria Climbié. In paragraph 1. 21 on page 4 of the report, he said:
  "Having considered the response to Victoria from each of the agencies, I am forced to conclude that the principal failure to protect her was the result of widespread organisational malaise. "
  Like the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough,I welcome the fact that the Opposition have chosen to hold a debate on an extremely significant issue for vulnerable children. Children should always be at the top of the political agenda if we are to learn lessons and shape services appropriately so that we can make sure that children do not die in the circumstances in which Victoria Climbié died, when there was organisational malaise and dysfunction.
  As has been said, there is a general consensus about child care legislation. Having worked in child protection for 10 years, I find it satisfying to have been involved in the passage of legislation over the past few years, including the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and, particularly, the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) served with me on the Special Standing Committee that considered that measure, and it was stimulating to hear the evidence of 29 agencies, which helped us to formulate a good Bill. There were controversial provisions, not least adoption by unmarried couples, an important issue about which we had a vigorous and passionate debate, but the measure is a good one. We hope that many of the 54,000 children who are in foster and residential homes can find permanent, loving families, and we should all strive for that goal. That is what vulnerable children want us to talk about, and that is what we should endeavour to pursue in the House of Commons.
  There are, however, always lessons to be learned. The Government have been criticised for the delay in the publication of the Green Paper, but I hope that the reason for that delay is their wish to get it right. Something to emerge from all the inquiries is the need to get things right, and taking time over the Green Paper is important, as it will include far-reaching organisational changes. We hope that we can put our hand on our heart and say that it provides the necessary structures so that we will not have in future to read comments like those made by Lord Laming.
  It is vital that proper procedures be in place for people at the coal face and in supervisory positions to follow. We can provide the framework, but the solutions must be delivered at the local level. We must do everything that we possibly can to ensure that that process is inspected rigorously to ensure that lines of communications are clear to all the agencies and individuals involved in working with children.
  We should not lose sight of the fact that the front-line job of child protection is not easy. I can think of mistakes that I made as a social worker and of the consequences for the children involved. Were they my fault or the fault of someone supervising me? Yes, they

  997
  probably were. However, serious pressures and strains are placed on social workers who deal with very complex cases involving very complex families. I remember a situation that arose when I was 23 and a newly qualified child protection social worker. One cold, damp night, I had to visit a family where the stepfather was a huge man who was extremely aggressive and always chose to speak to me at great volume about an inch away from my nose. I went to the tower block where they lived and rang the doorbell of their flat. As I did so, two thoughts went through my mind: "I hope they're not in", because I knew what I would have to endure from that individual; and, "I hope they are in, so I can see that the child is still safe. " On Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays one worries oneself sick—I remember those sleepless nights. That was not the most extreme of cases, but it is a common experience that social workers face every day of the week. It is important to remember that as we discuss this sensitive issue.
  The Government can stand on a proud record in terms of the legislation that they have introduced. I well remember the passage of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, because my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and I—the old former corduroy wearers—served on that Committee. It raised the age of leaving care to 21, or 24 for youngsters who stay in education and training, which took a lot of persuasion from many hon. Members and care organisations. It sent an important message, especially in light of the fact that 75 per cent. of young people leave care without educational qualifications —I mean, no qualifications at level 1, not grade A to C GCSEs. It is appalling that education has failed so many children in care.
  I remember taking part in meetings with children who were being excluded from school. Such a child might have had a whole series of foster carers and schools, and was being excluded again. What would the prognosis be in those cases? The most important thing that has changed since I sat in those meetings is that the issue has been given a much higher priority. We now have not only the quality protects programme, but the code of admissions for oversubscribed, popular schools, the main criterion of which is that children in public care should go to the very best schools—the popular schools—not those that have huge numbers of surplus places for the reasons that we all know about. That is important.
  I congratulate the BBC. I watched one of its plays recently and thought that the portrayal was realistic. I was worried that it would be filled with doom and gloom. That is obviously the experience of some, but not all young people. It is important to remember that. When those young people are achieving and feeling positive about their lives, they do not want to be associated simply with being a child in care and the 75 per cent. statistic. We must bear it in mind that many achieve much, through the work and efforts of social workers, teachers and foster carers, but mostly through their own efforts.
  The Government have made considerable advances through legislation and they have changed the atmosphere. However, we are considering vulnerable children, and I welcome the choice of debate by the hon.
  998
  Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. I am sure that that also applies to many vulnerable children and those working in the field.
  6. 25 pm
  Charles Hendry: Given the amount of time remaining, I shall curtail my remarks to ensure that colleagues have a chance to speak.
  There can be no greater indictment of any Government than failing vulnerable young people who are entrusted to their care, and are taken into care, which is when they most need support. That is a criticism not of the Government but of the care system, and it stretches back many years. I acknowledge the comment of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that many people come out well from care, but the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) presented so clearly show that far too many people are left behind and suffer badly from being in care.
  For some young people, life is even worse and they cannot cope with their problems. I therefore want to speak about children and young people who commit suicide. It is one of the most frightening issues that the Government and the country face. In 2002, some 886 children and young people committed suicide. They were overwhelmingly young men; three quarters were male. Suicide accounts for 16 per cent. of deaths of males aged 15 to 19, and 23 per cent. of deaths of those aged between 20 and 24. It is the biggest single cause of death for young people in this country. We need to establish a system to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent such suicides.
  There is an additional problem of self-harm. It is frightening that 20,000 young people engage every year in deliberate, serious self-harm. That should cause us terrible anxiety.
  Sixty-nine per cent. of suicidal children have suffered violence from an adult and 60 per cent. perceived the seeking of help from parents, teachers or anyone else as a sign of weakness. Nearly 90 per cent. of suicidal young people experienced bullying at school and three quarters suffered bullying outside. The figures for homophobic bullying are even worse. One third of young gay men have considered taking their lives.
  Voluntary organisations such as the BE-Foundation, do marvellous work but receive no funding through the Government suicide prevention strategy. I hope that the Government can ensure that those organisations, which work with some of the most vulnerable children in our society, can be helped and supported.
  Voluntary organisations also do fantastic work. The system has not crumbled further partly because of such national and local work. Let me draw attention to one organisation, Kids Company, which is based not far from here. The Minister kindly attended a reception that it held here recently. Day after day, it works with hundreds of young vulnerable people in Lambeth. It gives them a safe place to go where they can do their homework and get a proper meal, which they often do not get at home. It provides care and support for those whose parents cannot do that because either they are not around or there is at use, drugs or other issues.

  999
  National organisations, such as Weston Spirit, the NSPCC. Barnado's and the Children's Society, also do wonderful work. If the Minister has not already done so, I urge her to read the Prince's Trust report "Reaching the Hardest to Reach", which provides remarkable case studies of young people who have been helped in the voluntary sector. However, those organisations face problems. First, they are starved of funds. Too often, they feel that they are not in partnership with Connexions, but in competition with it. We need to find a more structured way of getting money through to those organisations. Secondly, there must be a simplified way for them to apply for funding. At the moment, the forms are far too complicated and put off many organisations. They find that they are up against professional form fillers and application makers, which means that they do not end up getting the grants.
  Thirdly, the funding system needs to give greater recognition to the core costs that the organisations incur. They cannot for ever be running projects if they do not have the core services to enable them to operate those projects. Finally, we need to move away from the obsession with new projects. At the moment the system is so crazy and barmy that, if an organisation has a project that has worked successfully for three years and could carry on doing marvellous work, it has to reinvent it because money is available only for new projects. There has to be a better way of funding these organisations.
  I do not think that the Minister is the right person to be doing that job. because her track record in Islington precludes her doing it properly. I say that with some sadness, but I feel that it was shown by her speech, which was one of the most offensive, unpleasant and negative that I have ever heard in the House. It contrasted sharply with that of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), which was extraordinarily mature and dignified. I hope that she will carefully consider what lessons can be learned on this matter. If she can provide a care system that does not let young people down and does not lead to far too many of them ending up homeless, on the streets or in prison, and if she can provide a system that works genuinely in partnership with the voluntary sector rather than making that sector too often feel excluded, then perhaps—just perhaps—she will justify the trust that the Prime Minister has put in her, in giving her responsibility for the hopes of young children across this country.
  6. 31 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I shall be very brief, and try to keep my speech to four minutes to allow Opposition Members to contribute.
  I do not know what that last comment was about, but it gives me great pleasure to follow the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister. It reminds me of why I am so pleased to be leaving the House at the next election: I shall take, I hope, a very active part in the transformation of children's services that will develop from this Government's legislation and policy.
  I am sorry that the debate opened, and to some extent continued, with glib negativity from the Opposition. These are incredibly important issues, and the Government are addressing them fundamentally and
  1000
  significantly. Members on both sides have mentioned the future of the national service framework for children, and I fully agree that that is extremely important. I have met Professor Aynsley Green on several occasions, and I have great respect for his work. In the massive changes that are taking place in government and across Departments, I desperately hope that that work, far from being lost, will be brought back into the mainstream of integrated developments.
  At the moment, we have an Opposition who are, quite honestly, unable to oppose. They tell us that they welcome the prospect of a children's commissioner, but they have done absolutely nothing to bring that about. They have done nothing on serious issues relating to asylum, nothing on the fact that one or two children in this country die at the hands of parents or care givers, and nothing to deal with the fact that children in this country have less protection under the law than adults do from assault. The Conservative home affairs spokesman speaks of the virtues of parenting time, but says nothing about the 25 children in this country murdered during contact visits in recent years. The Conservatives approve of custody, so they have nothing to say about the plight of young people in our prisons.
  I have great confidence in the Government, and I am confident that they will address those extremely important issues in the near future, in the way that they have addressed the issue of the children's commissioner. I criticise the Government a lot, but I think that they are doing extremely well. In fact, they are doing far better than I would have believed possible when I came to the House in 1997. They are dealing with poverty, bringing in fine legislation and making good investments. They have introduced proper registration and greatly improved training courses for social workers. They have increased participation and we now have the prospect of a children's commissioner in England, just as we already have in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I salute the efforts that the Government have made, and I urge them on to improve even more.
  6. 35 pm
  Mr. David Amess: Looking after vulnerable children is certainly a very serious matter, and Southend council takes it very seriously. However, as the Minister will hear when she meets a delegation from the local authority on 1 April, because of the financial settlement, it is going to be very difficult to meet her aspirations, which are also the aspirations that Southend councillors hold.
  The Health Committee took evidence from Lord Laming on 27 March 2003. It was an excellent session, and the whole Committee was shocked by the evidence that we were given. Peter Beresford said of Victoria Climbié:
  "Her death has become one of those major modern occasions where there seems to have been a collective sense of empathy for a stranger's fate. She has become an embodiment of the betrayal, vulnerability and public abandonment of children. The inquiry must mark the end of child protection policy built on a hopeless process of child care tragedy, scandal, inquiry, findings, brief media interest and ad hoc political response. There is now a rare chance to take stock and rebuild. "
  The Committee heard that there had been:
  "Failure of communication between different staff and agencies.

  1001
  Inexperience and lack of skill of individual social workers.
  Failure to follow established procedures.
  Inadequate resources to meet demands. "
  Lord Laming said that what happened to Victoria, and her ultimate death, had resulted from an inexcusable
  "gross failure of the system."
  His report expressed amazement that nobody in the agencies
  "had the presence of mind to follow what are relatively straightforward procedures on how to respond to a child about whom there is concern of deliberate harm."
  The Select Committee shared Lord Laming's amazement.
  On average, 80 children die every year as a result of abuse. To date, there have been 70 public inquiries into such cases since 1945. I gave some examples in the Select Committee:
  "We have Dennis O'Neil in 1945, Maria Colwell in 1973, Jasmine Beckford in 1984, Tyra Henry in 1984, Kimberley Carlile in 1986, Doreen Mason in 1987, Leanne White in 1992, Rickie Neave in 1994, Chelsea Brown in 1999, Victoria Climbié in 2000, Lauren Wright in 2000, Ainlee Walker in 2002. "
  I asked Lord Laming whether he was optimistic that, as a result of his inquiry, there would never have to be such inquiries in future into the abuse of our vulnerable children. He very much hoped that the Government would act on his recommendations.
  I shall end with some observations about Southend borough council. Its leader, Councillor Howard Briggs, has expressed concern on behalf of the local authority about the proposed amalgamation resulting in a children's department. He believes that it will be an administrative nightmare both for officers and for members of the local authority. He wondered whether the Government were aware that, at the moment, it is very difficult to recruit people in this field because of the blight. I must say to the Minister, who is to receive the delegation on 1 April, that when Southend council got the local government settlement, it could not believe it. In the formula spending share, the average increase for England to be spent on children's social services was 4. 9 per cent., but for Southend, it was only 2. 4 per cent.
  The number of children in the care of our council has increased from 265 to 293—an 11 per cent. rise. Younger adults, who need considerably more support in social care, gained a 4. 1 per cent. increase nationally, but in Southend they got only 1. 4 per cent.
  A similar authority—Hammersmith and Fulham—has 30,000 children, while Southend has 35,000, so it is very unfair that Hammersmith and Fulham gets £33 million while Southend gets £30 million. Unfortunately, we have heard from the Minister for Children and from this rotten Government that it is all done on party political grounds—Southend has two Conservative Members of Parliament—which is an absolute disgrace for our vulnerable children in Southend.
  6. 40 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) who continues to advocate the interests of children—not least through his
  1002
  membership of the Health Committee—and who does so very well in relation to the interests of children in Southend, as evidenced by his remarks.
  My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who opened the debate, reminded us of the circumstances in which Victoria Climbié was treated and died. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) reminded us of the true horror of those circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West referred to the fact that if agencies had done their job and done many of the things that constitute good practice—in fact, not even good practice but basic practice—circumstances might have been different. As the Minister said, however, many agencies that encountered the family did not necessarily speak to Victoria. It is in that context that we have returned to the subject.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made clear, we initiated debates in our own time last year and we have also used the medium of Back-Bench debates. We have initiated this debate and we will continue to do that, because of the centrality of Parliament's responsibility to ensure that the many resources and the obligations that we place on agencies across the country are being properly discharged.
  That returns us to the point made by my hon. Friend in his opening speech: it is not good enough simply to have checklists and guidance. There are organisations—not just central Government—that issue internal guidance and, in theory, require people to behave responsibly. That is not enough. We must ensure that people are behaving responsibly. There are people in the social services system who find it tough. Following the publication of Herbert Laming's report, Cambridgeshire social services has given a great deal of time and attention to the improvement of children's social services in recent years, not least in the wake of the tragic Rikki Neave case.
  Of course, social services said, "We've gone through a major audit to show ourselves that we are meeting basic practices. " "Irritation" is too strong a word, but there was sometimes resentment at resources having to be consumed again by social services doing what they believed they were doing properly. None the less, they accepted that, and people have to accept it time and again. The Government issuing checklists and guidance is not the end of the story—nor did Herbert Laming ever intend it to be. That is why he said that such things could be done within three-Months. The point is that we have to know that the report is being followed up. That is the purpose of our debate.
  Roger Casale: I welcome the cross-party spirit of the debate, but surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that Government intervention—[Interruption] At least there was a consensus when the debate started. Surely he recognises the fact that Government intervention can make and is making a difference. That is certainly the case in my local authority area, when' children's social services were threatened with special measures. Government support and Government intervention, as well as strong local leadership, have helped to turn things round. We should recognise and celebrate examples of such positive

  1003
  intervention where we find them and seek to build on that best practice. Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that such intervention is succeeding.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly talking about his constituency's set of circumstances. Of course, intervention can be necessary, and resources are necessary, but resources are not sufficient. What Laming also made perfectly clear is that in the central Government context within which resources were being determined, many local authorities were spending over the standard spending assessment, while Ealing, Haringey and Brent were not. They were making their own choices, and, to an extent, they were making the wrong choices. It is not just the central Government context for resources that is relevant but the conduct inside local government
  I have only a few minutes left, and I want to be clear about some of the issues that have arisen from the debate. Unfortunately, because of time, there have been too few contributions to the debate. and I wish we could have had more. I know that other Conservative Members would have spoken had we had longer. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) did, however, contribute, making a point about the detention of refugee children on which no one else really touched. There is a problem. Oakington immigration reception centre, which is situated in my constituency, has children accommodated in it, and it is perfectly proper that they should be accommodated there. Legally, however, those children are accommodated in the detention state. It is therefore not simply a case of removing that from the legislation but of checking the circumstances. Alternatively, legislation could be introduced that is designed to make it clear that Oakington is an immigration reception centre rather than a detention centre, which has not happened.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough also made a point about delays in the national service framework. I was not aware that the Minister referred to the national service framework for children, because she is in the Department for Education and Skills, and apparently the Under-Secretary of State for Health is going to talk about the national service framework. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I have a more joined-up approach to these matters, as do the Liberal Democrats, clearly, as there are not enough of them to be disjointed. Although we have had the acute hospital services segment of the national service framework, more is to come, and it is much delayed compared with what we had hoped for. There is everything to be said for some of these issues being brought together at the same time. As we are creating a legislative framework and putting in place children's trusts, clearly, we must know what sort of standards we are aiming to meet, because structure follows function. We therefore need to know what functions are to be met in local authorities to be sure that local authorities are putting in place the right kind of children's trusts.
  The Minister said, and reiterated in an intervention, that there was somehow no planning blight—local authorities and the Government have been working in a seamless fashion towards the introduction and presentation of the Bill being introduced to the House of Lords today. Well, local authorities have been working
  1004
  hard to persuade against what the Minister originally intended to do. It is simply not true, however, that there are not local authorities which for a considerable period—more than a year—have been having to decide whether to do what they think is right in terms of integrating services in their area while trusting that they will not be told to put a one-size-fits-all solution in its place and pick it all apart or whether to wait. Some have been waiting, so there has been planning blight in some respects, and it would be proper for the Minister to accept that.
  In relation to the children's fund, I am astonished that the Minister can admit in the privacy of Westminster Hall that the Government got it all wrong but can come to the Chamber and pretend that it was a triumph and that they put in extra money. They put in extra money because the Department—of course, as the Minister explained in Westminster Hall, the mistakes were made by the Department, not by Ministers—permitted "over-programming" of expenditure, which is the polite word used in the Department, and the carrying forward of underspends. The net effect is over-commitment, so she is now having to cut in the first instance and then put in extra money. The Minister pretends that the money is not going to be reduced, but it is £160 million in 2003–04 and £110 million in 2004–05. It is perfectly clear from evidence that is now emerging that the Department is including in the amount for 2004–05 money originally promised for projects that will now not be provided. The Minister who is to reply certainly ought to be able to reply to that.
  The point that we have made time and again is that the necessity of implementing Herbert Laming's report, as well as information, referral and tracking pilots and many other things, requires action. Lord Laming had a timetable for action, which needed not just a checklist and the issuing of guidance but legislation, enforcement and audit to follow that up. We will press the Government to deliver those until the happier day when we can take responsibility for such matters, and deliver the services that children need and deserve.
  6. 50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I shall begin at the end. I agreed with one or two things in that speech, but I disagreed with one or two others. For instance, the suggestion that the Liberal Democrats were "joined up" simply because there were so few of them was a mistake: it takes only one Liberal Democrat to be disjointed, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has demonstrated on many occasions.
  I did agree with one thing that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, or at least implied—that three elements are involved in protecting vulnerable children: resources, powers and best practice. We must ensure that all three work together. No doubt we shall deal with the powers in many debates in the coming months following tomorrow's publication of the Children's Bill. We have already begun to identify best practice, and to roll it out around the country.
  The hon. Gentleman was also right to say that issuing checklists was not the end of the story. We never suggested that it was. That is why we have worked so hard: that is why we have produced a Green Paper and

  1005
  a Bill; that is why we have had a thorough consultation; and that is why we are going to publish a document on the way forward. We realise that getting all those three elements right is the way to improve services, and to secure the level of protection that we seek.
  The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) mentioned funding, as did the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). Conservative Members really should not debate the funding of children's services with us, because they start from a weak position. It is all very well for them to come up with sophistry in their recently published document suggesting that under a future Tory Government education, for funding purposes, will somehow apply to children's social services. That is not what the shadow Chancellor said by any manner of means. What he said would, in fact, lead to a cut of some £2. 5 billion in local government funding, the brunt of which would fall on children's social services. If that is not the case, I look forward to the next time we debate older people's services, because it will have to fall on those.
  Let us compare the records of the two parties. Personal social services funding has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1997; in the last period of Tory Government, it increased by 0. 1 per cent. But the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough should not be too smug. His party has not committed a single extra penny to children's social services. Indeed, its leader has specifically excluded any such increase, although he has managed to find £1. 8 billion for free personal services for pensioners with savings. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives entered into a battle of wits to see who could portray their party as the one that will support children, but it was a battle of wits fought by unarmed opponents.
  Mrs. Laing: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Ladyman: No, I am afraid that I have little time.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked some specific questions, one of which concerned the application of the Children Act 1989 in prisons. A recent judgment found that the Act did apply within the constraints of imprisonment. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Children is considering that judgment, and whether we require any further guidance in order to extend the Act's provisions to prisons. It may well be that sufficient provisions are already in place.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough also discussed Victoria Climbié and suggested that, in essence, she was a looked-after child. She was never a looked-after child. Technically, she was being privately fostered: that is, she was in the care of someone who was not a close family member, for more than the period defined in law; but that was not known at the time because Marie Therese Kouao pretended to be her mother. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that notwithstanding that, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children is already committed to tightening private fostering, and to ensuring that there are much firmer controls.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) is a fellow Kent Member, and I am proud to call him that after his excellent
  1006
  contribution. What he said was very important in terms of Laming and the identification of organisational malaise; indeed, that is exactly the issue that we are trying to address. He described the mistakes that he made as a social worker, but as I frequently tell social workers, although we often concentrate on their mistakes, it would surely be fairer now and again to concentrate on the tens of thousands of children and vulnerable people Whom they keep out of harm's way. Despite his acknowledging that he occasionally made mistakes, I am sure that he made many more good decisions.
  The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) introduced the subject of suicide to the debate, about which I entirely agree with him. Suicide is now the leading killer of young people, and we must do something about it. Bullying is a very important issue, and one of the Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills has already put together a multimillion pound strategy, which includes a charter for action on bullying and work across the voluntary and public sectors, to really do something about bullying. Although the hon. Gentleman began very fairly, he lapsed into a disgraceful attack on my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children. Let me tell him that she is the most dedicated person whom I have met in government, and she is determined to put things right for vulnerable children and to make sure that protection is in place for them. It is a continuing disgrace that the Conservatives keep making these unfounded attacks, in the face of her proven record.
  Mrs. Laing Mrs. Laing rose—
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) told us that he is leaving the House to return to social work, and I congratulate him on his commitment to such work. In my campaigns as the Minister with responsibility for a large part of the social work industry, I have done a great deal to try to encourage people to return it. I never intended for that to apply to him; none the less, I welcome his returning to social work.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Ladyman: I am sorry but I do not have time. I need to deal with the national service framework for children, which is. a very important part of our philosophy. Those Opposition Members who tried to imply today that we have forgotten about that framework—and that the director of services who provides the official lead, Professor Al Aynsley-Green, has been dilatory—were making disgraceful comments. We have worked very hard on that framework, and we have already published a document on hospital standards and on the emerging findings of that framework. We will publish the remaining findings later this year.
  Mr. McLoughlin rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided:Ayes 189, Noes 329.

  division No. 73]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Allan, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Amess, David

  Gray, James(N Wilts)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Grayling, Chris

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Bacon, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Baker, Norman

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baldry, Tony

  Gummer, rh John

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hague, rh William

  Barrett, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

  Hancock, Mike

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Harvey, Nick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hayes, John(S Holland)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heath, David

  Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW

  Hendry, Charles

  Surrey)

  Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

  Brady, Graham

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

  Horam, John(Orpington)

  Brazier, Julian

  Howarth Gerald(Aldershot)

  Breed, Colin

  Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Hunter, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jack, rh Michael

  Burnett, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Burns, Simon

  Johnson Boris(Henley)

  Burnside, David

  Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Keetch, Paul

  Burt, Alistair

  Key Robert(Salisbury)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Kirkbride Miss Julie

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Cameron, David

  Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Fife)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Lamb, Norman

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping

  Lansley, Andrew

  Barnet)

  Laws, David(Yeovil)

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Lidington, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Collins, Tim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Conway, Derek

  Loughton, Tim

  Cotter, Brian

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Cran, James(Beverley)

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Curry, rh David

  Mackay rh Andrew

  Davey, Edward(Kingston)

  Maclean, rh David

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham&

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stamford)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, rh David(Haltemprice &

  Maples, John

  Howden)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dodds, Nigel

  Mercer, Patrick

  Doughty, Sue

  Moore, Michael

  Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

  Fallon, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Field, Mark(Cities of London &

  Osborne, George(Tatton)

  Westminster)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Page, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Paice. James

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Portillo rh Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Price, Adam(E Carmarthen &

  Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

  Dinefwr)

  Garnier, Edward

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  George, Andrew(St. Ives)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

  Randall, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Redwood, rh John

  1008

  Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robertson, Angus(Moray)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Robertson, Hugh(Faversham &

  Tredinnick, David

  M-Kent)

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

  Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  Walter, Robert

  Salmond, Alex

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sanders, Adrian

  Watkinson, Angela

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Webb, Steve(Northavon)

  Selous, Andrew

  Weir, Michael

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Simmonds, Mark

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Wilshire, David

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  (Macclesfield)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wishart, Pete

  Swayne, Desmond

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gregory Barker and

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Casale, Roger

  Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

  Caton, Martin

  Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

  Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

  Allen, Graham

  Challen, Colin

  Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

  Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

  Anderson, Janet(Rossendale &

  Chaytor, David

  Darwen)

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Pentlands)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, rh Charles(Norwich S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge &

  Baird, Vera

  Chryston)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clelland, David

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  Beard, Nigel

  Coleman, Iain

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

  Benton, Joe(Bootle)

  Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

  Berry, Roger

  Cooper, Yvette

  Betts, Clive

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blackman, Liz

  Cox, Tom(Tooting)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cranston, Ross

  Blizzard, Bob

  Crausby, David

  Borrow, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

  Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

  Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Wallsend)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davidson, Ian

  Bryant, Chris

  Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

  Burden, Richard

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burgon, Colin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burnham, Andy

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

  Cairns, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Doran, Frank

  1009

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Efford, Clive

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Etherington, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fisher, Mark

  Kidney, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Bow)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  &Rye)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lammy, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gapes, Mike (liford S)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lepper, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Linton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Grogan, John

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Hain, rh Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hanson, David

  MacDonald, Calum

  Harmaa rh Ms Harriet

  McDonnell, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  MacDougall, John

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rhymney)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Healey, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hendrick, Mark

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heppell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heyes, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Shettleston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Martlew, Eric

  Sefton E)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Merron, Gillian

  Urmston)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Miliband, David

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hutton, rh John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mole, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Moonie, Dr. Lewisr

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Moran, Margaret

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Morgan, Julie

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Mudie, George

  1010

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Lunesdale)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Spellar, rh John

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Squire, Rachel

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Olner, Bill

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stevenson, George

  Organ, Diana

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Lochaber)

  Owen, Albert

  Stewart, Ian (Ecc/es)

  Perham, Linda

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Picking, Anne

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stringer, Graham

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Plaskitt, James

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  E)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle,

  Timms, Stephen

  Prescott, rh John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Purchase, Ken

  Trickett, Jon

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Truswell, Paul

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Twioo, Derek (Hdlton)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  NW)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Vaz, Keith(Leiceter E)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Rooney, Terry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ward, Claire

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Ruane, Chris

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Watts, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  White, Brian

  Chester)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Salter, Martin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wills, Michael

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winnick, David

  Sawford, Phil

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Yarmouth)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Singh, Marsha

  Wyatt, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxfordt E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Finsbury)

  Mr. Nick Ainger

  Question accordingly negatived
  Question, That the proposed words he there added, put forthwith, pursuant to standing Order No. 31(Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 364, Noes 141

  Division No. 74]

  [7:13

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Austin, John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bailey, Adrian

  Allan, Richard

  Baird, Vera

  Allen, Graham

  Baker, Norman

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Banks, Tony

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Barnes, Harry

  Darwen)

  Barrett, John

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Barron, rh Kevin

  1011

  Battle, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Dobson. rh Frank

  Berth, rh A. J.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Doran, Frank

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Doughty, Sue

  Berry, Roger

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Betts, Clive

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Blackman, Liz

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Borrow, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Etherington, Bill

  Breed, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Brennan, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Wallsend)

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, RussellBrowne, Desmond

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, rh Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Burnett, John

  & Rye)

  Burnham, Andy

  Foulkes, rh George

  Burstow, Paul

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gapes, Mike (llford S)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Gardiner Barry

  Cairns, David

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Gerrard, Neil

  Fife)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Gilroy, Linda

  Casale, Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chaytor, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clapham, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Pentlands)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hancock, Mike

  Chryston)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Cohen, Harry

  Rhymney)

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heath, David

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cotter, Brian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Heppell, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Hesford, Stephen

  Crausby, David

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Cruddas, Jon

  Heyes, David

  Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Sefton E)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  1012

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Urmston)

  Shettleston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Martlew, Eric

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hutton, rh John

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Merron, Gillian

  lllsley, Eric

  Michael, rh Alun

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Miliband, David

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Miller, Andrew

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mole, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Keetch, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Olner, Bill

  Kidney, David

  Ö pik, Lembit

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Organ, Diana

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Owen, Albert

  Bow)

  Perham, Linda

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Picking, Anne

  Pickthall, Colin

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Plaskitt, James

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lamb, Norman

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Lammy, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  E)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prescott, rh John

  Lepper, David

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Love, Andrew

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll S Bute)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  McCabe, Stephen

  NW)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  MacDougall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McKechin, Ann

  Chester)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Salter, Martin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWalter, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  1013

  Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

  Truswell, Paul

  Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

  Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe &

  Twigg, Derek(Halton)

  Lunesdale)

  Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Spellar, rh John

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Squire, Rachel

  Ward, Claire

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

  Stevenson, George

  Watts, David

  Stewart, David(Inverness E &

  Webb, Steve(Northavon)

  Lochaber)

  White, Brian

  Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

  Stringer, Graham

  Willis, Phil

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wills Micheal

  Winnick, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tami, Mark(Alyn)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt

  Taylor, David(NW Leics)

  Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

  Wright, David(Telford)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tipping, Paddy

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Nick Ainger

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

  Flook, Adrian

  Amess, David

  Forth, rh Eric

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

  Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

  Garnier, Edward

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

  Bacon, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Baldry, Tony

  Goodman, Paul

  Baron, John(Billericay)

  Gray, James(N Wilts)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Grayling, Chris

  Bercow, John

  Green, Damian(Ashford)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Greenway, John

  Brady, Graham

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brazier, Julian

  Gummer, rh John

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  Hague, rh William

  Burns, Simon

  Hammond, Philip

  Burt, Alistair

  Hawkins, Nick

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Hayes, John(S Holland)

  Cameron, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping

  Hendry, Charles

  Barnet)

  Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John(Orpington)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hunter, Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Jack, rh Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, rh David

  Johnson, Boris(Henley)

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham &

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Stamford)

  Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

  Davis, rh David(Haltemprice &

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Howden)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lansley, Andrew

  Dodds, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

  Lidington, David

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Loughton, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Fallon, Michael

  Mcintosh, Miss Anne

  Field, Mark(Cities of London &

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Westminster)

  Maclean, rh David

  1014

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Maples, John

  Spring, Richard

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Streeter, Gary

  Mercer, Patrick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Moss, Malcolm

  Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Norman, Archie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Osborne, George(Tatton)

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Page, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice, James

  Trend, Michael

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Price, Adam(E Carmarthen &

  Viggers, Peter

  Dinefwr)

  Walter, Robert

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Randall, John

  Watkinson, Angela

  Redwood, rh John

  Weir, Michael

  Robertson, Angus(Moray)

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Hugh(Faversham &

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  M-Kent)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Ruffley, David

  Wilshire, David

  Salmond, Alex

  Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Selous, Andrew

  (Macclesfield)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Wishart, Pete

  Simmonds, Mark

  Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

  Gregory Barker and

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Mr. Mark Francois

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the fact that this Government acknowledged the importance of children's issues by appointing the first ever Minister with responsibility for children and young people; congratulates the Government's commitment to Lord Laming's report on safeguarding children, shown in the Green Paper Every Child Matters, and its determination to turn words into action by publishing the Children's Bill in the other place today; acknowledges It at the £885 million Quality Protects Programme is already improving the life chances of vulnerable children; commends the Government for the 8.7% increase in funding for children's social services in the next financial year; and is alarmed by the Opposition's proposals to freeze spending on children's services.

  HIGHER EDUCATION (PROGRAMME)(NO. 3)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
  That in accordance with the Resolution of the Standing Committee of 2nd March 2004, the Programme Order of 27th January in relation to the Higher Education Bill shall be further amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words 'Thursday 4th March' of the words 'Tuesday 9th March'. —[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 119

  Division No. 75]

  [7. 27 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Allen, Graham

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Alexander, Douglas

  Darwen)

  Allan, Richard

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  1015

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davidson, Ian

  Austin, John

  Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Baird, Vera

  Dean, Mrs. Janet

  Banks, Tony

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Barnes, Harry

  Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

  Barrett, John

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Donohoe Brian H.

  Battle, John

  Doran, Frank

  Bayley, Hugh

  Doughty, Sue

  Beard, Nigel

  Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Drew, David(Stroud)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

  Benton, Joe(Bootle)

  Edwards, Huw

  Berry, Roger

  Efford, Clive

  Betts, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blackman, Liz

  Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Etherington, Bill

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Borrow, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick Jim

  Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brennan, Kevin

  Flint, Caroline

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

  Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Wallsend)

  Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  & Rye)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foulkes, rh George

  Bryant, Chris

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burgon, Colin

  Gapes, Mike(llford S)

  Burnham, Andy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burstow, Paul

  George, Andrew(St. Ives)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Cairns, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE Fife)

  Gidley. Sandra

  Fife)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Goggins, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

  Grogan John

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

  Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

  Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh

  Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

  Pentlands)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, rh Charles(Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge &

  Harmar, rh Ms Harriet

  Chryston)

  Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

  Harvey Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Havard Dai(Merthyr Tydfil &

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Rhymney)

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey John

  Colman, Tony

  Heath, David

  Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

  Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

  Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

  Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cotter, Brian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cox, Tom(Tooting)

  Heppell, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Hesford Stephen

  Crausby, David

  Heyes, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Hodge. Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

  Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

  Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hope, Phil(Corby)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Davey, Edward(Kingston)

  Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

  1016

  Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

  Sefton E)

  Shettleston)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Hughes, Beverley(Stretford &

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Urmston)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

  Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hutton, rh John

  Michael, rh Alun

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Miliband, David

  lllsley, Eric

  Miller, Andrew

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Moffatt, Laura

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Mole, Chris

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Jenkins, Brian

  Moran, Margaret

  Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

  Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

  Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Norris, Dan(Wansdyke)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

  Keen, Alan(Feltham)

  Olner, Bill

  Keetch, Paul

  Ö pik, Lembit

  Khabra, Piara S

  Organ, Diana

  Kidney, David

  Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Owen, Albert

  King, Andy(Rugby)

  Perham, Linda

  King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green &

  Picking, Anne

  Bow)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Pike, Peter(Burnley)

  Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Lamb, Norman

  Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham

  Lammy, David

  E)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  Laws, David(Yeovil)

  Prescott, rh John

  Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

  Price, Adam(E Carmarthen &

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dinefwr)

  Lepper, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

  Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Love, Andrew

  Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

  Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

  Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

  Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

  Rendel, David

  Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

  Robertson, Angus(Moray)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry

  McCabe, Stephen

  NW)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  MacDougall, John

  Russell, Ms Christine(City of

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Chester)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Salmond, Alex

  McKechin, Ann

  Salter, Martin

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McNamara, Kevin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sawford, Phil

  McWalter, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mallaber, Judy

  Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

  Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

  Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

  Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

  Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

  1017

  Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe &

  Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

  Lunesdale)

  Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Spellar, rh John

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Squire, Rachel

  Ward, Claire

  Starkey, Dr, Phyllis

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Stewart, David(Inverness E &

  Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

  Lochaber)

  Watts, David

  Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

  Weir, Michael

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  White, Brian

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wills, Michael

  Tami, Mark(Alyn)

  Win nick, David

  Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

  Wishart, Pete

  Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, David(NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt

  Tipping, Paddy

  Yarmouth)

  Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

  Wright, David(Telford)

  Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Trickett, Jon

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kemptown)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Twigg, Derek(Halton)

  Mr. Nick Ainger

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Dodds, Nigel

  Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bacon, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Barker, Gregory

  Field, Mark(Cities of London &

  Baron, John(Billericay)

  Westminster)

  Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

  Flook, Adrian

  Bellingham, Henry

  Forth, rh Eric

  Bercow, John

  Francois, Mark

  Blunt, Crispin

  Garnier, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Burns, Simon

  Goodman, Paul

  Burt, Alistair

  Gray, James(N Wilts)

  Cameron, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping

  Green, Damian(Ashford)

  Barnet)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Chope, Christopher

  Gummer, rh John

  Clappison, James

  Hague, rh William

  Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Hammond, Philip

  Collins, Tim

  Hawkins, Nick

  Conway, Derek

  Hayes, John(S Holland)

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham &

  Hendry, Charles

  Stamford)

  Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

  Davis, rh David(Haltemprice &

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Howden)

  Horam, John(Orpington)

  1018

  Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jack, rh Michael

  Selous, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Johnson, Boris(Henley)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

  Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Leigh, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lidington, David

  Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Syms, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Mcintosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Trend, Michael

  Maples, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Walter, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mercer, Patrick

  Watkinson, Angela

  Mercer, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Norman, Archie

  Wilkinson, John

  O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

  Willetts, David

  Osborne, George(Tatton)

  Wilshire, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Portillo, rh Michael

  (Macclesfield)

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  Randall, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Hugh(Faversham &

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  M-Kent)

  and

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

  Mr. Keith Simpson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That in accordance with the Resolution of the Standing Committee of 2nd March 2004, the Programme Order of 27th January in relation to the Higher Education Bill shall be further amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) for the words 'Thursday 4th March' of the words 'Tuesday 9th March'.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 9th March, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the proceedings on any Motions in the name of Mr Alex Salmond or Mr Elfyn Llwyd as if the day were an Opposition Day; and proceedings on such Motions may continue, though opposed, for six hours after the first of them has been entered upon, or until Seven o'clock, whichever is the later. —[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

  Rail Services (Worcestershire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  7. 38 pm
  Sir Michael Spicer: One of the more perverse myths spread about by the Labour party is the notion that the failings of the railway services in Worcestershire and elsewhere are the result of the privatisation of the railways in 1994. The reverse is closer to the truth. Before privatisation, the railways were in an apparently terminal decline: all the talk was of cuts and closures of railway lines. In particular, an axe hung permanently over the line that links Worcestershire with London Paddington, often known as the Cotswold line, which passes through the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), both of whom I am delighted to see here tonight. The word at the time was that the line was kept open only because four Transport Ministers and former Transport Ministers used it. If so, that fragile safety net comprised Lord Walker, predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire in his previous constituency; Nicholas Ridley, then the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury; Lord Caithness, who lived somewhere in the Cotswolds; and your humble servant, who at that time represented South Worcestershire in Parliament. However fanciful that theory may appear, the stateo run railways clearly turned passengers off and, under the doubly malign grip of Whitehall bureaucracy and powerful trade unions, were heading for oblivion.
  Privatisation brought about two major changes. First, there was a massive programme of investment in the industry, and £24 billion has been made available since 1994, much of which has come from resources not provided by the taxpayer. Secondly, foundations were laid for a serious attempt to attract passengers back to the railways, beginning with a new and, at the time, unfamiliar politeness on the part of ticket collectors. Passengers started to be treated as. desirable customers rather than as necessary appendages of the service. Above all, in Worcestershire, there was a marked increase in the frequency of services, particularly on inter-city routes.
  The results were highly successful in attracting passengers. Since privatisation, passenger journeys on the service operated by Central trains between Birmingham and Hereford have risen by 25 per cent., and the rise on the service operated by the Cotswold line is an astonishing 51 per cent. That significant increase in passenger demand has, however been, achieved at a price. Previously, the problem was lack of customers, leading to cutbacks in services, which were a further deterrent against usage, but now the growing problem is excessive demand, for which the available capacity of rolling stock and track is insufficient. Trains are overcrowded, especially at peak times, and the track is congested and arguably overused. Congestion blackspots that affect Worcester shire are particularly acute around Birmingham. All of that has led to delays, cancellations and disruption for many of my constituents and, I am sure, those of my hon. Friends. Last week, 150 people turned out to voice their concerns
  1020
  about rail services in a public meeting in Malvern organised by the Malvern Gazette. A dramatic fact emerged at that meeting: a poll of 100 commuters on a route between Worcester and Hereford showed that four out of 10 journeys were more than half an hour late. If I need to make a morning meeting in London, I travel the day before, even though the morning timetable promises to get me there on time. As for timetables, no one is fooled by the proposal to lengthen journey times to meet punctuality targets.
  The Government's response, perhaps predictably, is to blame the private operators, turn back the clock and initiate a new process of centralisation which, in some respects, amounts to renationalisation. The Strategic Rail Authority has therefore been created, with powers that go well beyond those of a regulator. All investment decisions and every improvement to the system has to be approved, if not initiated from the centre, by the SRA. We now have the worst of all worlds: final decisions are taken remotely behind closed doors and are subject to complex bureaucratic conditions. We really have returned to the worst characteristics of a nationalised system.
  The potential for delay, muddle and bureaucratic cost is self-evident. Let us consider a proposal—in fact, such a scheme is in the pipeline—to improve substantially the facilities offered by Worcester Shrub Hill station by providing a parkway. Three distinct organisations would be directly involved in such a decision. The SRA would effectively decide on the investment, which would be owned by Network Rail and operated by the franchised train operator—in this case, Central trains. The mind boggles at the prospective paper pushing between those three entities before a final decision is taken at the center.
  The complexity and remoteness of the new command structure has particularly serious implications for the major investment decisions that are now badly needed to solve Worcestershire's railway problems, the most important of which is the need to redual track where single lining was imposed under a nationalised system. The parts that most affect my constituents are the Colwall tunnel, the line between Ledbury and Hereford, where Central trains has a franchise running between Birmingham, Worcester, Malvern and Hereford, and, on the Hereford-to-London route, the line between Evesham and Moreton-in-Marsh
  The latter is a particularly serious deficiency. The fact that trains constantly have to wait at Evesham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, and at Moreton-in-Marsh, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, in order for the line to be free is one of the major reasons for the lateness of the service between Worcestershire and London when it occurs. The Minister seemed to acknowledge the importance of dualling in a comment that he made in the House on 6 January this year. It is essential to the smooth running of the Cotswold line that dualling of the Evesham and Moreton-in-Marsh section be undertaken as a matter of urgency. Similarly, at the public meeting organised by the Malvern Gazette, the importance of dualling the stretch of line between Ledbury and Hereford and the Colwall tunnel was acknowledged by passengers and by the operating companies. The potential for buck

  1021
  passing between Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government is very clear, as is the centralised nature of the decision-making process
  It is not only investment decisions that are badly affected by the new management system: there is also the problem of central interference with the daily operations of the train companies. A good recent example relates to the proposed scheduling of trains on the Cotswold line following First Great Western's winning of the new franchise on the line. The train operator originally proposed a schedule of through services of trains running direct to London. That schedule would have equalled, if not improved on, existing frequencies, which have been a major factor in drawing customers back to the line. Following interference from the Strategic Rail Authority, the proposal now seems to be to terminate more trains at Oxford, which will be highly disruptive to passengers travelling from Worcestershire or Gloucestershire up to London. That major deficiency was caused not by the train operators, but entirely by the Strategic Rail Authority's intervening on their proposals and making them worse—not, I suspect, on grounds of cost savings, but simply interfering for the sake of it
  Mr. Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend wish to emphasise to the Minister the very serious consequences that changing at Oxford can have for overall usage of the line? As we all know, trains cannot wait at Oxford to make connections because of the single-line sections between Oxford and Worcester. The consequence will be that people miss trains and connections and stop using the Cotswold line
  Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the Minister will be able to have a word in somebody's ear. Part of the problem is that we do not know whose ear it should be. We do know, however, that the Strategic Rail Authority blocked the proposal and that the new franchise will be based on a worse proposal. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about the great difficulty caused by the infrequency of trains out of Oxford—certainly, they do not run to London as frequently as they would on a through-train basis.
  There is a reverse gear feeling about this problem, as though the former nationalised service were operating again. It would be highly regrettable if it were to become the start of a new policy of cutting back on services. That is exactly what has been implied: it is clear from the new timetable that the frequency of services is to be cut. That is particularly likely if the faults on the new Adelante trains that the National Audit Office recently identified persist.
  Worcestershire rail services do not need the imposition of the centralised might of the Strategic Rail Authority; they need the transparency and accountability to passengers that goes with a decentralised, locally accountable, well-motivated system. If we made one mistake in government when we privatised the railway industry, it is probably that we did not break up the network enough. A great debate could be had about that, but in my view we should have gone further to provide for local franchises. It is a tragedy
  1022
  that the Government are moving in precisely the opposite direction. If the trend towards interference from the centre persists, it will mean a less effective railway system for Worcestershire and elsewhere
  Worcestershire requires a modern, reliable, comfortable and, above all, frequent commuter and inter-city rail service The last thing that passengers need is a return to the dark ages of a nationalised, centrally controlled, unresponsive, run-down railway system that lacks proper investment. It would mean that our inadequate roads would become even more clogged up
  Mr. Geoffrey Clif ton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that he, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) and I represent highly rural constituencies and that, without a satisfactory railway system, people will not stop making journeys, but will simply make them on the roads, which are becoming ever more congested? That is environmentally unsustainable.
  Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would add to his comments only my last point. Some people do not want to, or cannot, use a car, and for various reasons, some do not want to drive to work. They, especially those in rural areas, face the prospect of being even more stranded. I look forward to the Minister's response.
  7. 50 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I have approximately two minutes before the Minister might be expected to reply. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on a fine speech on a subject that is important to all our constituents in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire. I agree with everything that he said about the Cotswold line. I want to comment briefly on issues that affect his constituency, mine and Birmingham
  I hope that the Minister might persuade Network Rail to give higher priority to three different infrastructure investments, each of them modest, which make an enormous difference to the genuine suffering of my constituents who use the line. The first investment is in remodelling track between Worcester Foregate Street and Worcester Shrub Hill station. That would greatly enhance the flexibility of the train operators, especially Central trains. The second is the introduction of an additional signalling section between Worcester and Droitwich, which would greatly increase capacity on the line. The third is increasing the length of Bromsgrove station to enable it to take four-car trains. One of the major problems for services between Malvern, Worcester, Droitwich and Birmingham is the Health and Safety Executive rule for four-car trains. They cannot stop at Bromsgrove so they cannot run on the line. One fast train is non-stop at Bromsgrove.
  Lengthening Bromsgrove station, putting in an extra section and remodelling the junction between Foregate Street and Shrub Hill would transform capacity and make a big difference to reliability. It would not cost much, either.
  7. 52 pm
  The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Dr. Kim Howells): I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the future of rail services in Worcestershire.
  Before I respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made, it might be helpful if I provided information about the performance of the train operators who predominantly serve Worcestershire. I should like the hon. Member for West Worcestershire to know that there will be no return to a nationalised rail industry. He is doing what he is supposed to do as an Opposition Member—opposing the Government. However, I was sorry that he did not admit that we are spending a lot of money on the railways. That is happening rather too late because, for 30 years, very little money was spent on them.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to say that privatisation has levered out money that was not previously available for the railways. That is welcome. A symptom of that, which he described, is the 50 per cent. increase in patronage on the Cotswold line. Somebody is doing something right, and we should be readier to pay tribute to people who operate the railways, from those who welcome and look after passengers to the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail and the Office of the Rail Regulator.
  The system is not easy but complicated, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter because it gives me an opportunity to say that the rail review that we are currently conducting does not seek greater centralisation. I have a great deal of sympathy with his last point, when he said that the privatisation that happened nine years ago was not the right sort of privatisation and that perhaps there should have been a greater range of models for running railways in different parts of the country. I have no doubt that they could have been run better, and that any model that is top heavy or very prescriptive in the way in which it seeks to serve very different markets in different areas—rural markets and commuter markets, for example—needs to be challenged. We need ideas about how best to run the railways, and that is why we have instituted the review.
  I get the message from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. I have read the press release that he put out on 3 February; it is a very detailed assessment of what is required. I take his point about the platform at Bromsgrove. Many platforms arc and the country need modification; there is no question about that. We could greatly increase the capacity of o ar railways if we were able to make those modifications
  I was lucky enough to be in Japan over the past week. I had heard that it had the best railway system in the world, and I wanted to have a look at it. Japan has a population twice the size of ours. We have been celebrating the fact that British railways carried a larger number of people last year than in any year since 1961–1 billion people. In Japan last year the railways carried 22 billion people, yet the network is not much larger than ours. They have created a signalling system and a system of control and route utilisation that are infinitely better than anything we have. We have a great deal to learn from them
  1024
  I have absolutely no doubt that Worcestershire as a whole would benefit greatly if we could adapt some of that technology, expertise and know-how. Certainly, something as basic as getting platforms the right length so that they can take longer trains is an important issue. I have spoken to Richard Bowker, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, who knows the railways of Worcestershire very well, and he is very keen that we should get on with the work. There is a problem, however, and it relates to the subject of this debate. I would say to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire that I would certainly like to dual a lot more of the single-track lines in the country, but that can happen only at a cost. Dualling is under way at the moment down in Cornwall, and I think that a seven-mile stretch is costing about £14 million. The track was ripped up in the 1980s—quite late, really—and it is now going to be re-dualled. That is a lot of money, yet that is one of the least costly projects that I have seen.
  The SRA can manage a project like that, working with Network Rail, for about £14 million for seven miles. The hon. Gentleman listed a number of stretches that need dualling, and some are at least as long as that. That would involve a lot of money. 1 am sure that he would clear that with his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, because it would be money worth spending. I cannot, however, give him a promise here and now that we can somehow make that money available from central Government. He is quite right to say that this is a complicated process.
  One of the objectives of the rail review that we have implemented is to ensure that we get more bangs for our buck, so to speak, when we spend money on the railways. This year, we shall spend the best part of £4 billion, which is two to three times as much as was being spent on the railways five or six years ago. That is a lot of money, but a lot of things need doing on the railways. The hon. Gentleman has told us that he cares passionately about his constituents being able to have access to jobs and other markets, and I am sure that he could wish for nothing more important than that, except perhaps a better health service or education service. However, he knows as well as I do that railway systems are very expensive to run. If we can manage better what we already have, that will be a good start. I am not convinced that we do it well enough at the moment, and we must be much more responsive and imaginative in the way in which we engage with the customers that he is talking about.
  I mentioned the huge increase in patronage on the Cotswold line. Somebody must be doing something right there. I am sure that it is not the case that people are simply choosing not to use their cars, because clearly road congestion is rising at the same time. The fact is that people are travelling more and they are looking for opportunities to use public transport where they can
  Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister is making a thoughtful and interesting contribution, and I am grateful to him for it. I once heard him make what to me was an extremely interesting remark. He was on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 to discuss the question of prioritising expenditure, which is what, to some extent, we are talking about. The Minister courageously made a point, which it was difficult for him to make, about gold-plating health and safety expenditure by

  1025
  going over the top and unnecessarily far. Would he care to develop that? I say that in the best possible spirit: it was an extremely courageous thing for a transport Minister to say because it raised the question of prioritising. He is right that the money has to be raised, but there is a circular process. If the money is to be raised, it will be raised partly because the operating company is making a profit and it has to be allowed to work the system properly. There is an upward spiral.
  Dr. Howells: Yes, indeed. I am happy to repeat that, although I know that the hon. Gentleman will not want me to go on about it because he asked questions about timetabling, among other things. I want to try to answer them. However, I will say that one of the most extraordinary things that I found in Japan is the fact that between the first running of the Bullet train—the Shinkansen—in 1963 and this year, the number of people killed was nil. No one has died on those trains.
  I was fascinated by how the Japanese approach health and safety. They focus very much on reducing risk. We know that, unfortunately, because of the immense complication of how safety works in this country—this is not a fault of individuals who work in these sectors nor often of the systems of the individual agencies—there is gold-plating, and the hon. Gentleman is right to talk about it. There are company standards, group standards and bodies of all kinds out there whose responsibilities sometimes overlap. As a consequence, the costs are very high.
  This is easy for me to say as I am a politician and I can use these glib phrases as easily as anybody else, but we ought to concentrate far more on basic functions involving the protection of passenger welfare and of staff who work on the railways. We could be saving quite a lot of money there, or at least redirect that money to ensure that we have the safest railways in the world.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned Oxford and having to change trains. Nothing is more irritating for people than having to change after they have had a through service. I want to deal with that in more detail, then I will sit down. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I am aware of the press release issued by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire expressing his concerns about the effect of the proposed timetable changes on the services along the Cotswold line and
  1026
  along the line that runs to Birmingham. Thames Trains currently provides six weekday services between Great Malvern and London Paddington in each direction, and First Great Western provides three services in each direction. The SRA has agreed to a two-hourly Adelante service from Great Malvern to Paddington, increasing the number of through Great Malvern to Paddington services from the current nine to 12. Eight of those will be formed of InterCity 125 stock, compared with just three at present. In alternate hours, a Turbo service will run from Great Malvern to Oxford for connection into the Adelante services, which is what has been worrying the hon. Gentleman. Adelantes offer more comfort, with five-car trains, against the three-car 166 Turbos. They also offer a lower-density seat formation, and virtually all the Oxford services will be upgraded to 125 mph InterCity stock.
  That represents a significant improvement in the quality of rolling stock and service at certain Cotswold line stations, including Great Malvern, but while the number of services along the route as a whole remains the same, the hon. Gentleman is right that there is a small reduction in through services.
  The higher-speed rolling stock will improve journey times, including on some services where a change at Oxford will be necessary. The proposed timetable is not fixed yet—I have a copy of it here, and the hon. Gentleman is welcome to take a look at it if he wants—but it appears to me, as a fascinated amateur, that it is a better timetable. Obviously, he must make that judgment, as he has constituents to represent. I give him the undertaking, however, that I will ensure that the SRA sees the transcript of this debate so that it knows exactly where the weaknesses are in the links. I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has already made the SRA very much aware of his worries, because I have read a copy of the letter that he wrote to Mr. Richard Bowker of the SRA. He is an intelligent man and is determined to put the railways right, and he probably knows trouble when he sees it. He will therefore be able to answer those questions for himself.
  I thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire for raising this matter, and I hope that we can work together to try to improve services for his constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eight o'clock

Deferred Division

  PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
  That the draft Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of sections 21 to 23) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.
  The Sixth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2003–04, on the Anti-Terrorism. Crime and Security Act 2001: Statutory Review and Continuance of Part 4, HC 381, is relevant.
  The House divided: Ayes 370, Noes 49

  Division No. 71]

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cash, William

  Ainger, Nick

  Caton, Martin

  Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

  Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Challen, Colin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Allen, Graham

  Barnet)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Chaytor, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Clapham, Michael

  Darwen)

  Clappison, James

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chryston)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bacon, Richard

  Clelland. David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barker, Gregory

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Collins, Tim

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beard, Nigel

  Corston, Jean

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cranston, Ross

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Crausby, David

  Beggs, Roy (EAntrim)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cummings, John

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  (Copeland)

  Bercow, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Blackman, Liz

  Curry, rh David

  Blair, rh Tony

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Blunkett, rh David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Borrow, David

  Stamford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brady, Graham

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Brazier, Julian

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Brennan, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bryant, Chris

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Burden, Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Burgon, Colin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burnham, Andy

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Nigel

  Burnside, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Farrelly, Paul

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Cairns, David

  Westminster)

  Cameron, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Casale, Roger

  Flook Adrian

  1028

  Foulkes, rh George

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Gapes, Mike (llford S)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Gardiner, Barry

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Gamier, Edward

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lepper, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Leslie, Christopher

  Goggins, Paul

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Goodman, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Grayling, Chris

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Greenway, John

  Lidington, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Grogan, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Gummer, rh John

  Love, Andrew

  Hague, rh William

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  McCafferty, Chris

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hawkins, Nick

  MacDougall, John

  Heald, Oliver

  McGrady, Eddie

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mcintosh, Miss Anne

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hendry, Charles

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Heppell, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Hermon, Lady

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Heyes, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  McWilliam, John

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Shettleston)

  Sefton E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Mates, Michael

  Urmston)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Hutton, rh John

  Mercer, Patrick

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Merron, Gillian

  lllsley, Eric

  Michael, rh Alun

  Jack, rh Michael

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Jenkins, Brian

  Miliband, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Mole, Chris

  Hatfield)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Norman, Archie

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Kidney, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Olner, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  O'Neill, Martin

  Bow)

  Organ, Diana

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  1029

  Ottaway, Richard

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Owen, Albert

  Singh, Marsha

  Paice, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Paisley, Rev, Ian

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Perham, Linda

  Lunesdale)

  Picking, Anne

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Soley, Clive

  Plaskitt, James

  Spellar, rh John

  Pollard, Kerry

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Spring, Richard

  E)

  Squire, Rachel

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Prescott, rh John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stevenson, George

  Purchase, Ken

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Quin rh Joyce

  Lochaber)

  Randall, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Redwood, rh John

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Streeter, Gary

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Stringer, Graham

  Bellshill)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Syms, Robert

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ruane, Chris

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Chester)

  Timms, Stephen

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Salter, Martin

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Sawford, Phil

  Trend, Michael

  Selous, Andrew

  Trickett, Jon

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Trimble, rh David

  Sheridan, Jim

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Simmonds, Mark

  Kemptown)

  1030

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Willetts, David

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Wilshire, David

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Walley, Ms Joan

  (Macclesfield)

  Walter, Robert

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ward, Claire

  Woolas, Phil

  Waterson, Nigel

  Worthington, Tony

  Watkinson, Angela

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Watts, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Young, rh Sir George

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Baker, Norman

  Uwyd, Elfyn

  Barrett, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Atcham)

  Breed, Colin

  Moore, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fife)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Dinefwr)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Doughty, Sue

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Rendel, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Russen, Bob(Colchester)

  Salmond Alex

  Gidley, Sandra

  Sanders, Adrian

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Teather, Sarah

  Heath, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Holmes, Paul

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Weir, Michael

  Inverness)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Wishart, Pete

  Lamb, Norman

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Coal Health Claims
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Vernon Coaker].
9.30 am
Mr. Michael Clapham: In my contribution, I want to do four things. First, by way of background I shall explain the procedure for making a coal health claim. Secondly, I want to explain the link between claims handling firms and solicitors firms. Thirdly. I shall give examples showing how mining communities are being exploited by claims handling firms and some firms of solicitors. I would say, however, that the number of solicitors firms that can be accused of being deceitful, if not dishonest, is small. Finally, I shall suggest what the Minister might do to remedy the issue; I know that he is as sickened as I am at the way in which mining communities are being exploited.
This month marks the 20th anniversary of the beginning of the year-long 1984–85 miners' strike. It should not go unnoticed that, 20 years on, we are still having to discuss how to prevent the further exploitation of mining communities.
For the record, I chair the all-party coalfield communities group and the miners' parliamentary group. I am also a member of the Minister's coal health claims monitoring group.
The coal health schemes comprise the vibration white finger scheme, the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease scheme and the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme. However, the debate will concentrate for the most part on the operation of the first two schemes. Former miners and their widows, as well as their estates, can claim compensation under the schemes, but they must register claims for vibration white finger or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease through a solicitor. Progress on the latter scheme is periodically reported to the court, along with proposed changes to the handling agreement.
The procedure for processing claims is set out in the handling agreement, and I shall explain how it works. It is an accord agreed by both sides, but it is still evolving. The claimants' solicitors group meets regularly with Department of Trade and Industry solicitors to discuss changes and amendments—or how the agreement might be tweaked. It basically identifies the information that, alongside the claims forms, is required to be completed by each claimant. That information is then passed to the insurers, formerly Aon IRISC, now Capita Insurance Services.
When the information is submitted to the insurers, it is checked and the work record of the claimant is sought in order to verify the claim. The number of fraudulent claims is extremely small, which suggests that the miner's word could be taken as the basis for claims without some of the statements that are required. When
252WH
the work record has been verified, the claimant is referred for a medical examination. If it is a posthumous claim, records are generally sought from social security records, from the general practitioner and from hospital records to assist in making a diagnosis.
The vibration white finger scheme closed on 31 March 2003 for live claims, and three months later for posthumous claims, to date, 168,000 claims have been registered. The chronic obstructive pulmonary disease scheme is still open, but it will close on 31 March 2004. More than 400,000 claims have been registered, and I understand that they are still arriving at the rate of 8,000 a week. The Minister will be able to update us on the statistics.
To date, more than £1.9 billion has been paid to claimants under both schemes. Solicitors firms in England dealing with the claims number in excess of 500. Throughout the United Kingdom they have received about £300 million for the work that they have done. These statistics give some idea of the size of the claim overall, which I understand is the largest common-law damages claim run anywhere in the world.
David Taylor: My hon. Friend will be aware of the unfortunately numbered early-day motion 666 tabled by his Barnsley colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis). It points out that average legal fees for chronic bronchitis and emphysema claims are £2,143 and that half of all final settlements are for less than that. Surely something has got out of kilter here.
Mr.Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which suggests the need for a minimum level of settlement. Perhaps we should press that with my hon. Friend the Minister.
It became clear from complaints to the monitoring group that miners and their families were being exploited. Many of my colleagues in the House say that some firms of solicitors are charging claimants, in addition to receiving their costs and disbursements from the DTI. The charges levied on the claimants vary in form. Some firms charge a success fee, while others charge an extra hourly rate for coal health work, and particularly for vibration white finger claims.
The situation is made more complex by the advent of claims handling firms, some of which have come into being only in the past few years to exploit the situation in mining communities. They collect potential claims and pass them on to solicitors. Some of the handling firms sell the claims to solicitors. In other words, they are exploiting a market that has developed.
I refer to a letter dated 20 February from a company called Zuko Legal Ltd., which was addressed to Towells solicitors of Wakefield. The letter reads:
"I understand that you may be interested in buying mineworkers claims for compensation under the DTI Scheme from us. The number of claims our company source each week continues to escalate as the cut off date of this Scheme nears. I would therefore welcome an early opportunity to discuss the development of potential relations between us. We are able to provide a large volume of extremely high quality, signed Client Claim Forms carefully vetted by in-house solicitors. We have produced so far in excess of 5,000 with only 1 per cent. being rejected on the basis of previous solicitors having been instructed."

253WH
The letter did not give the price of each claim, but if it was between £1,000 and £2,000, the claims handling firm would have received between £500,000 and £1 million for the 5,000 claims that it handled. Towells declined that outrageous offer and passed the information on to the DTI. Perhaps the Minister, who I know is as sickened as I am by the market in claims, will say what he intends to do immediately to stop this trade in the exploitation of elderly miners and their widows.
When a payment is made to the claimant, whether it is an interim payment or full and final settlement, a proportion is paid to the handling firm. Some of these firms have adopted names such as Union and General Services Ltd. or the Miners Welfare and Compensation Agency Ltd. It is clear that the companies have deliberately tailored their names to mislead by giving the impression that they have some formal link with the mining communities, through either the union or the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation.
Only recently, one such firm, the Miners Welfare and Compensation Agency Ltd., wrote directly to one of my constituents, Mrs. Leadbeater, whose late husband I was privileged to know when I worked at the colliery. The firm misrepresented itself by stating that it had helped thousands of ex-miners and their families, and it offered her a service that it said was free. That free service cost Mrs. Leadbeater £9,000, and it took all my efforts and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), along with the "Politics Show", to get that money refunded. The solicitors who dealt with the case were a firm called Lopian Wagner of Manchester.
I am aware that the Law Society does not regulate the claims handling companies. I also know that a review is to take place shortly, and perhaps the Minister will refer to that in his response. Nevertheless, I believe that because those companies are registered, the DTI could regulate or control them before waiting for the outcome of the review.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It is a question of the companies setting up the case and then selling it on to the solicitors. Although my hon. Friend said before that no fraud was going on, I believe that there is. The companies are setting up the case; the solicitors are used only as a postman to post the claim on to the DTI, and they are getting paid for it. The company is doing all the work, and when the payment is made, the company tells the client that they have to pay the company x thousands of pounds.
Mr. Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He raises a matter to which I will refer. As I said, only recently one of my constituents had £9,000 deducted from her settlement. It took a great deal of work to persuade the company to cough up.
In general, such companies take a percentage of a claimant's damages. My hon. Friend has just made that point. Normally, the companies have an agreement or an arrangement with the firm of solicitors to which they supply cases and, in some cases, the claimant's cheque is passed on to the company first so that the claimant has to give an instruction for a deduction to be made by the handling company before the cheque is sent on to the claimant.
254WH
I take the view that as the claims handling company deals directly with the law firms with which they have an arrangement, the firm, and not the claimant, should pay for the service. If we were to go down the route that I suggest, and the DTI were to insist that that should be the arrangement, we could restrict the operation of these companies. It is a disgrace that the companies are able to prey on miners and their families, and action needs to be taken immediately to obtain refunds. In the longer term they need to be regulated.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Should not the message from today's debate to miners and miners' widows be that there is no need to have any truck with claims handling companies at all, but that they could go straight to a solicitor and have the case dealt with directly?
Mr.Clapham: That message needs to go out. Claimants do not need to go through an intermediary; they should immediately contact their solicitors. It is fair to say that if they were first to contact their MPs, their MPs could put them in touch with solicitors firms that do not make a charge.
Some solicitors firms have repaid claimants after being approached by constituents' MPs. Others have adopted a total refund policy—for example, Beresfords Solicitors, in Doncaster, which decided to refund all its coal health clients in cases in which an additional charge was made. Firms such as Atteys Solicitors in south Yorkshire, which charges an extra hourly rate for doing vibration white finger work, levy on the claimant a charge that is the difference between the costs that it receives from the DTI and the number of hours spent on the claim by its solicitors. That can result in the claimant having to pay the solicitor more than £1,000.
I appreciate that solicitors firms do not all have the same cost structure. It is swings and roundabouts: some cases cannot be established, but others can be set on their feet. Moreover, the risk associated with claims is substantially mitigated under the scheme, so that it is minimal. Any firm that charges an extra hourly rate without first informing the claimant, thus giving him the option to go to another solicitor, should refund that money. That is the Law Society's view.
Vendside Ltd., which operates through the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, charges claimants a fee, despite being an in-house solicitor operation. I have written to that firm on several occasions, having been approached by constituents who have been charged an extra fee. I know that the DTI said in a press announcement that it did not see the UDM charges in the same light as legal fees, but the UDM and Vendside are one and the same, and they are pocketing fees from claimants in addition to the costs paid by the DTI. Recently, there have been press reports on this issue. I have seen documents, which have been passed on to the DTI, that show that the union's two officers, who represent only 1,300 members, are both nominee directors of Vendside and that they earned £151,000 and £1 11,000 respectively in annual salary packages. Will the Minister ensure that the firm is investigated, with a view to deciding whether it should remain on his approved list?
Firms such as Kidd and Spoor Harper, and Robinson King, have replied to the Minister, stating that they do not charge clients, but have failed to mention that they

255WH
use claim handlers, the charge for which falls on the claimant. The former firm uses P. R. Associates Advice Bureau—a claims handling firm that deals with solicitors and has an arrangement for coal health claims—whereas the latter firm deals with General and Union Services Ltd.
The Law Society has been most helpful. I know that the Minister's officials met representatives of the Law Society and found them helpful in dealing with this issue. It has sent all its members a letter advising that they should not charge coal health clients, and warning of the consequences should they do so. It has also asked its members to refund claimants in certain cases in which an extra charge has been levied.
I conclude by saying that coal health claims are helping to restore much of the damage that has been caused by British Coal's negligence. The money paid to claimants tends to go directly into the local economy and is having a noticeable effect in some areas. The business of many local solicitors firms has legitimately grown on the back of the coal health schemes. I have no objections to that, but I find it scandalous and outrageous that some claims handling firms should conspire to exploit mining communities in a manner that is tantamount to robbery.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are many hon. Members seeking to catch my eye, but if everybody speaks for 10 minutes, there will not be time for them all to get in, so I counsel brevity.
9.50 am
Adam Price: May I pay warm tribute to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for securing this debate and for the excellent way in which he set out the facts? I am sure that his concerns are widely shared throughout coalfield communities.
I should like to pick up on the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about Vendside, to which I was alerted some months ago. I wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry in July last year, when Vendside's marketing material, which boasted of an exclusive agreement with the DTI, was brought to my attention. However, that marketing material made no mention whatever of the connection with the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, and there is no reference to it on Vendside's website. Unwittingly, therefore, former members of the National Union of Mineworkers have indirectly been lining the pockets of Mick Stevens and Neil Greatrex. Whatever the legal position is, it sticks in many people's throats that union officials living in one of the most disadvantaged communities in the United Kingdom are drawing salaries of £150,000 a year, profiteering from the suffering of former miners. I see no way to defend that.
I have asked the Minister whether other unions were offered an arrangement directly to represent their members and others similar to Vendside and the UDM's arrangement. I do not think that the answer that I received was correct, although I am not making allegations. The Minister has fresh eyes, so I should like him to look again at why there was a special
256WH
arrangement with the UDM. Also, there was no reference in the reply that I received to the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers. Once NACODS heard about the UDM's arrangement, it applied to have a similar arrangement but was turned down. I therefore urge him to look at why a special arrangement was made with the UDM.
I have read press statements by a DTI spokesperson defending the arrangement with Vendside and condemning the solicitors' charges— rightly, as we all agree—but saying that that case was entirely different and that it was acceptable to charge extra. However, it cannot be acceptable when, as we have heard, there are perfectly good solicitors who will not charge people. Surely the Department should urge people not to go to companies such as Vendside.
I urge the Minister to look again at the charges, because Vendside, as we have learned from the Department's figures, has a much lower average compensation payout than other firms. We should urge people not to use the firm, because the average payment is significantly lower. I looked at the figures for last year, which showed that, like for like, Vendside's average payout was £3,000 lower than the average for solicitors in England. We must seriously ask whether Vendside is doing the work on behalf of its clients. Clearly, there might be financial incentives to a quick turnaround.
I urge the Minister to suspend the exclusive arrangement with Vendside, pending a proper investigation of what has gone on in the firm. I also urge him to look at why the DTI entered into an agreement with the UDM in 1998 that was not offered to other trade unions. What was the advantage to the DTI or to former miners and their families in doing so, given that UDM and NUM members had been badly served by Vendside and the UDM?
9.55 am
Mr. Kevin Barron: I welcome this debate. I am not surprised by the number of hon. Members who are present. I first raised the issue of solicitors, trade unions and fees back in July 1999, with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who was moved in a reshuffle shortly afterwards and sadly did not take any further action. Later that year, I referred the matter to the Law Society to investigate. I will mention one or two things that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said, because I take issue with him in relation to the Law Society and what has happened, and I will tell hon. Members why. However, I congratulate him on securing the debate.
The Law Society investigated the matter at the end of 1999 and the beginning of 2000. In early 2000, it was clear from a preliminary report that it was unlikely that it would take any further action. Indeed, that was the decision it came to. I had a bit of a wry smile when I read its press release of 20 January, in which the chief executive says:
"I am pleased the Law Society's Compliance Board was able to deal with this matter so promptly, following concerns raised by Ministers and MPs".
Four years ago this month, I raised the issue in an Adjournment debate. By that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) was

257WH
the Minister responsible. We debated it for half an hour on the Floor of the House. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) might like to know that his predecessor—the man he beat at the last general election—mentioned the South Wales branch of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers in that debate all those years ago. The union had a levy of 5 per cent., which was similar to that of a union that I raised, and some of the awards were as high as £7,250.
I do not want to go into the detail of that debate except to say that it covered most of the issues raised in the past few months about what solicitors have and have not been doing. What was happening in coal mining communities was brought up at that time in the full knowledge of all concerned. There is no doubt in my mind about that.
Things fell down in the early stages, when we had the Law Society's preliminary report and an investigation by a firm of solicitors from the west midlands. The problem was that solicitors were still saying at that time that they were raising the money—success fees, administration fees, or whatever they were called—on a no win, no fee basis. I disputed that then and I dispute it even more now.
It is true that there was a dispute in the early days—certainly when I first raised the matter—about whether unsuccessful claims were going to be funded in any way by the DTI. It cannot be disputed that from September 1999—I think it was 24 September—when the claims handling agreement was signed up to, the DTI made some payments from public funds to progress unsuccessful claims. Yet I have in front of me—I mentioned these problems in that earlier debate—a letter from the lead group of solicitors, Irwin Mitchell, based in Sheffield. The letter is dated 24 November, but it still says:
"No costs are paid by the DTI incurred in relation to claims which are pursued in accordance with the terms of the Agreement but are ultimately unsuccessful."
In the same month, Mr. Jeremy Cousins of the Department of Trade and Industry, sent a letter to the firm of solicitors that was investigating my complaints, saying:
"There is therefore some direct recovery for unsuccessful claims."
Ever since September 1999, therefore, we have been having a fictitious debate about what solicitors are getting for coal claims.
As the lead firm of solicitors on the subject, Irwin Mitchell should have known what had happened. Last year, and indeed in the years before that, the DTI had the good grace to hold seminars to update us on coal claims, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I did not go to every seminar, but I raised the problem when I did. The agreement on handling coal claims is periodically reviewed, so I asked those on the platform last year—my hon. Friend was the Minister at the time—what the DTI had done about solicitors who were charging. Aside from my hon. Friend, those on the platform, who I assume were the DTI's legal advisers, just looked at one another. Then—this is only my recollection, although
258WH
one or two other hon. Members were at the meeting—someone said, "I think some trade unions have this agreement, but I'm not too sure." There was nothing conclusive.
Within five minutes of my asking the question, however, a solicitor from Irwin Mitchell stood up—I think that he was called Mr. Andrew Tucker, but I would have to ask others who were there to be certain—and said, "The fees shouldn't have been raised after April 2000." I did not write down what he said word for word, so I am not sure whether he said that that would be "illegal", but he definitely said that it should not have been happening.
Geographically, Irwin Mitchell is close to my constituency, so the firm will have handled the cases of several constituents. We should not forget that it was the lead firm and had been negotiating with the DTI for years on the payments that would be made from taxpayers' money. As I said in that earlier Adjournment debate, I had seen evidence that Irwin Mitchell had been charging different levels of success fee—10 per cent., 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. So it struck a chord with me when Mr. Tucker said last year that what had been happening was illegal or that the fees should not have been raised after April 2000.
After the seminar. I went back to my constituency office to check some details from May 2001, when the daughter of a miner in my constituency who had died contacted me to say that Irwin Mitchell was after a success fee for her claim. I photocopied the documentation that she had received and wrote to Irwin Mitchell on 14 May. That was just before the election, so I was still working as an MP, although I was soon to be a candidate. I had a conversation with representatives of Irwin Mitchell five days later and they said that a mistake had been made.
Let me tell hon. Members what mistake that lead group of solicitors had made. In the letter to my constituent, Irwin Mitchell mentioned three scenarios for the funding of respiratory disease claims; indeed, the letter is headed "Respiratory Disease". The first scenario was:
"You may have a Legal Expenses Insurance policy".
The second was:
"You may be a member of a Trade Union or another membership organisation".
The third was:
"Legal Aid—unfortunately Legal Aid has recently been withdrawn".
That was in May 2001, many months after Irwin Mitchell had been the lead firm in signing the agreement to allow the taxpayer to pay its expenses. It is still using such scenarios.
The letter continued:
"On the basis of the information that we have relating to your claim we consider that the best funding option for you is to enter into a Conditional Fee Agreement with us. We enclose a copy of our standard CFA agreement. We have assessed the risks of your case and the percentage success fee has been calculated at 43 per cent.
That calculation of 43 per cent. was made when the lead person—he did not sign the letter—in that firm of solicitors had, I am sure told me that it was illegal to do that in 2001. I will not read the contents of the letter that

259WH
I sent off straight away, but—this is a memory test for me—I had a phone call a few days later with the person at Irwin Mitchell whose name is on the letter. She said that a mistake had been made and that there would be no success fees in that case. I have no evidence to suggest whether that was or was not so. I asked the person concerned if she would contact me when she had been paid so that I could pursue the matter, but she did not. I have not tried to make contact with her recently.
I wrote to Irwin Mitchell on 22 December last year because of what the Law Society and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said in the press release about fees being claimed. He said that Beresfords was making repayments. I hope that it is making full repayments, because a BBC journalist told me a few weeks ago that it is paying them back if a claim is made. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Mr. Clapham: I stated that Beresfords was refunding everyone who had been charged extra, over and above the DTI cost, because it informed me in a letter that that is what it intended to do.
Mr. Barron: I take the firm's word for that and am pleased that that is happening.
I received a letter from Irwin Mitchell in early January in response to the letter that I sent asking whether it was repaying all conditional fees. The letter was from Mr. Tucker and stated that he had attended a meeting with the Minister, who
"expressed his views on behalf of the DTI."
The letter stated:

"Up until April 2000, the Conditional Fee Regulations meant that only the Claimant could pay the success fee calculated as an uplift on the costs payable by the Defendant. From April 2000 this rule was changed and since then success fees calculated as an uplift on costs have only been payable by the Defendant. Although we have entered in to Conditional Fee Agreements with mineworkers bringing Respiratory Disease claims we have not raised charges of any of them. If, however, as your letter seems to imply, you believe you are aware of such cases I would be most grateful if you would provide me with the details so I may investigate them and take the appropriate action."
Two matters arise from that. First, why was that company getting people to sign up to conditional fee agreements after April 2000 when it was not claiming any of the money and had
"not raised charges of any of them"?
Secondly, why does Mr. Tucker want me to send my evidence to him if he is not doing that? What is there to investigate on Irwin Mitchell's behalf if it is not doing anything about conditional fee or success fee agreements?
With all my good will, especially to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has been great in bringing the matter to the forefront and putting it in the newspapers—I am sure all hon. Members appreciate how the work load has risen in the past few months in relation to what he and those who work in our offices do—I must tell the Law
260WH
Society, which I assume will read this debate, that I raised the subject four years ago this month and it should have investigated it further. It knew what was happening in 1999 but did nothing. I am pleased that it is doing something now, but, further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, I would be happier if the Law Society, on learning of solicitors who have asked for money—whether or not they took it, as in the case that I highlighted—would go into their offices, review the cases and ensure that moneys that were wrongly stopped are paid. We must not forget that at least 50 per cent. of the cases are posthumous.
10.10 am
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr.Clapham) on initiating this necessary debate. In particular, I wish to take up his point about solicitors exploiting our communities and the people we worked alongside who are now claimants. We saw the conditions in which they worked, we saw them when their health was broken and we watched their wives and families nurse them through their illness. Their claims were justified in every way, and we must congratulate the Labour Government on taking the initiative in helping our constituents and the people with whom we worked with their claims.
As my hon. Friend said, the records that have been produced by many of the claimants have been accepted. That demonstrates that our colleagues are honest and that they have presented their cases in a truthful manner. Therefore, the matter of the exorbitant fees charged by solicitors who work on miners' health claims must be taken seriously.
I had a case in which the solicitors asked for money up front before they would take the case. When I learned of that and wrote to the solicitors, they agreed to refund the payment. That was one case; one wonders how many other solicitors requested payment up front before accepting a case on behalf of a claimant.
Not all solicitors take claimants for a ride. My hon. Friend referred to Towells of Wakefield, with which I have worked. They are effective and efficient, and have been of tremendous benefit to some claimants; the same can be said for Raleys. However, some of the other firms should not be on the list of accepted solicitors. I ask the Minister to ensure that those solicitors who have exploited claimants should not be allowed to deal with any further claims on behalf of our colleagues. We should ensure that such practices are not allowed and that exploitation does not continue.
I wish to thank the Minister for the way in which he keeps us informed of the progress of compensation claims. In the recent newsletter, he referred to solicitors' costs and the way in which the Department views claims handling organisations and the charges, fees and other deductions that are taken from any award that is made. The situation should be investigated further, and we should ensure that solicitors who exploit our colleagues are put on a blacklist.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) referred to the average solicitors' fee, which can be five times greater than the compensation paid to some claimants. Again, the

261WH
Department should investigate this matter further, because it shows that of the £1.9 billion that has been paid, an excessive amount is being paid in legal fees—an amount that is over and above the amount of compensation that has been paid. Taxpayers should not be paying solicitors for services that can be described only as partial to the claims that have been made. I hope that the Minister will take note of the concerns that we have as former mineworkers, and as members of communities that serve miners and their families. That is why I wanted to take part in today's debate: to show the support for the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone. We want to show communities that we are concerned about what is happening in the mining industry and the mining communities. I urge the Minister to take note of what Members are saying this morning.
10.16 am
Mrs. Helen Liddell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing the debate. I put on record my recognition of the enormous amount of work that he has done in relation to coal health claims. I speak with some knowledge, as I was an energy Minister when this process was getting under way. Freed of the responsibilities of ministerial office, I can follow the example set by other colleagues and talk about my experiences as a Minister. The process was rather slow to get under way. One reason for that was the activity of the solicitors negotiating settlements. The process was slow because of the fees that they wanted to charge.
I say from the start that some of my best friends are solicitors, and I pay tribute to those who have been prepared to get down to work, boots and socks, adequately to represent the mining community, even to the extent of attending miners' welfares and helping miners and their dependants to sign the forms. Miners' welfares in Scotland do not take many prisoners. I am a reasonably calm person, but the entire process has made my blood boil. The Government acknowledged their responsibilities to the miners not so that we could help to pay the school fees of solicitors or help them to buy a little place in the Dordogne, but to accept that we had a responsibility to people who had sacrificed their lives.
As a representative of a mining community, I have seen some of the worst aspects of the society in which we live. Let me begin by talking about the claims handling companies, which masquerade as good Samaritans but are vultures hovering over the dead and the dying. Many miners are very elderly and have badly failing health. This morning, as I sat in the Tea Room, I read in the Daily Record yet another advertisement front a claims handling company—Industrial Diseases and Injuries Claims Ltd. —frightening miners and their widows into thinking that a solicitor with an English office would not be able to deal with Scots law. We all know what that company is trying to do.
I will give one example. Mr. John Gardiner is an ex-miner who did not know how to process his claim. He knew that he needed a lawyer, but was frightened of
262WH
lawyers. He saw the advertisement in the newspaper and approached Industrial Diseases and Injuries Claims Ltd. because it said, "No win, no fee." He was moderately successful. I will not say how much he received, but Industrial Diseases and Injuries Claims Ltd. took 10 per cent. That is not the worst case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said, some companies can take as much as 40 per cent. However, 10 per cent was enough to pay for a nice Caribbean cruise for someone, but not for the ex-miner in my constituency. The company justified itself by saying that it had pointed out to Mr. Gardiner that its sliding-scale fees agreement allows clients to see instantly how much they will have to pay. It offers a 14-day cooling, off period, but at no point did it point out to my constituent that had he gone to another firm, he would not have had to pay a penny piece and would have been able to keep a nice little nest egg for himself.
What made me particularly angry is that the solicitors company, Corries of Scotland—in the Pentagon centre, Washington street, Glasgow—is on the approved list of solicitors. It is not a naive little company that did not know that the Government were picking up the tab for miners in relation to this issue.
I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), who was the Solicitor-General at the time. He went the distance to ensure that the profession, of which he is a distinguished member, would take on some of the inadequacies that we have seen. It is irritating that much of what the companies are doing is within the law, but it is not morally justified.
A month ago, I asked my two local newspapers—the Airdrie and Coathridge Advertiser and the Wishaw Press—to publish a warning that people should be extremely careful of leaflets put through doors by claims handling companies and solicitors. People are now frightened because the gate is coming down at the end of March. My office has been inundated—like that of every other hon. Member in Westminster Hall, no doubt—with cases of companies trying to make a quick buck on the backs of men and their families who have suffered for decades.
What the Labour Government have done in relation to coal health claims has been one of their great successes. In my constituency alone, out of a number of cases that is not huge— I have had about 280 cases—we have already seen £5 million going to a few villages. That has transformed people's lives. I am proud of that, proud of the part that I have been able to play in it, and proud of the part that my hon. Friend the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) have been able to play. However, I am ashamed that there are those in our society in the 21st century who would behave as some of the claims handling and solicitors companies have done. They should look to their morals and repay the money that they have taken away from the dead and the dying.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, I appeal for brevity. I say to the right hon. Lady that the last time I was in a miners' welfare in Scotland was about 30 years ago in the company of the grandfather of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Picking).
10.23 am
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on introducing the debate. It is one of many that have taken place in the course of the past several years since 1998 when the court decision was made. I shall refer briefly to that because it was one of the saddest days of my life as someone who worked underground for 21 years and experienced the pneumoconiosis settlement in 1976 under a previous Labour Government. At that time, we in the NUM begged and prayed of the people who were taking the Pickles case, "For God's sake don't take it into court. Settle it on the steps, because if it goes into court, the net result will be that all the miners in Bolsover and the rest of the country will have to fight a common-law settlement on an individual basis for every pneumoconiosis case."
Fortunately, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union at that time was smart, and it agreed not to take the matter into court. It was settled on the steps. What did that mean? It meant that the Labour Government had to pick up the pieces, as they usually have to do after the Tories have been in power for so long. We decided to pay out the pneumoconiosis settlements on the basis of a sliding scale. No fly-by-night solicitors were involved. The only solicitors involved were those who represented each of the 15 regions in the NUM and NACODS. The net result was that every pneumoconiosis payment was made within the space of nine months. That was a massive settlement and a great success story.
The real tragedy of the current issue, and the fact that we have to deal with fly-by-nights, vultures and all the rest is down to the decision of Welsh NACODS to secede from NACODS generally Bleddyn Hancock, the Welsh nationalist, with the house on the hill, decided to take the matter to court. He had his 15 minutes of glory on television. It was sad for me, because I knew that we were not going to get a repeat performance of the pneumoconiosis settlement, and that the process would drag on.
The result is that tin-pot solicitors have become involved—none of whom was available for the 1984 strike. We looked for solicitors when 10,000 miners were arrested, but the tin-pot solicitors could not be found to make representations for our people to the police. I agree with everyone who has a crack at them.
When, in 2001 at the manifesto meeting, prior to Labour's second success, I learned what money had been provided for the settlement of the claims, I told the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, "I think you'd better at least double that amount, because this is going to cost a lot more." I said, "I want to make a plea: for God's sake, when we double the amount from £2 billion to £4 billion," which I think will have to be doubled again the next time I go to the manifesto meeting—I am serious; it will probably be a rise of that proportion—"I hope you will not allow any more of the money to find its way into the pockets of the likes of Vendside." That goes for
264WH
the rest of them that have been mentioned, with their houses in the mountains in Wales, or wherever—it is not just the Dordogne.
That is the biggest problem and why we are here today. The sad thing is that we should be having a meeting with 20 miners' MPs and people who represent miners, congratulating the Government on picking up the bill for this massive common-law claim. I say to the media that this is not state benefit. I want them, for God's sake, when they write their little pieces, to tell people that it is not a state benefit like the old age pension. It is a common-law claim—just the same sort of claim that is made if someone has a car accident. Every one is different.
I hope that the Minister will manage to keep ahead of the game and the solicitors. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone mentioned problems in an earlier phase of the process, but one of the major problems recently has been the cut-off date. We had to set one, but the result is that all the solicitors have come out from under their stones and said, "Christ, I'd better make a packet here, before it finishes." They have been making massive money fast.
One of the real problems now is that we must deal with miners who worked for British Coal and then went to mining companies one, two, three and four. That means that there is an aggregate claim, not just one simple claim against British Coal. It is not only the solicitors: some of the mining companies are just as bad. They refuse to pay for the two years or nine months when a miner worked for them, with the result that the British Coal claim that would be settled by Aon IRISC and the Government is being held up.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone for raising the matter. As I said at the outset, it would have been wonderful if we had been here today to appreciate how great the scheme is, and the way in which the Government have footed the Bill. It would have been even better if the matter could have been settled after 12 months by the mining regions and the solicitors.
10.29 am
Mr. Kevan Jones: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on securing a debate on a subject that is of keen interest to many of my constituents. Individuals have had their compensation plundered by people whom they trusted to represent their best interests. I agree with other hon. Members that the way in which claims have been dealt with is nothing short of a national scandal. If it had been happening in the leafy suburbs of Surrey or the southeast, the issue would have been in every national newspaper, and people would be asking for action to be taken at the highest level, but because it is happening in coal communities, it is ignored.
On 18 December 2003, in the Christmas Adjournment debate, I raised the case of a Newcastle-based firm, Mark Gilbert Morse. Not content with the £10 million that it had received in fees from the Department of Trade and Industry, it was deducting up to 25 per cent. of victims' compensation in my constituency. Since I raised the case of Mark Gilbert Morse, many other

265WH
people have contacted me. It appears to be paying money back to victims—where people complain, I hasten to add.
I still have concerns about why it deducted the money in the first place. I am also concerned about the comments and contradictions made by the firm in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, which I must congratulate on the forceful manner in which it reported the story, in justifying its actions. For example, on 22 December 2003, the firm told the newspaper that it was deducting money only from claims lodged before April 2000. The senior partner, Mr. Morse, was quoted on 13 February 2004, saying that the problem stemmed from a change in the handling of mining claims in 1999, when the Government accepted liability.
That is complete nonsense. I have that agreement with me. It is dated 24 September 1999. I also have a copy of the agreement's schedule I and its annexe listing the solicitors who were party to the agreement. Turning to page 4, the name that appears at No. 17 is Mark Gilbert Morse. So, not only did the firm know, in 1999, that it was getting its costs covered, but that part of the agreement on costs. It may make excuses that it did work before 1999, but I understand that there were separate schedules to cover any work that had taken place.
Why did the firm deduct from my constituents' settlements if, in 1999, it knew that it would get its costs paid? Mr. Morse told the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, on 13 February 2004, that the firm had decided midway through 2003 that its policy of charging clients part of payments was unfair as the Government were already paying it £1,800 for successful cases. Why did the firm make its decision in mid-2003, if it already knew, and was part of the settlement, that costs would be covered in 1999? Even Mr. Morse's statement about changing the policy in mid-2003 does not hold water. I have a constituent, Mr. Steele of Stanley, from whose settlement it deducted £2,180.80 on 29 September 2003—hardly mid-2003.
John Mann: Is not the key point in law that the solicitors never told my hon. Friend's constituents that they had the alternative of going to another solicitor who would provide the service for free? Therefore, along with all the other firms—Richmonds, Raleys, Avalon, Hickmotts, Moss, Gorman Hamilton, Frank Allen Pennington, Graysons and Colemans—the Government could mount a legal challenge to get the money back.
Mr. Jones: I think that there might be a legal challenge on the individual cases. In many cases, the firm did not give client letters explaining the terms of the cases that were being pursued. I ask why one of my constituents, Mrs. Elliott, who contacted the firm in April 2003, was told that she was not entitled to get her fees back? She has now successfully had her money returned with interest. I also note that I have constituents, such as Mrs. Greener, who are still waiting for the interest on their payments.
266WH
I congratulate the Law Society on its handling of the case, as it is taking a robust stance against the firm and is investigating, although I understand that Mr. Morse told the Newcastle Evening Chronicle that no such investigation is taking place.
Finally, I touch on the issue of claims handlers. It is important that they be exposed. I refer to one company in the north-east in particular: Industrial Diseases Compensation Ltd. of Ashington, Northumberland. It charges a registration fee simply for accepting claims. It is not a firm of solicitors—it passes claims on to solicitors. In some cases, it takes a proportion of the claimant's award. I was outraged when I saw that it had taken more than £5,000 from an individual award, not for doing any work but simply for taking the case. The Law Society is now considering that case. Unfortunately the individual does not want his name mentioned. If it is scandalous for solicitors to deduct money, claims handlers are doing nothing except acting as unelected middlemen. It makes me angry.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: As we have stressed before, is it not important that now, before the deadline, when the hawks are out and the vultures are around, we should tell our people in Northumberland, Yorkshire, Scotland and Wales that they must not sign up with claim handler companies but should stick with the union solicitors?
Mr. Jones: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. The way in which some people have preyed—motivated by sheer greed—on the poor and sick makes me very angry. If those same individuals had robbed those old people using force, there would be universal calls from here and elsewhere for them to be locked up. Action must be taken, and I urge the Minister to continue the good work that he is doing so that he can right the wrong that has been done to many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members, many of whom are present.
10.36 am
Jeff Ennis: I will keep my remarks brief to allow as many Members as possible to enter the debate; an hour and a half is not long enough to discuss this very important issue.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on initiating the debate, and on the amount of time, effort and research that he has put into the matter. Money is being put into the pockets of miners and I congratulate the Government on the scheme. According to the latest figures, my constituency has received more than £33 million for vibration white finger, which is the biggest VWF settlement of any constituency. For chronic bronchitis and emphysema, we received £29.5 million. More than £63 million is going to former miners and their families in my constituency, and no one can take away the credit due to the Government for funding the scheme.
I shall comment on the take that is currently being paid out by the Government. Of all the money that has been paid out so far, 77 per cent. has gone to the miners; 13 per cent. has gone to the contractors such as Healthcall which are dealing primarily with health claims, such as medical assessments and so on; and 10

267WH
per cent. has gone to the solicitors, which most Members are focusing on today because solicitors are doing very nicely out of the scheme.
If we consider the top 10 solicitors, in the top three, Hugh James Ford Simey has received £35.8 million so far; Thompsons has received £34.6 million; and Raleys in Barnsley has received £23.7 million. Number seven on the list happens to be an organisation called the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. The list does not mention Vendside. The Department of Trade and Industry responded to a question of mine by stating that it was the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and not Vendside that received £8 million.
So, the solicitors are doing very nicely. As some of my colleagues have already said, on average a solicitor receives £465 for dealing with a VWF claim and £2,143 for dealing with a CBE claim. I shall focus on the average fee for CBE claims. Using last November's statistics, by then about 85,700 miners had received full and final payment settlements for CBE claims. Out of those, more than 40,000 had received less than the average amount that the solicitors claim—in other words, 40,000 miners received less than £2,143. Out of those 40,000, about 3,162 had received less than £200, decreasing to about £50 for the lowest payment.
When I found out that information in November, I wrote to the Minister in the following terms:
"Dear Nigel,
As you are probably aware I have recently been tabling a number of questions concerning the amount of money that is going to miners for CBE and VWF, and the money paid to the solicitors. I enclose PQ4282, which has drawn attention to the fact that we now have over 3,000 former miners who have received a full and final settlement of less than £200. Whilst at the same time the average, being paid to solicitors, dealing particularly with CBE claims is over £2.000.
I fully realise that the solicitors' fee has already been agreed by your Department over that course of time. However, I cannot believe that it is right that in some cases that the solicitors are being paid over 1,000 per cent. more than a claim settled at under £200.
There are two issues I would like to bring to your attention from this PQ. Firstly is it possible to review the charges that are currently being paid to the solicitors so that more money can be channelled to where it is needed, this being the miners. Secondly I believe that if we are paying such vast amounts of money out to solicitors and the final settlements are less than £200, then in order to make the scheme fairer consideration ought to be given to allowing a minimum compensation fee to be paid for every individual case. I would suggest that we look at the possibility of establishing a minimum £1,500 payment for a successful claim. This would then avoid the current embarrassment being generated by the solicitors' fees issue. I would appreciate your observations."
I received a reply from Ann Taylor, who was the head of the coal health claim unit at the DTI on the 28 November:
"Dear Mr. Ennis
Thank you for your letter of 10 November regarding solicitors' costs and minimum payments to claimants. I note the points you raised in your letter. The Claimants' Solicitors Group recently made a proposal to the Department regarding minimum payments to claimants, and the fees they receive. The CG are currently discussing the issue with all of their members, and hope to reach a decision shortly."
I understand that that review has now been completed, and I would like the Minister to inform the House of the result. If it was negative, I would like to ask the Minister how he intends to address this iniquitous situation? If we cannot establish a minimum £1,500 fee, as we should,
268WH
that is why I have tabled early-day motion 666, which I hope hon. Members will sign at the conclusion of this debate, if they have not already done so.
My final point, given the amount of time that is available to us, is that many former miners are still under the impression that the compensation scheme is being paid out of the mineworkers' pension fund surpluses, which are being generated from the two pension schemes. I know that that is not correct, but I would hope that the Minister would address that issue in summing up.
10.43 am
John Mann: The list of solicitors has been outlined. I would stress to the Minister that every claims handling company requires a solicitor who is prepared to take on the work. All the 18 firms that I have a dispute with have been named today.
I want to concentrate on the point in law. According to the chief executive of the Law Society, when I discussed the issue with her, it is very straightforward. Did the solicitors, or did they not, tell the individual client that they could go to another solicitor and get this work done for nothing? If they failed to do that specifically—I would suggest in writing as well as verbally—the case in law against them seems absolute. It is not about them um-ing and ah-ing about whether they choose to give good-will gestures, and some of these companies have written to me saying that they are sending cheques back to my constituents. It is about whether they should be struck off by the Law Society, which is the action the Law Society should take, or whether they should be sued by the DTI.
Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he, on behalf of the Government, request that the Law Society strike off the register all firms of solicitors that have failed to tell people about the claims handling agreement and the fact that individuals can get this work done for nothing? Secondly, is he prepared to launch legal action against all those companies, where it can be identified that they have double charged, so that the money can be returned to the people who should rightfully have it—miners, miners' widows and their families?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is little time left. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench teams for saying that they will co-operate. I apologise to the Minister, but there has been a great deal of interest in this debate, and most hon. Members have not been able to speak in it.
10.45 am
Brian Cotter: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We will severely cut our remarks in view of the time constraint.
I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for raising this matter. It is very timely as time is running out for claims. I thank also the many other speakers, including the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), who said that her blood is boiling and referred to vultures. It is a revelation to people like me, who have done some work on this issue within my party, to hear what has been going on.
In support of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I very much hope that there will be widespread publicity after this debate, not only in local newspapers in

269WH
Wales, or wherever, but nationally. This is a scandal, and it must be addressed. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that have been made—the description of a market developing, of vultures, as the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts said, the exploitation of elderly miners and their widows and the tailoring of names by firms to try to make them sound reputable, relevant and semi-official. There are many issues involved, including that of payments up front.
As it is so important for the Minister to be able to respond to the points that have been raised, I resume my place and allow him to do so.
10.46
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I, too, will not detain the Chamber for very long, because it is important that we hear from the representatives of mining communities—I am not one, although my father was a miner, and therefore I feel sympathy with the points that are being made.
I know that the Minister has done a great deal to help. Given the fact that claims are being made in relation to work carried out when mining was a nationalised industry, that there is a great deal of taxpayers' money being spent, not only on compensation but in paying solicitors to carry out the work, and that the situation does not have to arise in the first place, the only point that I would seek to make at this late hour is to ask the Minister whether there is any more that can be done to educate people who are about to make claims.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Would the hon. Gentleman now put his party on record as supporting calls for retrospective action against those companies that are refusing, against Law Society advice, to pay back this money, so that miners can claw it back one way or the other?
Mr. Robertson: It is an avenue that I do not think I should go down at this late stage. I certainly take the point on board, and I promise that I will discuss it further. I would ask the Minister whether there is any way in which a process of education of claimants can be embarked on, to let them know that there is an alternative, and that they do not effectively have to pay twice. I know that Labour Members will not take my brevity as meaning that I am not interested in this issue. I am simply allowing more time for the Minister. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on raising this issue and on the passionate way in which he and many other hon. Members have addressed it.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): This debate is about justice and fairness, which is why it is so well attended—indeed the attendance here exceeds that in the main Chamber—and why so many hon. Members have spoken with such eloquence and informed the Chamber so well. It has been one of the best-informed debates of the Session, and nobody has been better informed than my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and
270WH
Penistone (Mr. Clapham), whom I congratulate on securing this debate. It is about justice because it aims to remedy an injustice that saw hundreds of thousands of miners suffer from terrible, crippling lung diseases, and other diseases that rob them of the use of their hands. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of them died without one penny in compensation. The scheme was designed to ensure that every sick miner, their widow if they are no longer with us, or their family if both parents have passed on, receive the compensation to which they are due. In 1997 and 1998, court judgments established their right to secure compensation for those diseases.
At that time, the Department for Trade and Industry agreed a claim handling agreement with solicitors representing claimants. That agreement was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, to avoid miners individually having to go through the court one by one settling on the steps of the court. The agreement included specifically a payment to solicitors for handling successful claims. It was not just the successful claims. An element of that sum—we are reminded that it was on average about £2,100—was to cover them for the claims that were unsuccessful. That was accepted as a convenient arrangement by all and we did not expect it to be abused.
As a result 371,000 claims have been met and £1.7 billion has been paid out on both schemes. Levels of compensation range from £350 to £350,000, but the average for both schemes is £7,700. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) urges on us the need to consider a minimum figure and suggests £1,500. The judge has considered that figure in consultation with us but has some reservations about it, one of which I will share with hon. Members. If a minimum amount is set, all those who currently fall below are likely to be excluded from it, which would not be just. Those are the issues that we are wrestling with and trying to reach a fair and balanced view on, so that no one is discriminated against and everyone receives compensation.
I became aware early as Minister about what appeared to be gross overcharging by solicitors. Therefore I undertook to write to all solicitors, having studied the claims handling agreement, to spell out to them that every penny of that £1.9 billion—it could rise to £6 billion; the largest scheme of its sort in the world—should go to the sick miners, their widows or their families, and that not one penny of that compensation was to go to the solicitors, because under the claims handling agreement that we reached, solicitors were amply recompensed.
One firm, Mark Gilbert Morse, which my hon. Friend mentioned—I am pleased to confirm that a team from the Law Society is investigating it and reporting regularly to me—has received £10 million. The compensation has been generous, as has been said. I wrote to all 500 or so solicitors on our list and asked them to confirm that they were not double charging, and asked them also what action they were going to take to repay any double charging. Two hundred had responded to me by last month, so I had 300 immediately removed from our list. The Law Society has written to them separately.
Two hundred more firms have additionally come to my notice, to which we have also written. The Law Society, I am pleased to say, agreed that they were in

271WH
breach of its codes and requested that the money be refunded. There was some concern expressed by myself and other Members that the refunding process might involve said miners unhooking themselves from their ventilators and going to the solicitors to say, "Please can you revisit my claim and pay me back?" I was not having any of that and neither were other hon. Members.
I said to the Law Society that I thought it was only fair that all solicitors should be asked to investigate every record and to make repayments in the event of double payments. I am pleased that the Law Society wrote to me on 27 February in complete agreement, and has made that request. It is also writing to the additional firms that we now know about over and above the original 515 firms that we believed were handling claims to instruct them to make repayment. My hon. Friends know me well: we shall be monitoring the situation vigorously.
I want to cover all the issues that have been raised, but I know that there have been time problems with the debate, because of the intense concern of hon. Members.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I hope that DMH is one of the firms that are being looked into. It replied to Mr. Cosker in my constituency, saying:
"Having consideration to the Law Society's recent guidelines, we do not believe that we are under any obligation to reimburse Mr. Cosker the contingency fee charged."
It may not be under a legal obligation, but for goodness' sake, it is under a moral obligation.
Nigel Griffiths: I shall pass my hon. Friend a copy of the Law Society's letter. His interpretation is the same as the Law Society's: the firm is under an obligation. I shall take a personal interest in that firm.
The role of claims handlers also causes considerable concern. I am informed that the DTI does not endorse claims handlers, and never has. The message is clear: we have an agreement with the claimants' solicitors, and claims can be submitted only via solicitors. That allows the Law Society and others to regulate them.
The important issue of claims handlers and unregulated claims handlers is part of the review being carried out by David Clementi for the Department of Constitutional Affairs, which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary State. Mr. Clementi is
272WH
due to publish his initial findings in a consultation document later this month. I have spoken to many hon. Members with an interest in this matter, reminding them of the review and asking them to give Mr. Clementi evidence of gross abuses of claims handlers that have in part been highlighted in the debate. It would clearly be helpful if such evidence could inform the consultation document before it is published. However, once the document is published, we shall want to ensure that the concerns are reflected and that whatever action is recommended to the Government is studied seriously and taken.
We have also written to the Law Society about a number of firms that are in partnership with claims handlers, so that it can examine the relationship between solicitors and some of the claims handlers whose abuses have been highlighted today and elsewhere. It appears that such relationships may contravene the Law Society's rules. I shall keep hon. Members well informed and briefed on that issue too.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover rightly referred to the cut-off dates for claims. The cut-off date for the second respiratory claims scheme is the end of this month. The cut-off date for the vibration white finger scheme was some time last year. Hon. Members will be reassured to know that there was not the chaos that had been predicted. That is a tribute to the terrific staff we fund at the DTI to look after the schemes. They have done a tremendous job, and I was grateful for hon. Members' words of appreciation. As hon. Members can imagine, they have never been busier.
I want to echo the important message that has emerged this morning. Everybody who thinks that they may be eligible to claim for a respiratory disease—not just those who are sick, but the widows of miners or their children if the parents are no longer with us—should submit a claim now, through an approved, reliable and trusted solicitor. I know that all hon. Members who have been busy assisting, counselling and even, I am sure, helping to complete some of the forms will be active over the next few weeks.
If there are any other matters that I have not dealt with, I shall be happy to report back to the working group and to other hon. Members who have raised valid points.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank hon. Members for their co-operation, and for the quality of debate.

Cold Callind
11 am
Mr. Paul Truswell: I do not intend to cover every aspect of cold calling. My objective is to secure three things from the Minister: first, a recognition of the scale of the problem; secondly, a readiness to take serious and robust measures; and, thirdly, an assurance that the Government will take a joined-up approach.
Cold calling covers a multitude of sins and some not so sinful activities. I shall concentrate on the unquestionably criminal activities of distraction burglars, con merchants and fraudsters, as well as those activities that although not necessarily illegal, are immoral in the true sense of the word.
Although we are all potentially vulnerable to crime generated by cold calling, research shows that the typical victim is an 81-year-old woman living alone. With the exception of crimes against children, nothing fills me with greater anger and disgust than the actions of those who cynically target and exploit vulnerable older people, robbing them not only of their pensions, their savings and their treasured possessions, but of something far more damaging—their pride, their self-respect and, in some cases, their independence and even the will to live. No criminal better deserves the description of scum of the earth.
Cold calling is called the Leeds crime because it started there in the 1960s following heavy, destructive storms. The resulting damage presented con men with a heaven-sent opportunity. It is fitting that Leeds should remain at the forefront of tackling the crime.
My involvement with cold calling and distraction burglary goes back about six years. I have been closely involved in a campaign against a rogue company called Midland Coating. Its tactic was to offer people free property surveys, to scare them into believing that their homes were about to fall apart, and then charge the earth for unnecessary, negligible and often shoddy work.
As a result of a successful campaign to get Midland Coating closed, in which the Yorkshire Evening Post played a brilliant role, I was contacted by Claire Morrow of the Leeds distraction burglary project steering group. It soon became clear that although Midland Coating represented the bad side of doorstep calling, distraction burglary was downright ugly.
I was pleased to assist the project in lobbying the Home Office for a grant of £500,000. That was money well spent on a wide range of valuable initiatives. I am sure that a great deal can be learned nationally from that experience. I was delighted that lottery moneys enabled a successor project, the Leeds community distraction burglary initiative, to follow in its footsteps. It was a privilege to be asked to launch it a few weeks ago.
My involvement brought me into contact with Brian Steele, a former detective chief superintendent, who became the project's co-ordinator. His infectious, crusading spirit and his advocacy played a key role in moving distraction burglary up the agenda, not only locally but nationally. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister knows Brian only too well.
When the project came to an end, Brian's obvious expertise was snapped up by the astute head of North Yorkshire trading standards, Stuart Pudney, on behalf
274WH
of a consortium of northern trading standards authorities. I am now working with them and the Trading Standards Institute on a parliamentary campaign for a law to ban cold calling for the purpose of offering property repairs. That would help to address the favourite modus operandi of distraction burglars and other criminals. It would also deal with those whose unscrupulous activities, while not necessarily illegal in the strict sense, are designed to fleece vulnerable and unwary people.
My hon. Friend will be aware of early-day motion 219, and the Property Repairs (Prohibition of Cold-Calling) Bill, adopted by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), which is due to have its Second Reading on 12 March I look forward to that. He will also be aware of the excellent and hard-hitting newspaper campaign undertaken by the Yorkshire Evening Post in our area. Indeed, newspapers throughout the land have conducted impressive campaigns, including the Nottingham Evening Post and The Northern Echo.
I appreciate that the Minister awaits the Office of Fair Trading's report into the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux's super-complaint on cold calling. That has taken considerably longer than we all anticipated, although I appreciate that one of the main reasons is the commissioning of extra research on the prevalence of nefarious cold calling, which is still underestimated. I also realise that any Government would introduce a ban only as a last resort. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that those who must grapple with the issue daily are now talking about a ban as a last resort, having tried other approaches.
My hon. Friend will have heard Brian Steele describe how, as head of the West Yorkshire murder squad, he investigated the cruel and vicious murder of Isobel Gray. Isobel, an 82-year-old lady, severely disabled with curvature of the spine, was a serious victim of bogus property repairs and was eventually murdered by distraction burglars. They violently forced their way into her home, tortured her to discover the location of the cash that they knew she kept there, broke her back and left her to choke to death on her own vomit. That case in particular leads me to call a cold calling Bill "Isobel's Bill". It is said that good cases make bad law, but that is so when ill-considered legislation is rushed through as a knee-jerk reaction. Isobel Gray died seven years ago this month, so Isobel's law would not have been conceived on such a rushed basis.
My hon. Friend will also be aware of Brian Steele's research into distraction burglary, which involved interviewing a significant number of distraction burglars in prison. He describes graphically how they showed not the slightest remorse for their crimes; how older people were mere impersonal objects in their cunning and proud trade, as they saw it; how they could "smell" the money in an older person's home; how they were prepared, if thwarted, to do what they called "a naughty one" and use violence to achieve their ends; and how they bought and sold the names of victims—victims, presumably, like Isobel Gray. We need to operate at every level, from the Government down, to block the distraction burglar and literally form a human shield against the con artist and the rip-off merchant.

275WH
That will not be an easy task. Last year, the Trading Standards Institute published a survey about doorstep selling. Some 9,000 randomly selected householders across the UK were asked to give their views on, and experiences of, doorstep callers. Not surprisingly, 96 per cent. said that they did not want doorstep sellers at all and only 0.1 per cent.—my arithmetic tells me that that is nine people out of 9,000—welcomed doorstep calling. It can therefore be said with some justification that in terms of public support we are pushing at an open door in calling for restrictions on cold calling. In the survey, 61.5 per cent. of householders reported receiving cold callers in the previous month, which is a very high rate indeed. Worryingly, up to 21 per cant. of householders reported having had a bad experience with a cold-calling doorstep seller, but only a small proportion of those reported it to the authorities, either to the police or trading standards.
Also of great concern was the low level of household security. Only 13.4 per cent. of people reported ever asking for identification and only 1.3 per cent.—a handful—ever checked it out. Even such basic measures as the use of door chains were disappointingly low, with 40 per cent. of householders having had one fitted, but only 6 per cent. ever using it.
The survey on bogus caller crime that Help the Aged conducted in summer 2003 added weight to those findings. According to the survey, police reports from 2001–02 and 2002–03 showed an average of 19,030 reported distraction burglary crimes in England and Wales a year. The survey, however, suggested that between 300,000 and 400,000 people aged 60 or over in Great Britain may have been approached by suspicious callers or distraction burglars in the past year alone.
Clearly, not all of those callers will have been distraction burglars. However, the results do show the level of cold calling and the potential for such crimes. Findings from the survey would also suggest that suspicious callers have gained entrance to the homes of approximately 180,000 people and that they will have stolen from approximately 122,000 of those.
The apparent underestimate of levels of distraction burglary may be down to a number of factors, which have been well rehearsed in the past. Those include inconsistencies in the way in which police forces collect figures. Victims of distraction burglary may also choose not to report the offence because of embarrassment or for other reasons. Many people have a fear of engaging in the criminal justice system and a fear that it will increase their vulnerability by identifying them as potential victims of crime. Some victims may even fail to recognise that valuables are missing from their home or may not link stolen moneys to a previous distraction burglary incident.
Many older adults—39 per cent. in the survey—did not report their experience of a suspicious caller to the police, particularly when the caller did not gain entrance to the home. Encouraging the reporting of such incidents to the police could greatly assist the identification and mapping of the activities of those particular criminals. Alarmingly, 25 per cent. of older people reported that they did not regularly lock their doors, making them even more vulnerable to such
276WH
opportunistic crime. When faced with an unknown caller, 25 per cent. of respondents reported that they opened the door without taking any precautions.
Almost one third of respondents reported feeling worried some or all of the time when answering their door to someone they did not know. A huge proportion of people over 60 are fearful of what is waiting for them on the other side of the door. Eleven per cent. of respondents reported that they wanted help with the upkeep of the outside of their home, 9 per cent. wanted help with repairs to the inside of their home and another 9 per cent. wanted help with their gardens. Such a degree of need and of unmet need is obviously fertile territory for the operation of distraction burglars and bogus property repairers.
Local projects, such as the Leeds distraction burglary project and its successor, can of course do their utmost to reach vulnerable older people and raise awareness. We can give out the message about getting a chain and using it. We can tell people to check identity. We can make our targets harder. We can develop cold-calling protocols with utility companies and local authorities. However, people will always continue to remain vulnerable, too trusting or confused and will need far more help than that. That is why we need a multi-agency approach, not only locally, but underpinned by a similar cross-departmental national approach at central Government level.
The murkier side of cold calling presents a challenge that cannot be tackled by one Department or by one Minister, no matter how much we love and respect him. It is when community safety meets consumer protection, public health, social services and housing services. Community safety and crime are clearly the responsibility of the Home Office. However, the lead role now placed on local authorities means that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also a major player. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for consumer protection. The ability to cope at home, especially for our more vulnerable citizens, whatever their age, is a concern of the Department of Health, and of social services. Housing—a crucial part of the process—is a principal responsibility of the ODPM.
It is crucial that at least those Departments form the four legs of a sound stool, and not four separate stools through which the issues and, more importantly, the victims can fall. That is why we need a national taskforce to tackle the issue and the problems that it creates.
If a bogus caller gains entry and steals something, that is currently the responsibility of the police and the Home Office. However, if the caller claims to have carried out some work, no matter how minimal, shoddy or unnecessary, and then defrauds the householder of hundreds if not thousands of pounds, that is the responsibility of trading standards and the DTI. Both trading standards and police forces have many initiatives under way locally and nationally, but at a national level there needs to be joined-up thinking and joined-up working. A national taskforce would help to achieve that. The message to fit and use door chains is not just relevant to home security, and hence the Home Office, but should be reinforced by other Departments, such as the DTI, the Department of Health, the ODPM and others who deal with older and vulnerable adults.

277WH
We have a single assessment procedure whereby people, particularly older adults, are assessed for the services that they need to maintain an independent lifestyle in their own homes. The scheme is a wonderful opportunity to assess home security and to take a few minutes to talk to people about dealing with doorstep callers. However, that rarely happens because the scheme operates under the aegis of a particular Department.
I shall finish as I started. This is a huge problem. We do not want to frighten vulnerable people, especially older people, but we do need to protect them, and we cannot play down the problem of cold calling. We can protect them only if there is a recognition of the scale of the problem, a readiness to take firm action and a coordinated response at national and local levels.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on securing the debate. He knows that I share his concerns. I am well aware of his interest in cold-calling crime and consumer detriment. I attended the seminar organised by him and the Trading Standards Institute on 4 February. It was a very worthwhile event, and I listened with great interest to what was said. I commend my hon. Friend and others who spoke—the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), the head of North Yorkshire trading standards and regulatory services, and former Detective Chief Superintendent Brian Steele—on their hard work in drawing attention to what I fully acknowledge is a serious problem. I was as alarmed as anyone to hear about the case of Isobel Gray and the torture that she suffered at the hands of people who dealt with her unmercifully. I know Brian Steele well. His portrayal of that event was very graphic but very relevant to the problem we face.
Cold calling by bogus or exploitative traders, who usually offer overpriced or substandard goods or services, is economically detrimental to consumers. Moreover, the targets for rogue traders in that sector are often vulnerable people, so detriment is often compounded by distress. That is clearly unacceptable. I am aware of the evidence linking cold calling that offers property services with crimes such as distraction burglary, which adds another unacceptable perspective to the problem. Sadly, such crimes have also been linked to cold callers claiming to represent a range of commercial and public bodies, including the utility companies and the health and social services. For those reasons, I am perfectly willing to agree that we must seriously consider tackling the problem and protecting consumers.
I am very conscious of the fact that the problems related to cold calling can be compounded by the fact that straightforward consumer detriment is a matter for local trading standards and that doorstep crime is a matter for the police. This reflects existing law and the role of the enforcement authorities, but the rogues can exploit the situation, as my hon. Friend said. Several initiatives aimed at improving co-operation between trading standards and the police are already tackling the problem with some success and I want such cooperation to become the norm throughout the country.
278WH
There is also scope for closer co-operation between Departments with a policy interest in the subject to support the necessary co-operation at local level. My hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety referred to that in a similar debate held before Christmas. She emphasised the importance of not allowing the problem to fall between the gaps that exist between departmental responsibilities. I endorse that sentiment wholeheartedly and would be happy to work with ministerial colleagues to help to develop more coordinated approaches to the problem. Officials in my Department and the Home Office have been in close contact on the issue for some time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey said, however, other Departments need to be involved, and I have suggested to my hon. Friend the Minister that we set up a cross-departmental committee of Ministers to examine the problem in greater detail.
The problems associated with the cold calling practised by various types of rogue trader do not exist in a vacuum. My hon. Friend is aware that the Government are already committed to a thorough review of the doorstep selling market as a whole. He referred to NACAB, now called Citizens Advice. It published "Door to Door", a report on doorstep selling, in 2002. The report contained evidence of the problems experienced by clients of citizens advice bureaux with a range of goods and services. It also contained several recommendations for improving consumer protection, which included the recommendation that traders trading in consumer goods should be under a general legal duty to trade fairly in the United Kingdom and in all other European Union states. That should be enforceable through stop now orders.
The report also recommended that the regulations on doorstep selling should be changed to provide a cooling-off period of 14 days for all contracts made in consumers' homes, irrespective of whether the visit was solicited by the consumer. Another recommendation is that the provision in the regulations on doorstep selling, under which the right to cancel in effect falls if a purchase is incorporated into the home during the cooling-off period, should be changed so that the cancellation right remains for the full period.
In addition to the obligatory mention in the sale contract, consumers should get a separate notice explaining their right to a cooling-off period and to cancel a contract. All consumers should be given a standard leaflet during any doorstep sale. It should be independently produced and include key information about the consumer's rights, questions to ask the salesman and sources of further information and advice, including how to complain and report traders who do not comply with the law.
The NACAB report was submitted to the Office of Fair Trading as a super-complaint under the terms of the Enterprise Act 2002. During national consumer week 2002, the OFT announced that it would investigate the super-complaint. The investigation has considered practice in other European Union member states and the problems of bogus and exploitative trading. Possible outcomes of the investigation include: enforcement action by the OFT's competition enforcement and consumer regulation enforcement divisions; referral of the market to the Competition Commission;

279WH
recommendations for changes in laws and regulations; recommendations to regulators. self-regulators and other bodies to consider changes to their rules; and campaigns to promote consumer education and awareness.
As my hon. Friend said, the investigation has taken longer than expected. That is partly because it has been necessary to consider many issues across various sectors in the doorstep selling market as a whole, but the OFT is expected to publish its report and recommendations in April. I look forward to the report and assure hon. Members that any recommendations will be carefully considered.
There is no doubt that cold calling by certain types of rogue traders may be a source of consumer detriment and distress. However, we must also recognise that although unscrupulous traders operate in the doorstep selling market, there are also a great many legitimate and reputable traders conducting business. Of course, it is clearly in the best interests of legitimate traders if the rogues are put out of business, not least because that would remove unfair and unscrupulous competition. When the OFT first announced that it would investigate the doorstep selling market in response to the super-complaint, it made it clear that it did not consider doorstep selling intrinsically wrong and that it could even be useful for some people, such as the housebound. I agree with that.
By way of example, the Direct Selling Association, which imposes stringent codes of practice on its members, estimates that that form of trading is a distribution channel which in the UK accounts for sales in excess of £4 billion per annum across a wide range of products and services. The DSA also estimates that almost 500,000 people are engaged in direct selling either full or part-time. Those are significant figures.
Mr. Truswell: We accept that it is because of the arguments that the Minister deploys that the Property Repairs (Prohibition of Cold-Calling) Bill is narrowly and specifically focused on those who solicit work for property repair or maintenance purposes. As such, it has the support of the Federation of Master Builders.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend, who acknowledges the need for that narrow focus. I just wanted to describe the market's wider position.
The consumer protection measures that are in place provide the context for the OFT investigation and the NACAB report. Consumers purchasing goods or services at the door are directly protected by legislation known as the doorstep selling regulations, which consist of the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987, as amended by the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) (Amendment) Regulations of 1988 and 1998. My hon. Friend knows those regulations well. Collectively, they give consumers the right to a seven-day cooling-off period during which they may cancel an agreement to buy goods or services worth more than £35 from a trader whose visit was unsolicited. The regulations also provide that consumers who agree to a visit following an unsolicited doorstep approach retain
280WH
their right to a seven-day cooling-off period. In addition, traders who fail to inform consumers in writing of their right to a cooling-off period commit a criminal offence. Door-to-door sellers must provide a notice setting out cancellation rights when any agreement is made. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable, whether a deposit is paid or not.
Since the first set of regulations implemented the doorstep selling directive in the UK in 1987, the protection for consumers has been further improved by subsequent regulation. I would expect the OFT to consider the effectiveness of the protection that the regulations now provide.
The Government are committed to placing empowered consumers at the centre of an effective competition regime. That means that consumers should be properly protected and informed to promote effective competition. Bogus or exploitative traders represent unfair competition to legitimate businesses. To help achieve their objective, the Government have introduced several new measures to protect and inform consumers.
The Enterprise Act 2002 introduced the new concept of super-complaints and provided the legislative framework for the Office of Fair Trading to conduct an investigation of the doorstep selling market. It also included provisions to strengthen the powers available to enforcement authorities to tackle the activities of rogue traders. Stop now orders, which were introduced in 2001 by implementing the injunctions directive, created a new enforcement regime across a wide range of consumer protection legislation. Designated enforcement authorities could then apply to the courts for stop now orders to stop the practices of rogue traders if they went against the collective interests of consumers. The Act has extended that protection across an even wider range of consumer protection legislation, particularly in the service sector.
Another way in which we are informing and empowering consumers is by developing consumer support networks, which bring together organisations to plan and deliver better, more accessible and more joined-up support for local consumers. Throughout Britain, the networks are helping to raise awareness of consumer issues. That includes placing considerable emphasis on issues relating to sales in the home, particularly where vulnerable or older consumers are involved.
The Government have also made up to £30 million of new money available over a three-year period to roll out a new national consumer helpline—Consumer Direct—which is perhaps the most exciting development in consumer advice for a generation. With a single, widely publicised number, it will be a powerful tool for providing consumer advice throughout Britain. No matter where consumers live, they will be able to access reliable, independent help on consumer matters via their own phone for the price of a local-rate call. For those who prefer it, the service will be available online. At the beginning of the year, I announced the four regions that would start operating as pathfinders for the Consumer Direct service this summer. They are Scotland, Wales, the south-west and—my hon. Friend will happy about this—Yorkshire and Humber. Taken together, those measures strongly demonstrate the Government's real

281WH
commitment to protecting the interests of consumers—particularly vulnerable consumers—from the activities of rogue and bogus traders.
My hon. Friend will know that the Trading Standards Institute launched a national survey on cold calling at the same time as the Office of Fair Trading announced its market study of doorstep selling. The result of the TSI survey was a report entitled "Door to Door Cold Calling of Property Repairs, Maintenance and Improvements—Long Overdue for Statutory Control". The report concluded that there was clear evidence to demonstrate significant consumer detriment from cold calling in relation to property services. In addition, the TSI concluded that the sector attracts criminal elements who, as my hon. Friend said, are willing to take advantage of consumers and to engage in more direct criminal activity. The report's recommendations included introducing a statutory prohibition on salesmen calling on householders unannounced to offer home improvements. The report has provided the OFT market study with important input by highlighting problems in the property services sector, and I commend the institute on its valuable work.
As my hon. Friend said, the report led directly to the private Member's Bill to be introduced by the hon. Member for Blaby. The Bill calls for a ban on cold calling to offer property repairs and maintenance. We are all looking forward to its Second Reading on 12 March. I have had two useful discussions with the hon. Gentleman about the Bill and its aims. I have not yet seen it in its published form and it would, in any case, be inappropriate for me to comment on it before Second Reading. However, the Office of Fair Trading expects to make public both its position on a cold-calling ban and its full market study report in anticipation of next week's debate. I cannot anticipate what those will say, but they will clearly help to inform the debate, and I welcome such action.
I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend and his associates for their excellent work in focusing attention on the serious problems associated with some types of cold calling. I assure him that I am sympathetic to their aims. As the Minister with responsibility for consumers, I take all forms of rogue trading, and the detriment and distress that they cause, very seriously. The impact of such practices on consumers—not least vulnerable consumers—is unacceptable and we must make every effort to put the rogues out of business. The Government have shown a strong commitment to protecting consumers' interests. In keeping with that commitment, I can assure my hon. Friend that all the options for improving protections for consumers from bogus or exploitative cold callers will be carefully considered.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Osteoporosis
2 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the debate, which I have secured for several reasons. Like a great many Members, I have received lots of letters and cards in connection with a recent campaign by the National Osteoporosis Society about the recommendations of the National institute for Clinical Excellence. Several of the moving and affecting letters that I have received led to complicated casework, which has highlighted some of the difficulties of the matter.
The issue affects many people in the House. I note that 161 Members signed the early-day motion in the name of the chairman of the all-party group on osteoporosis, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin), and that another 72 signed a virtually identical early-day motion in the name of the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison). I am not sure why there should be any tribalism on the subject, which is fundamentally non-controversial. However, as a result of those two initiatives, more than 235 Members have expressed their support for the society and its work, and their concerns about the problems that the widespread illness presents.
Another reason why I have a personal interest in the matter is that one of the first initiatives that I took after entering the House in 1997 was to introduce a ten-minute Bill on the role of the elderly more generally in the national health service. I tried, as one does, to introduce provisions on non-discrimination in the health service as it affects elderly patients. However, a lot has happened since then: the national service framework has been introduced, and there is now much greater sensitivity toward osteoporosis, which has become a pretty central issue. Much progress has been made, but there are serious problems.
The osteoporosis arguments are very much at the heart of bigger debates on the health service and how we shift the emphasis from dealing with disease to prevention. Although that is an attractive slogan, it is difficult to realise in practice, as this case makes all too clear. I want to focus on the issue too because it raises some challenging questions about the role of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Most of us accepted that the underlying philosophy behind NICE was right. We thought it important to have an independent body to make professional, objective assessments of drug; rather than to rely on lobbying by companies, fashion, doctors or press campaigns. The aim was to have an objective, detached institution that was separate from Ministers to make such judgments.
Although the role of NICE has been vindicated, what has happened with osteoporosis is alarming: in many ways, the initial ruling—the technical assessment— appeared to cut the ground from under the argument in favour of prevention One is left with two potentially alarming explanations. One is that the methodology employed by NICE is flawed. If the health economics that underlie it are unsound, that raises wider questions. The second explanation, which is even more alarming, is that the case that most of us made for placing much more emphasis on prevention rather than dealing with disease may be flawed. The first explanation is likely to

283WH
be the issue. Therefore, the case of osteoporosis raises not only specific issues but more fundamental questions about what NICE is doing and about its reputation, which has been somewhat damaged by this episode.
All that means that we are in a worrying position: many people, particularly won't have been left stranded, because they have been advised by doctors and the media not to take hormone replacement therapy. Some 1.7 million women use HRT; they have been advised that it enhances the risk of cancer. Indeed, if they read this morning's Daily Mail, they will also have been advised that it enhances the risk of stroke. Many of them are ceasing to use it, but they are in a kind of limbo in which alternative drug treatments appear uncertain and NICE is unwilling to make positive recommendations—certainly on newer drugs. Therefore, such women have been left in what has been called NICE blight—an unsatisfactory situation that is unlikely to be resolved until June 2005, when a revised version of the NICE report will be published.
I want to set out a few of the basic facts, with which the Minister and many hon. Members will be familiar, although it does no harm to rehearse them. Osteoporosis is an extensive illness that affects one in three women over the age of 50 and one in 12 men—3 million people altogether, of whom probably 250,000 have an acute form. It almost certainly leads to about 300,000 fractures a year. There is a much uncertainty about the specifics, because in many cases the disease is difficult to define precisely, but probably between 70,000 and 85,000 are hip fractures and another 50,000 are wrist fractures. I have seen quite wide variations in the estimates, but there are probably 100,000—perhaps fewer—spinal fractures a year. The literature suggests that the position is not static, but that the incidence of the disease and of fractures is growing rapidly, and for simple demographic reasons: the population is getting older, and there are more frail and elderly people, particularly frail and elderly women, who are prone to the illness.
The consequences of osteoporosis are not simply the obvious ones. Once a fracture has occurred, not only is the probability of a repeat fracture considerably enhanced, many people become crippled, with the attendant consequences of immobility, care costs and so on. Moreover, the illness gives rise to enhanced rates of mortality, as apparently 20 per cent. of those who have hip fractures die within a year. There may be other reasons for that; it may not be a direct cause and effect, but it is a rather worrying link.
The impact on the NHS is substantial. It has been calculated that the cost to the NHS of hip fractures alone is about £1. 7 billion—so it is much higher for osteoporosis in general. Osteoporosis also makes a heavy demand on orthopaedic beds, accounting for an estimated 800,000 bed nights. Probably at any one time, 20 to 25 per cent. of beds in orthopaedic wards are blocked—I know that that is a pejorative term and we should perhaps be careful with it—mainly by elderly people with osteoporosis.
I want to touch on two issues relating to the policy response. The first is the role of the national service framework, in which the Government have been central. Secondly, I want to say something further about NICE, its recommendations and their consequences. I believe that there is general acknowledgement among those
284WH
involved with the disease that standard 6—the step forward taken in 2001—was positive. Tribute has been paid to those who campaigned for that and to the Government's role in delivering it. It was a big step forward, and I have no criticism of it. It had several positive outcomes. It led to awareness of the need for osteoporosis work at primary and secondary care level; to the need to deal with falls and their prevention; and to greater concern about prevention and risk assessment.
Mr. David Drew: I apologise for missing the hon. Gentleman's first words. I want to raise a problem with the issue of falls and osteoporosis. A retired general practitioner, Dr. Jonathan Bayly, who produced a report for the National Osteoporosis Society, did some valuable work on fall prevention. Of course, it involves trying to prove a negative. The local primary care trust has been unwilling to widen the scheme beyond one practice, where it tries to pinpoint women who are likely to suffer from osteoporosis. Is that not a particular problem? It is difficult at present to prove how valuable preventive work is. What does the hon. Gentleman feel about that?
Dr. Cable: That is a thoughtful and appropriate intervention. Concern about the problem that the hon. Gentleman describes is quite widely shared. When NICE published its report on falls and how to prevent them, the National Osteoporosis Society described its work as muddled and lacking in cohesion. Even the experts have had the same difficulty in linking the various elements as he and the GP whom he mentioned have had, so the point is perfectly valid.
Although the national service framework has been launched with the positive objectives that I described, those who have been following the issue most closely have several concerns. Despite the creation of the framework, there is, for example, little evidence that many PCTs are taking the issue very seriously. I think that only 20 per cent. of PCTs even mention the framework in their local plans. Also, very little monitoring is being done. Clearly, one does not want to argue for a large bureaucracy and monitoring for its own sake, but there appears to be little monitoring other than that which the society conducts.
The skeletal evidence that exists suggests that Britain still lags way behind other European countries in the extent of scanning. Large numbers of people with fractures are still released from hospitals without having been scanned. There is also a lack of linkage between the genuinely pioneering preventive work in primary care and that in the secondary care sector, where such standards are not matched. The national service framework standard 6 is an important step forward, but the big question is how we put more energy into it and take it forward.
The other policy question arises in connection with NICE and its technical studies, particularly those on three contentious drugs that required evaluation, of the five drugs that were studied. Those drugs were—I am not a scientist, so I shall have to read their names to ensure that I do not get them wrong—bisphosphonates, raloxifene and teriparatide. Three major conclusions were derived from that technical work, which have rather worrying implications for osteoporosis sufferers.

285WH
First, NICE strongly advised in its initial draft that there should not be preventive use of drugs by people who do not have a fracture. In other words, NICE questioned the principle of using drugs for prevention. Secondly, even for people who have fractures, there is a tight definition of risk that excludes many of the variables that people in the field recognise as important predictors, thereby considerably narrowing the range of drug use. Thirdly, the lack of confidence in raloxifene and teriparatide prevents the use of drugs for dealing with spinal vertebrae osteoporosis and fractures resulting from it.
The society and many people who have written to us were alarmed by those outcomes for several reasons—one of which was that they appeared totally to contradict the work in the national service framework and to undermine the current preventive work, let alone its expansion. The findings have also opened up the possibility that people who cannot use bisphosphonates—the established drugs—because of their side effects will have no other drug treatment open to them.
As a consequence of the objections that were raised, NICE is having a fresh look and a report will appear in just over a year's time. The result of the whole exercise, however, has been to raise doubts about the methodology. Again, I am not a specialist or scientist in the field, but critics of the process made some rather obvious points that question the basic scientific rigour.
For example, it was noted that the studies failed to establish the connection between the use of such drugs for osteoporosis and their value in other fields such as cancer prevention. They appeared to assume that each fracture had equal value for health economics, when in fact repeat fractures increase the probability of a return. Simple mistakes seem to have been made—a serious consequence of which is that the lives of large numbers of people, particularly women, are blighted because they cannot progress with drug therapy and it is uncertain which treatment is appropriate.
An unintended consequence of the uncertainty surrounding the subject has been that it has drawn attention to one area in which prevention can be improved: people's lifestyles and diets. We all pay lip service to lifestyle and diet, but they are becoming the first line of defence in the absence of a satisfactory agreement on drug treatment. Some of the conclusions that emerged from the dietary research underline much of what we say about other diseases: smoking and alcohol add to the risk; plenty of exercise reduces risk; and fruit and vegetables are good preventers. All those good messages are reinforced in the case of osteoporosis.
In addition, there is a large body of evidence on the importance of calcium in milk drunk at early stages of growth and of vitamins D and K. Milk is important. Some 30 years ago, I was part of the campaign to try to stop the withdrawal of milk from schools. It was a major political issue more than a generation ago, but the battle was lost. The rationale for withdrawing milk was that it was originally provided to deal with rickets, and that as rickets was disappearing, we might not need to worry
286WH
too much about it in future. However, evidence is emerging that lack of milk in early years is a major factor in increasing the risk of osteoporosis later in life. The National Dairy Council is quite properly putting the issue back on the agenda. I am not suggesting that the spending commitments of the Government or the Liberal Democrats should include free school milk; as the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, I would not be very popular with my colleagues if I suggested that. None the less, reintroducing milk as central to preventive care is an important theme.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: I was one of the primary school children who were affected by the withdrawal of milk. My childhood memory is of leftover crates of milk, because the milk was invariably of poor quality, it had usually gone off, and was rarely drunk. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that bone mineral density is certainly increased by diet and by milk, but that the evidence relating to the incidence of fractures and their prevention is less clear-cut?
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman speaks with medical authority. His conclusions, which I read in the literature, are straightforward, and I accept his point.
Another finding concerns acidity and relates—I believe—to the risk of fracture rather than to bone density. The hon. Gentleman has not yet referred to that finding, but it is quite interesting, and perhaps he will comment on it later. A conclusion that is emerging about diet is that all that sparkling water in this Chamber is extremely helpful in preventing osteoporosis fractures. There is, however, a negative side to the story: Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola are risky substances that appear to be very damaging to our hone structure. I do not know whether the Minister intends to campaign against those companies, but if he reads the literature, he will probably conclude that he should.
I draw my thoughts together by asking the Minister a few questions. This is not a highly polemic subject, let alone a party political one, but there are issues that we need to address. First, how do we bring energy and life into national service framework standard 6, given the somewhat negative and even cynical comments about its effectiveness at grass-roots level? What can be done to reinvigorate it?
Secondly, what happens when what NICE says diametrically opposes the national service framework? Will Ministers express a view, or will they let the process of professional comment and interaction between bureaucracies work itself out? There is clearly a problem. Thirdly, w hat happens about blight? We are in a difficult position because women, in particular, are highly uncertain al out what preventive measures to take, given that all such measures are unapproved or risky. What advice is given? How does one reduce blight?
Fourthly, is the Department monitoring hormone replacement therapy? Are there numbers to show how rapidly it is tailing off? Given the frequent changes in clinical assessment, what advice is now being given? Lastly. the importance of lifestyle choices is growing, although some are controversial, while others are not. What role do the Government have in ensuring that lifestyle choices are improved, particularly as regards osteoporosis?
2.21 pm
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on selecting this subject for debate. I also apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister and to others in the Chamber, as I must leave just before 3 o'clock for another engagement.
I must declare an interest as a patron of the Dumfriesshire osteoporosis support group, which has been in existence for about six years. The group's chairman, Mrs. Margery Wilkins, is a trustee of the National Osteoporosis Society. As such, she represents all sufferers and support groups in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned NICE, to which I shall return later. I fully appreciate that it covers only England and Wales, and not Scotland. When I spoke to the Minister, he assured me that NICE's recommendations on a host of issues were recognised throughout the world, but not in Scotland. I am sure that he will enlighten us about that.
Sandra Gidley: I believe that Scotland has a separate system called SIGN, or the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network. When the Select Committee on Health examined the phenomenon—I hesitate to say problem—that is NICE, it was supportive of the Scottish system, which seemed to be quicker and to provide more practical advice.
Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She is right. Although we have devolution in the UK, practice on either side of the border is not completely at odds.
As I said, my local group has been in existence for about six years, and I want to give colleagues an indication of some of the good work that it is doing. The group produced the National Osteoporosis Society healthy bones packs and, with a grant from the Lloyds TSB Foundation for Scotland, it distributed them to all the primary schools in Dumfries and Galloway 10 months ago. That goes back to the point about prevention in the early years, when people can take on board issues that will help in later life.
In my area, people initially went to West Cumberland hospital in Whitehaven for DXA scans. If necessary, that was followed by a meeting with the bone nurse. Given the pressure in the area, we purchased a DXA scanner through public subscription. However, even after many months, it was receiving little usage. People were still going to Whitehaven, and those who know the geography of the area will know that getting there and back is a significant journey. I added my support to the local osteoporosis group and we were able to put pressure on the local health trust to develop a strategy to enable better use of the DXA scanner. I am delighted to report that an expanding service is now being provided to sufferers and that the group is now well established at Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary.
The chairperson of my local group contacted me in early January because NICE had published on its website the consultation document prepared by the technology appraisal committee. She was considerably concerned as the document was in draft form. I want to give hon. Members a flavour of the concerns that arose from that initial posting, although I appreciate that the
288WH
consultation period finished on 23 January, that we have moved on and that the Minister will update us. The chairperson wrote:
"To deny a DXA scan to those over 65 with a broken bone is to deny them and their doctor a base line from which to assess whether their bisphosphonate treatment is effective or not".
In her case, the scan results showed that the bisphosphonate drug Fosamax alone was not proving effective, and until Fosamax was combined with HRT, calcium and vitamin D, her bone density continued to decline. Had she been denied a scan, none of that would have been discovered.
She went on to say:
"For those under 65 to have to wait for treatment until their T score is as low as stated by the NICE proposals, is counterproductive in terms of fracture risk and positively cruel. Many people with T scores less severe than this do suffer pain from wedged vertebrae."
The big question was: were they being denied the basic human right to have the disease arrested and further fractures prevented? All in all, the draft proposals that were posted caused concern. I am delighted that that letter allowed me to take the opportunity to write to Lord Warner, the Minister with responsibility for NICE, who got back to me and fully explained what was happening.
I said that I would keep my comments brief, and that is basically as much as I want to say. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham. As he has said, this is a debilitating illness. Early intervention is vital. I have given the example of my local group, which believes that the starting point should be in schools. Those who suffer need to be listened to, and I hope and pray that they are. The National Osteoporosis Society, an extremely well-organised national body, needs to be listened to. The real test will be whether we see a dramatic fall in the number of sufferers over the years on the back of NICE's recommendations. I apologise again that I have to leave the debate early, but I will read the Minister's response in Hansard tomorrow with great interest.
2.28 pm
Linda Gilroy: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown); I always want to call him the hon. Member for Moffat, where I was born, but he is the hon. Member for Dumfries. It is also a pleasure to share his experience. There must have been a drive six years ago to set up local osteoporosis societies, when I became a patron of my local society. I remember the inaugural meeting at which well over 100 people—there could have been more than 200—turned up. That was an early lesson to me about the impact that osteoporosis can have on people's lives.
We have probably all been active members of the all-party group on osteoporosis, which has been ably supported by the National Osteoporosis Society. I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the former director of the society, Linda Edwards, who sadly died an untimely death at an early age last year. On a nice sunny day such as today—well, it was a nice sunny day—I well recollect some of the events that were organised. We were invited to take our bones for a walk and to have our photograph taken with Oscar the skeleton. I have still have a photo up in my office of me shaking hands with the skeleton.

289WH
I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on initiating this timely debate. He has already referred to the NICE appraisal. As that appraisal continues, it is important not only for the individuals concerned but for Government policy that we make robust representations. As he mentioned, the NHS currently spends £1.7 billion a year on mending fractures. We are talking about 86,000 hip fractures and 310,000 osteoporotic fractures. That is a huge cost on the health service and it is largely preventable. That is one of the reasons why the work of the all-party group on osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Society is important. When working out how one spends one's time, this is an area in which Members should try to ensure that a programme that addresses the issues is carried forward.
The NICE technology appraisal on drug treatments is in progress. The preliminary recommendations that it was considering caused significant consternation. It is important that patients and carers get clear, authoritative advice on the sort of care that might be appropriate and what can be expected from the NHS. That consternation was largely well founded. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to some of the concerns expressed by individual patients suffering from osteoporosis and also to the concerns of the National Osteoporosis Society, which I recently met. It is important that the final appraisal determination reflects those concerns. Some signs that that is the case might already be emanating from the recent meeting of the appraisal committee. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he is putting his weight behind ensuring that the many representations that were made in the early parts of the process are taken heed of.
It is difficult to believe some of the grounds on which the initial recommendations were made. Take the example of women over 65 with fragility fractures receiving treatment without a DXA scan. That could immediately have an impact on women with old traumatic deformities, Scheuermann's disease or osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine, who could wrongly receive treatment if the decision is based solely on an apparent vertebral fracture. The apparent proposed treatment restrictions in the case of post-menopausal women below 65 would mean that, unless there was a T-scan or other risk factors, they would be excluded. In reality, it is difficult to use an absolute cut-off of the type that is proposed. I know that both NICE and the World Health Organisation are considering more sophisticated approaches, and I understand that there may be further reflection on that issue in future stages of the appraisal process.
On restrictions on treatment, there is the idea that no treatment should be given until a woman has a fracture, and the proposal that we should move away from the sort of primary prevention that we have all been working hard to encourage in our local primary care trusts among those at highest risk. Women are at much greater risk of subsequent fractures following the first fracture. As the National Osteoporosis Society said in its representation to NICE:
"just as high blood pressure and raised cholesterol are treated to prevent heart attack and stroke, so osteoporosis should be treated in those at high risk".
290WH
The National Osteoporosis Society expressed a number of other concerns to me about the restrictive criteria being proposed for the use of teriparatide, and the way in which it was proposed that calcium and vitamin D supplements should be used. It was also concerned that raloxifene would no longer be available to prevent fractures in those at higher risk, especially as it reduces the risk of breast cancer and is an alternative to HRT, which has been the subject of much topical concern. That needs to be looked at far more closely. Women who are at risk of vertebral fracture often cannot tolerate the side effects caused by biophosphonates or cope with complex treatment regimes. Several other concerns were expressed alongside those.
As an illustration, I wish to refer to a letter from a local constituent, as it shows how some of the issues that I have described can impact on and worry some of our constituents. The lady in question writes:
"I was diagnosed with osteoporosis in 1992 after suffering excruciating back pain, clay and night. The rheumatologist arranged a bone density scan."
That density scan revealed that her bones were indeed in a bad state, and she continues:
"I was unable to take Didronel because of quite severe side effects, so I was treated with HRT patches. Over the ensuing months and years, the pain decreased dramatically and mobility was restored."
After five years, she had another scan that showed a great improvement in her bone density and HRT was continued for another five and a half years. However, from time to time she developed painful cysts in her breasts that had to be aspirated.
A year ago, although the breast clinic was of the opinion that to protect my constituent's bones, it would be good on balance for her to remain on HRT and to keep the situation monitored, her GP and rheumatologist—presumably against the background of concern about HRT and breast cancer that I have described—thought that it might be better to give her different medication, at least for a while. She has been trying different regimes of medication, such as Evista, which did not suit her, and Actonel—both the one-a-day and one-a-week versions—but that caused her considerable pain. She has now settled with the one-a-week version, but that will have to be reviewed in a year's time. She also writes:
"It needs no stretch of the imagination to envisage my despair when I read that it was being proposed that this drug 'should not be available to post-menopausal women with osteoporosis and at high-risk of fracture until they have fractured already'."
In that one case alone, we can see almost all the points of concern that the National Osteoporosis Society raised in its representation to NICE on the initial proposals.
I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us some reassurance that he will be encouraging NICE to continue to listen to representations such as those from my constituent. Indeed, that lady did in fact submit her views to the NICE committee. I hope that he will give that reassurance not only for all the reasons of personal distress and anxiety that the letter illustrates, but also because of the contribution that getting the correct balance between prevention and secondary care can bring to reducing the £1.7 billion bill that I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks.

291WH
I hope that the Minister will take a close interest and encourage the more strategic and flexible approach that appears to be beginning to emerge, and that he will not hinder implementation on falls and fracture prevention in standard 6 of the national service framework. Extending the appraisal period as NICE now intends to do will be a noteworthy effort to evaluate primary and secondary treatment. It will give a chance to do that evaluation and to create the best guidelines for both pre and post-menopausal women.
If the draft had stood as it was originally presented, there would have been an increase in falls that would have had disastrous effects on the health and lives of many women. There is no logical sense in creating guidelines that are so strict that they overlook the needs of patients. Patients should definitely come before guidelines. Patient needs must be assessed in a more flexible approach that allows treatment to ensure that that first preventable fracture never occurs.
2.40 pm
Sandra Gidley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate. I am a little surprised that there are not more Members present, because I for one have received a large number of cards on this subject. We all know how easy it is to arrange a postcard campaign, but what struck me particularly was the number of people who also took the time to write to me to tell me how the recommendations would affect them if they were implemented. That is powerful; people do not lightly write to an MP.
Osteoporosis is a prevalent issue, but I sometimes cynically ask myself whether it is so ignored and underestimated because it mainly affects women. If it were a male disease, would more research be devoted to the subject? That is probably a little churlish. The answer is that I do not know why there is not more research or why something that affects such a large number of the population—affects their mobility and the way in which they can look after themselves when elderly—does not receive the attention that is given to other matters.
Linda Gilroy: Will the hon. Lady concede that the disease not only affects women but is prevalent in older age? It is only in recent times that we have begun to take it much more seriously and not just to put it down to something that is inevitable in old age.
Sandra Gidley: Sadly, despite some of the Government's best efforts, there is all too often an institutional ageism in the NHS. If one looks closely at the NICE guidelines, one sees that if somebody is much older—over 80 years old, for example—the cost benefit of treating them is much better. Any Figures that showed such cost benefit across the age range would suggest that such people should receive treatment So, I wonder whether there is almost an element or ageism in some of the NICE conclusions.
Clearly, there is a big problem. Many statistics have been mentioned today, but the one that I was particularly taken by is that every three minutes somebody has a fracture owing to osteoporosis. More seriously, 14,000 people die as a result of an osteoporotic hip fracture.
292WH
It has already been mentioned that if one has one fracture, another is between half a likely and twice as likely to occur. I did some work on the matter—I think that it was with the National Osteoporosis Society—a couple of years ago. I was not sure what part I was meant to play, as there was a very young, glamorous model, a very small old lady and me in the middle. I think that I was there in my capacity as an MP, but the age range was quite stark. We were posing with dummies in a shop window. Members could make a lot of political capital out of that should they be so cruel.
The dummies were in various stages of disrepair, and the point that we were trying to get across was that, as a young woman one was unlikely to suffer breakages. The first break is often of the wrist or a lower arm fracture, which should be treated as a sign that the case should be investigated and, perhaps, that treatment for osteoporosis should begin. Sadly, not everybody has a less serious fracture first. Many women—and some men—who suffer from osteoporosis, first know of it when they have a more serious fracture.
The point of that campaign was to try to encourage young women, in particular, to exercise. It is with dismay that, in reading for this debate, I discovered that the jury is still out on whether exercise is a good thing. Clearly, exercise provides other health benefits, but from the point of view of osteoporosis, it is not as clearly beneficial as it might be.
Dr. Morrison: Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. I think that it is proven that bone mineral density increases on exercise. The question is whether the incidence of fracture goes up or down.
Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman is correct. It must be pointed out that not just any old exercise will help; it has to be weight-bearing exercise to have a beneficial effect.
Sadly, some of the women who wrote in—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham referred to this point—felt a double whammy. HRT had been taken away from them as a recommended treatment. Many women were taking HRT and thought that it was doing them good. There seemed to be evidence that it was helping with osteoporosis, but the problem was that the benefits did not appear to outweigh the risks.
There is some interesting research that suggests that it might not be the hormones in themselves that have a beneficial effect. One effect of taking such hormones is to alter the acid-alkali balance in the body; the body becomes less acidic. That has been shown to have a positive effect on bone density and—possibly—on whether someone gets osteoporosis. We should be investing in research around food and Coca-Cola. Incidentally, I have switched to drinking sparkling water. It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us exactly what research is going on. Setting aside the recommendations for a moment, I found it particularly interesting that NICE recommended further research. It struck me again, most powerfully, that we simply do not have all the answers that we need in order to come to an informed decision.
NICE has arrived at a different decision from a number of other bodies. I mentioned the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network—SIGN—in an intervention. It has come to a different conclusion:

293WH
"Postmenopausal women who have had low BMD confirmed by DXA scanning should be considered for one of the following options",
and it goes on to name some treatments. The Scottish Medicines Consortium appraised teriparatide in 2003 and recommended that it be used by osteoporosis specialists following assessment of fracture risk and bone mineral density. I think that assessment of fracture risk is important. An action plan on osteoporosis in the European Community published in November stated:
"Many interventions, such as bisphosphonates and raloxifene are cost-effective if targeted at individuals at high-risk of osteoporotic fractures."
We have to develop a much more robust way of identifying who is at high risk than merely saying, "Well, you've had a fracture, clearly you must be high-risk." That needs looking into.
Some of those comments bear out the NICE proposals for further research. NICE can make proposals for prescribing that must be adopted, but I am not clear whether if it proposes further research there is an onus on anybody to conduct it. How can the Government and drug companies work together to make sure that we have the answers sooner rather than later?
I do not want to dwell too much on quality-adjusted life years, which NICE uses to measure whether a drug is cost-effective. I have alluded to the fact that that changes according to the age of the patient. However, when the Select Committee on Health looked into NICE, it was clear that the science around health economics, health benefits, quality-adjusted life years and the like was very new and inexact. Sometimes figures must be treated with a little caution; one must find out exactly what criteria were used in order to ensure that the figures were not blurred. In fairness to NICE, it is improving in that regard, but I am still not sure that its systems are state-of-the-art.
I turn to the link with falls and the standard in the national service framework for older people. NICE is producing clinical guidelines on falls in August 2004, and it is producing a separate set of clinical guidelines on osteoporosis in June 2005. It seems that there is scope for overlap, so is there not a case for amalgamating the studies or at least for ensuring that enough account is taken of the former? It would clearly be ridiculous—it has not happened yet, and there are no signs of it happening, but it may happen—for different groups within NICE to produce guidelines that are slightly at odds with each other. The thinking should be joined up more efficiently.
There has been little evidence of progress or of joined-up thinking on the matter. In January, I asked the Minister this question:
"What estimates the Department has made of the potential savings to be made by preventing osteoporosic fractures"
rather than treating them? Sadly, the reply said:
"The Department has made no estimate of the potential savings to be made" —[ Official Report, 5 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 203W.]
It then went on to refer to NICE. Clearly, NICE does not feel that it has the right answer. The preliminary revised statement was very welcome, in that—
294WH
hopefully—there will be a review of cases to examine how high-risk patients can be assessed and whether there is any way in which they can be treated before they suffer a fracture, but I must admit that I found the reply a little disappointing.
I started to think about the slightly wider implications. It may have been t he hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) who mentioned bed blocking; my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham may also have done so. I tabled another question:
"What assessment has been made of the link between osteoporosis and bed-blocking?"
Clearly, a large number of patients with osteoporotic fractures are, because of their age group, unable to rehabilitate easily at home. It would be useful to try to get a grip on the scale of the problem—but no. The answer stated:
"The Department of Health does not collect data on the precise medical conditions of patients delayed in hospital".
It does not mention falls or osteoporosis.
The National Osteoporosis Society has discovered that osteoporosis is still not sufficiently prioritised and that services are not established in line with the national service framework. Although falls have been included in primary care trust local delivery plans, very few plans contain direct references to such measures. I asked for the Minister's assessment of whether identifying osteoporosis had become a priority in primary care as suggested in the national service framework for older people. I do not propose to read out the full answer, which is quite long, but it ends:
"The most recent reports we have from strategic health authorities indicate that all but a few of the primary care trust local delivery plans include actions to achieve the 2005 falls milestone. We have collected no systematic information on what local plans cover."—[Official Report, 12 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 618–9W.]
I am not quite sure who has got it right. Perhaps the Minister needs to talk to the National Osteoporosis Society. Clearly, there is a great difference in perception between the answer to my parliamentary question and the survey by people on the ground. If he can elaborate on that, it will be useful.
I wondered whether the Government had a good initiative on falls, and became excited on finding a press release stating that falls had been halved. Sadly, the small print revealed that that was not for the whole country, but in one primary care trust area that had issued gripper slippers to older people at risk. Although that is a welcome initiative, it is disingenuous to put a bold headline on the website claiming that the problem is well on the way to being reduced, when close inspection does not bear that out. I hope that the Minister will assure me that that measure is not the only one that is to be introduced. He may want to announce a roll-out of the slipper scheme today, so that the number of people in hospital can be reduced. Any progress on that initiative will be welcome.
The National Osteoporosis Society said that
"there is still a long way to go in implementing Standard Six, particularly with respect to better co-ordination between primary and secondary care services."
Its audit also highlighted a lack of progress towards implementation and focused on several cases. I have been doing a preliminary survey of my own, and my findings are closer to those of the National Osteoporosis Society than to the Minister's.

295WH
The subject is an important one. I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply—particularly with regard to whether the Government will help to fund any of the research projects identified by NICE. We would, I think, all agree that preventing an accident, or preventing the deterioration of osteoporosis, is in everyone's best interest.
2.58 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: There have been some thoughtful contributions today. It is a pity that there have not been more of them. That may be the case because of the trade justice debate that is happening under the auspices of the official Opposition on the Floor of the House, but it is a pity nevertheless, because the subject is important.
I pay tribute to the National Osteoporosis Society for its hard work in highlighting a subject that is one of the forgotten areas of medicine. I am mindful of my time about 20 years ago as a house surgeon in Bristol in orthopaedics, dealing with orthopaedic fractures, including hip fractures. At that time, the condition was pretty well ignored. If someone had a fracture, they had their hips repaired and either got better or did not. By and large, no real thought was given to the treatment of their underlying osteoporosis.
I wonder whether, 20 years on, a great deal has changed. I suspect that it probably has, although perhaps not quite as much as one might have liked it to change over two decades. In so far as there has been change and improvement, a great deal of it has been down to groups that have brought the condition into the public arena. Of those groups, I would obviously single out the National Osteoporosis Society.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on initiating the debate, which is very timely. We have recently heard a great deal about NICE and its consideration of osteoporosis. White I would hope to avoid the temptation to use the present occasion as an opportunity to criticise NICE, it is right to highlight the fact that that episode has perhaps not been the most glorious in its history, and it may wish to reflect upon that.
The impact of osteoporosis on people's health and its economic impact on the national health service are underestimated. I recall broken hips and vertebrae, wedge fractures and the classic dowager's hump. Osteoporosis is often passed off as part of the natural ageing process when it can be treated quite satisfactorily. It is a great pity that even now, in the 21st century, we are prepared to pass it off as a normal facet of ageing. It is also a great pity that many radiologists will not comment on wedge fractures, in an elderly chest X-ray, for example, and that they will not be recorded in notes, even less subjected to any formal assessment of treatment. There is a long way to go in raising awareness among the public and professionals.
The NICE appraisal consultation document has been subject to criticism both by the National Osteoporosis Society and the public, as is evidenced by the mailbag that NICE has received. It has been criticised by the industry, and in particular by Lilly, which is responsible for producing two of the products, in question—the selective oestrogen receptor modulator, raloxifene, and teriparatide, which is better known as parathyroid hormone.
296WH
We must welcome last month's announcement that there will be a separate appraisal of primary and secondary prevention, which probably follows criticism of NICE and its work to date on osteoporosis. The announcement is welcome because the two forms of prevention are quite different and need to be addressed, and the work to date has not been as comprehensive or forensic as one might have liked.

There have been big problems with the consultation document. Its ethos appears to conflict with the national service framework for older people of 2001, of which standard 6 has been cited. It seems to be preoccupied with treatment rather than prevention of fractures. It is a pity that it should simply deal with the situation after somebody has sustained a fracture. We hear a great deal about public health, and we have had a Minister with responsibility for public health since 1997. Osteoporosis is a public health problem, as it applies to the population, and we could have done more over many years in this area of public health.
There are several conflicts with the NICE guidelines and those issued by the Royal College of Physicians in 1999, which are the trade standard for treatment of osteoporosis. They are exceptionally good. considering that it is sometimes difficult to make head or tail of some of the college's paperwork: they clearly set out what works, what does not and what might, and they give reasonably clear guidance to professionals working in the field. The NICE guidelines appear to row back from many of those recommendations, which is why the National Osteoporosis Society said that they are a retrograde step. It is a great pity when NICE is cast in the guise of an organisation that is removing rather than promoting that which is good.
It is true to say that the guidelines produced by the Royal College of Physicians and the remarks of the National Osteoporosis Society reflect the importance of compliance. One or two hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) in particular, mentioned compliance in relation to fragility fractures involving the spine, and alluded to the fact that it can cause digestive problems. That becomes a particular problem with biphosphonates. People are often unable to cope with biphosphonates because of gastric upset. We are then left asking what on earth they are going to use for their treatment because they are left with calcium and vitamin supplements—and the answer is not a great deal.
It is important to note that, if someone feels unhappy with a treatment and if it upsets them, they are probably not going to take it. We find that that is the case with high blood pressure and the treatment of hypercholesterolemia—conditions that do not cause great problems from day to day. We do not go around complaining about high blood pressure or about high cholesterol because they hurt, but we have them treated because we fear the long-term consequences. It is difficult to insist on compliance in those circumstances, and we know from studies that it can be poor.
I suspect that if we do not give people a treatment with which they can cope in this field, they will not take it. That is why it is important that, as the national osteoporosis society is right to insist, we give people a range of treatment options. If one option does not agree with them, there is a possibility that they can have another.

297WH
It is also probably true to say that affordability has not been adequately assessed by NICE in connection with selective oestrogen receptive modulators. We know that raloxifene protects against breast cancer, but there is a bit of a paradox here, because HRT was associated at the tail end of last year with stories about a possible risk of breast cancer. Here we have a treatment for the same condition that appears to protect against it. We do not see any evidence in the recent NICE information about the protective effect in respect of breast cancer. If we are going to make a serious economic appraisal, we need to factor in such possibilities. Apparently, there is a protective effect on the heart, but we see no evidence of that. It is probably true to say that we need to have a bit of a rethink. To that extent, I welcome the recent announcement by NICE that it is going to look at the issue again.
NICE seems to be relying on the lack of evidence for a reduction in the incidence of hip fracture in respect of raloxifene in making its conclusions about whether the treatment can be recommended. That is a pity, because such an approach underplays the importance of fragility fractures in the spine. The inference is that there is no evidence that the treatment can be used effectively to prevent hip fractures, which are, by implication, more important than vertebral fractures. I am not sure that that is right. Surely, we cannot be saying that we cannot recommend that treatment purely on the basis that there is no evidence that it will be any good for treating one particular subset of the range of conditions that can be provoked by osteoporosis. That is a non-sequitur.
Equally, we must recognise that there are some good things about the NICE appraisal; it would be remarkable if there were not. A consensus is emerging, and the Royal College of Physicians and the society certainly appear to believe that there is no reason to go for population screening, attractive though such options often are. A more selective approach is required, involving so-called case finding.
We need to make provision for the possibility that there may be technology in future enabling us to embark on screening the population, possibly using ultrasound scanning or indeed bone-turnover markers. I agree with the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) in her assessment of the need for further research in this area. As an aside, I shall comment on her suggestion that the condition has not been given the attention that it deserves because it predominantly affects females. It crossed my mind that if one were to compare the incidence of research on breast cancer and prostate cancer and the money spent on such research, a parallel could be drawn. The situation may not be as straightforward as she suggests.
It will be interesting to see in August what I hope will be NICE's formal recognition of the importance of a fall-prevention strategy. One or two hon. Members have touched upon that subject. Again, I think that we shall see a consensus among NICE, the Royal College of Physicians and the society on the need to prevent falls. The issue is not only about dishing out pills for the condition; at the end of the day, it is okay to have osteoporosis provided that one does not have fractures. One prevents fractures by not falling—or by not coming into contact with immovable objects. We may want to
298WH
think about how to reduce that risk, particularly among the at-risk elderly population. I look forward to seeing the guidelines, which I understand will be published in August.
Exercise will help it certainly increases bone-mineral density. A little more controversial is the question whether it prevents fractures. We could say that more exercise means a greater possibility of falling and a greater chance of fractures, but the matter may not be as straightforward as it seems. Equally, tobacco and alcohol increase the risk of osteoporosis. That is a particular concern for women, because we know that they drink and smoke more than previously; their habits have come to approximate those traditionally associated with men. We may be storing up problems for the future.
In our public health strategy—I know that the Government are keen on it—we should focus on the reduction of osteoporosis not only in the elderly, but in the younger population, by ensuring that attitudes to exercise, alcohol and smoking are changed at an early stage. We can then ensure that bone structure is enhanced at that formative stage and that attitudes are developed that will promote long-term skeletal health.
Osteoporosis has, been ignored over the years for several reasons. One is its lack of ownership by a medical specialty. In my earlier experience as a junior orthopaedic surgeon, it seemed that no one was particularly worried about osteoporosis as a medical condition. It seemed to fall between specialties. In my day, surgeons were by and large concerned with fixing people's fractures. I suspect that a residue of that attitude remains, arid that osteoporosis has suffered as a result. Its treatment is multi-disciplinary. It is a pity that people who suffer from fragility fractures do not get the gold standard treatment of physiotherapy, hydrotherapy, pain management and so on that they really ought to receive. I genuinely feel that that is a reflection of the fact that no specialty has gripped the illness or taken ownership of it.
It is a sad fact that the UK ranks behind almost all European countries in its provision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. That is a great pity, because we know that existing treatment is best targeted at those who are at high risk. That is a reflection of their bone-mineral density, and the only way to assess it accurately is by DXA scanning. We also know that poor intra-centre comparison of the results of DXA scans is a problem for screening. One of the reasons why we could not screen the population, even if it were possible to do so, is that it would be difficult to compare the results from one centre with those from others. We clearly need to work on that. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether any of the £3 million that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week for radiology will be devoted to that area.
Self-help has been somewhat neglected. Many constituents feel strongly about the use of food additives for treating chronic conditions such as osteoporosis. I could cite others. In that connection, the European food supplements directive has caused a great deal of distress to many people, as it appears that many of the remedies that they think help their condition will be harmonised out. That leads to a conflict: as a science-based person, I believe that evidence must sustain any backing of a treatment, but if I were honest, I would say that that was

299WH
an arrogant view. Many people insist that additives and supplements make them feel better, and that really is the bottom line. It is not for any of us to say otherwise if people believe that what they buy in the shops helps them. Many of the products in question have been used perfectly safely in this country for many years, and people feel that the EU is doing them down by removing them. I am pleased that the Alliance for Natural Health has taken a case to the European Court of Justice in connection with the European food supplements directive, and I await the outcome with interest.
The Minister would be somewhat disappointed if I did not take this opportunity to point out that the Government's obsession with targets, predominantly for acute conditions, has, in our finite system, inevitably impacted adversely on long-term and chronic conditions. We can more or less take that as read. I am pleased that he and his colleagues have decided at this rather late stage to change tack somewhat. I welcome the implications that that may have for the management of chronic conditions.
Twenty years on from my own rather unsatisfactory experience of dealing with osteoporosis in hospital orthopaedics, I ask myself whether things have improved much. I have to admit that they probably have done so, but not really as much as I would have hoped them to do in two decades. I look forward to the NICE reappraisal of its draft proposals and hope that they will at least be a step in the right direction.
3.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for initiating this debate on this important issue, which is of great concern to many of our constituents and which affects many people in Britain today. I share his concern and that of other hon. Members about reducing the suffering of those who have osteoporosis and about putting in place prevention strategies.
As has been said, osteoporosis an important subject. Why? One in three women and one in 12 men over the age of 50 will develop the disease. Almost half of all women experience an osteoporotic fracture by the time they reach 70. Some 90 per cent of osteoporotic hip fractures result from a simple fall from standing height or less. After an osteoporotic hip fracture, some 50 per cent. of patients lose the ability to live independently, and 20 per cent. die within a year. As those figures suggest, the disease is a terrible burden to individuals, their family and friends, the national health service and their community. That is why the Department of Health, the NHS and others have put in place a programme of work to help minimise the harm done by the disease.
The Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to develop two clinical guidelines and a technology appraisal to provide the best available evidence covering falls, fractures and drug treatments, and to assess that evidence. It is probably appropriate that I stress that at this point.
The response to some of the comments that have been made during the debate—I highlight the difficult case outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth,
300WH
Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and cases mentioned by other hon. Members—is that the issues are complex. If they were easy, if some fact were crying out "You do this, and people will get better", it would not be necessary to have bodies such as NICE, because doctors themselves would be able to make such assessments. NICE must look at the available evidence, balance the complexities and give us guidance about the most appropriate treatment for the most appropriate people.
I caution hon. Members that, when they are communicating with their constituents on these matters, what will obviously be right for one constituent will not be right for every other constituent who presents at a doctor. NICE must ensure that the information is available to allow doctors to make those difficult decisions.
The hon. Member for Twickenham referred to NICE blight. It is true that while NICE is considering these complex issues, there is a period of what may appear to some to be limbo. During that time, and even when the NICE guidance is published, it is up to doctors to make their own judgment for the care of the individual patient. Therefore, nobody should delay making recommendations—
Sandra Gidley rose—
Dr. Ladyman: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady. I have only nine minutes and hon. Members have asked me a lot of questions. I want to deal with as many of them as possible.
The perception of NICE blight should be rejected. People should press their clinicians to make their own judgments in the absence of firmer NICE guidance.
The clinical guideline on the assessment and prevention of falls in older people is currently out for consultation. Falls are a major cause of disability and the leading cause of mortality resulting from injury in people aged over 75 in the UK. One third to one half of those aged over 65 fall each year. Up to 14,000 people die annually in the UK as a result of an osteoporotic hip fracture. Falling, therefore, has a considerable impact on quality of life, health and health care costs. Although osteoporosis does not cause falls, it significantly increases the likelihood of a fracture when a fall occurs. The falls guideline will provide recommendations for good practice based on the best available evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness and is due to be completed in August.
A second clinical guideline has been commissioned to assess fracture risk and consider the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in individuals at high risk. Osteoporotic fractures can lead to pain, disability, greatly reduced quality of life and premature death. The guideline will look at all high-risk groups and will examine interventions used to prevent an initial fracture and those used to prevent subsequent fractures where one has already occurred. The guideline is due in June 2005.
NICE is also conducting a technology appraisal of the drugs used in the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. The initial findings have recently been out to consultation and, as several hon. Members have said, have elicited a large response and considerable controversy. However, I want to assure hon. Members

301WH
that this consultation document does not constitute the institute's formal guidance. Recommendations of this type are preliminary and may change after consultation. It would have been nice if one or two hon. Members in the Chamber had given NICE a pat on the back for listening to the consultation and for announcing that it intends to amend its work as a result.
The institute has accepted the independent appraisal committee's recommendation to separate the appraisal into two parts. The first will address the treatment of existing osteoporotic fractures in post-menopausal women—so-called secondary prevention. Further analytical work will be done on that before the appraisal progresses to the next stage, as several hon. Members requested. A new timetable for the work will be published shortly.
The second part of the appraisal will address the prevention of fractures in post-menopausal women who have not yet had a fracture—primary prevention. To inform recommendations on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatments for primary prevention, more data are needed that will assess the contribution of risk factors in the development of fractures. The data will be informed by work being done by the World Health Organisation and the NICE guideline development group on osteoporosis. The data are expected towards the end of the year and the institute will publish a separate timetable for that part of the appraisal.
I should like to thank all who have responded to the consultation, including the National Osteoporosis Society. Those individuals and groups have highlighted the need for additional information and analysis, which is being built into NICE's work. I regard that as a good example of what consultation is about. NICE has listened to the views that other experts and members of the public have expressed and has adapted its work to take account of their concerns. That shows that the process of consultation is working. The National Osteoporosis Society has welcomed that development.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) asked several questions about research that might have been identified as necessary during the process. The Department of Health funds the NHS research and development programme, which aims to identify NHS needs for research and to commission research to meet those needs. Commissioning is undertaken through national programmes of research, such as the health technology assessment programme, through which three projects have been funded, two of which have now ended. The topics include treatment of osteoporosis—a systematic review and cost-utility analysis—and selective oestrogen receptor modulators for osteoporosis. Research on the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for the management of steroid-induced osteoporosis is due for completion in the middle of this year.
The main Government agency is of course the Medical Research Council. In the financial year 2001–02, the MRC spent an estimated £6.9 million on
302WH
research into osteoporosis, which included a randomised trial of vitamin D and calcium for secondary prevention of osteoporosis-related fractures in the elderly. It was therefore a little churlish of the hon. Member for Romsey to say what she did. [Interruption.]I do not know why the hon. Lady is looking aghast—she suggested herself that she was perhaps being churlish when she implied that there were restrictions on research in such fields. It is important to remember that we are not the only country in the world conducting such research. Research is conducted all around the world, as well as in the UK, but the work done here is extensive. The MRC welcomes good quality research proposals at any time, so I encourage anyone who has such ideas to put them to the council.
Falls services, incorporating those for osteoporosis, are covered in the national service framework for older people. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham, who said some nice things about the framework. It is important to recognise that the framework has been well received and is doing some good work. However, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the framework is a 10-year programme and that we are only three years into it. He asked what I was going to do to put energy into the programme. The answer is that, as the implementation of the national service framework for older people falls within my portfolio, I welcome any suggestions that he has for sustaining the rapid pace of reform. However, given the time since the rational service framework was published, it is making stupendous progress. I do not say for one second that I here are not huge areas in the health service or our social services that we cannot improve. Demonstrably, much work remains to be done in many areas; however, the national service framework is making huge inroads in those areas. The people who are involved in it and who drive it forward should be congratulated on their work.
The NSF sets clear milestones for the planning and development of integrated falls services and provides the basis for a service model that will deliver the improvements in prevention, care, treatment and rehabilitation that many hon. Members have mentioned. The framework aims to reduce the number of falls that result in serious injury and to ensure effective treatment and rehabilitation for those who have fallen. The Department is undertaking detailed work in conjunction with professional and voluntary bodies to support time delivery of the NSF's integrated fall service. For example, we have worked with Help the Aged on its "Avoiding Slips, Trips and Broken Hips" campaign. I cannot promise that we shall announce a national gripper slipper campaign—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up. I should point out that the Minister had only 13 minutes in which to reply. Even after only an hour and a half of debate, a Minister should have the opportunity to reply effectively to the hon. Member who introduced the subject. The Minister was so constrained in this case because Opposition Front Benchers took 37 minutes.

Out-of-Hours Medical Services (Hampshire)
3.30 pm
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the opportunity to highlight the important issue of out-of hours medical services in my locality, and I shall begin by setting the scene.
As MPs, we all receive complaints from time to time, and that is par for the course, because life simply ain't perfect. However, alarm bells ring when we suddenly receive a cluster of complaints about a service that has hitherto ticked over in the background without coming to our attention. Alarm bells certainly rang when I received complaints about the out-of-hours medical services, and it rapidly became clear that all was not right.
Most of the letters highlighted the service—or lack of it—that patients received when they, tried to obtain the services of a doctor at the weekend and in the evening. As the Minister will be aware, GPs are currently responsible for providing out-of-hours emergency cover, but many, particularly in my area, have opted out of the scheme and paid a deputising service to take over. In my part of Hampshire, that service is provided by an organisation called Primecare.
It might be helpful if I outline some of the problems. First, patients must play a game of telephone hurdles, and the typical scenario is as follows. The patient rings NHS Direct for advice and is told to ring their GP. When they do so, an answerphone service asks them to contact the out-of-hours service—probably Primecare. The patient rings the number, which is for a call centre in Birmingham, and encounters someone called a call taker, who asks them a few questions and refers them to a triage nurse. The nurse then rings back. Indeed, there is a standard governing such things. I do not think that it is being met, and although that is not the main complaint, what if the patient calls from a call box? Not everyone has a phone at home, so ringing patients back is not without its problems. That aside, the patient is then given an indication of how long—be it one hour, two hours or four hours—they might have to wait for a home visit. Some hours later, the doctor might contact them again to see whether they still need a home visit and to ask further questions.
There are, therefore, several phone calls, not all of which would be necessary in a joined-up service. It is immediately apparent that that is not a good use of resources, but I shall return to that later when I discuss how the system is likely to change in July, when primary care trusts take over responsibility for providing out-of-hours services.
In many cases, patients are asked to attend an out-of-hours centre. One constituent was asked to travel from Longparish to Southampton—a journey of approximately three quarters of an hour—and that person told me of a young relative who had had a similar experience. In that case, family members were so concerned that granddad decided to take the child to the minor injuries department in Andover. When they said which surgery they were from, they were told that the child would be unable to see a doctor, because staff were fed up with seeing patients from that surgery.
304WH
The practice manager has said that anyone who is concerned about the length of time that Primecare takes to respond should attend accident and emergency and call an ambulance if they are not fit enough to travel by car. Indeed, it is quite a common feature of the correspondence for people to be told, "If you are concerned, call an ambulance." Sometimes, Primecare staff deliver that advice. In that respect, the Minister might not be aware of an Adjournment debate that I secured on the response times of the Hampshire ambulance service. The service is now heading in the right direction and is just starting to hit its targets, so it can do without unnecessary pressures from another part of the health service. It is easy to see that an extra burden will be placed on the system if people are regularly advised to call an ambulance. If patients are being made to wait for too long, they will be tempted to call an ambulance. I have spoken to paramedics who have also mentioned occasions when deputising services have asked paramedics to visit and assess on their behalf, and occasions when inappropriate requests for an ambulance have been made, some when the medic has not even seen the patient face to face.
I am also aware of an occasion when a call from a GP was rerouted to a deputising service. That service did not have the GP on its list and so refused to provide a response. What other option does a sick person have under those circumstances than to call for an ambulance? This clearly has a knock-on effect on patient emergency care, and I ask the Minister to investigate this for himself.
There are others who are reluctant to call out an ambulance under any circumstances. Another of my constituents had a stomach ache, went to the NHS Direct website and was quite alarmed to be given the advice that he should ring 999 for an ambulance. He thought, "I only have a stomach ache. It seems a hit extreme. I will just call the doctor. I do not want to call out an ambulance unnecessarily." He contacted Primecare. The triage occurred, but the patient, despite having gone through the NHS Direct protocol and come up with a 999 response, was advised to go to a walk-in surgery, as there might be a long wait to see a doctor. My constituent lived alone, some distance from the surgery, and there was no one he felt able to ask for a lift. He decided to wait. He had originally rung the out-of-hours service at 2.30 in the afternoon and received a telephone call at 8 pm advising him that he would probably have to wait a further three hours. At half past 11, some nine hours after the initial call, a doctor arrived and immediately called an ambulance.
I could easily spend the remaining time outlining further stories, but I will leave it at that, apart from reinforcing the point that most of the complaints have been about the protracted nature of the process, the pressure to travel to an out-of-hours centre when unwell, and the length of time it has taken to secure a home visit and for a health professional to arrive. I have met representatives from Primecare and there is some focus on trying to improve the service being provided, but it is still not good enough. There was a Radio Solent phone-in this morning and the lines were red hot with people ringing in from all over the area with similar experiences.
What is of more concern to me at the moment is that the new GP contract means that the primary care trust will be taking over responsibility for out-of-hours

305WH
medical services. I am beginning to wonder, having done some research, whether this is an opportunity that is likely to be squandered. I have been told that the four primary care trusts in the area—Southampton City, Eastleigh and Test Valley South, Mid-Hampshire and New Forest—are liaising on the provision of a new service. I wrote to the primary care trusts that serve my constituency in December last year. I also wrote to the ambulance trust.
Most responses try to provide a bland reassurance, but there were some worrying responses tucked away. For example, Chris Evenett, chief executive of Mid-Hampshire PCT, said:
"As part of this development work, being co-ordinated across three PCTs in mid and west Hampshire, we are assessing demand. It is fair to say that there has not been a robust activity monitoring of out of hours provision in the past and therefore we have to develop estimates based on best available information."
John Richards of Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT seemed to have slightly more information about what was going on in his particular primary care trust. He told me that there were approximately 14,000 calls each year to the out-of-hours service, 40 per cent. of which required some sort of face-to-face consultation. He went on to describe how he thought the service might develop. He said:
"The plan is comprehensive and includes call centre facilities, communications hub, primary care centres, transport and visiting … Initially the service will be GP-led but, over time, we hope to increase the involvement of nurses, paramedics and others to ensure that patients are seen by the most appropriate health care professional."
Sounds okay.
The response from Brian Skinner of Southampton City PCT was quite interesting, because he stated:
"As a primary care trust we have seen an increase in the visit rate from 15% of our total out of hours activity to 25%in the last two years. It is too early to say at this stage whether the effects of the changes we are currently making to the service are reducing the demand for visits. It should be noted that an out of hours GP can carry out the equivalent of 1.5 visits per hour as opposed to a GP or nurse in a primary care centre who can see seven patients per hour."
He went on to mention that there had been a number of new initiatives, such as walk-in centres and NHS Direct, which had to be monitored to assess the impact on the demand for services.
The letter of 19 January from Claire Severgnini, the chief executive of Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS trust, was of the greatest concern. She says:
"The ambulance service has seen an increase in demand as a consequence of the changes and particularly to poor systems Primecare have in place."
More positively, Claire Severgnini mentioned a new initiative called "see and treat", which is being piloted. She says:
"increasingly we could provide care in the community and minimise the number of patients being brought into already busy A & E Departments."
The obvious question is where we go from here. It might be useful to refer to the Carson standards, which were produced in an attempt to provide a minimum standard of service for out-of-hours care. They are what
306WH
local service providers should be taking into account when developing new services, and to which they should aspire.
In March 2000, Dr. David Carson produced a report, which states:
"the purpose of out-of hours services in primary care …to meet those urgent patient needs that cannot safely be deferred until the patients own GP practice is next open."
It also recommended that
"All patients should have access to the same high quality, out of hours services, regardless of the part of the country in which they live."
I am not sure that that is happening.
Recommendation 1 states:
"A new model of integrated out of hours provision should be accessed by patients via a single telephone call, routed in the first place through NHS Direct, passed where necessary to the appropriate providers of out of hours services in that locality."
I have already described the problems. The verdict is that that has failed.
Recommendation 3 states:
"Sufficient primary care centres should be provided to enable out of hours providers to meet the Quality Standards set out in the review."
Current provision is very patchy, which may explain the difference in the figures for Test Valley and for Southampton, which has better provision. People do not want to travel a great distance when they are ill, which is overlooked. My constituents in particular will miss out, because, I believe, none of the planned centres will be based in my constituency.
More worryingly, I have been told that there are differences of opinion between the four PCTs, even though they are supposed to be liaising with each other to provide a service. Eastleigh, Test Valley South and Mid-Hampshire PCTs want to direct as many people as possible to the Winchester and Southampton PCTs. However, Southampton City PCT, where the Southampton hospital is based, does not want the service to be based in the hospital, but prefers to direct people to the two walk-in centres. New Forest PCT wants to use separate locations.
What hope do we have for a decent service by July if the PCTs cannot even agree where they want the service to be based? I strongly believe that consideration should be given to basing t service at Romsey hospital, which was used by GPs when they provided the service. The verdict is "Fail". If a he Minister is inclined to say "Pass", will he say what journey time he believes is reasonable for anyone wanting or having to access these services?
Recommendation 9 states:
"A fully integrated out of hours service should be planned by the PCT/G in each locality, bringing together all appropriate service providers."
There is total lack of co-ordination in the provision of community-based minor injuries management. There are walk-in centres, minor injury units, community care centres and proposed diagnostic and treatment centres, all of which have little or no night provision. I have described the series of telephone hurdles that one encounters before one can access the service.
It would be sensilb1e to co-ordinate more efficiently the expertise of NHS Direct, the out-of-hours providers, the emergency services and the PCTs. The lack of co-

307WH
ordination between PCTs is particularly worrying. I have learnt that some PCTs intend to fill the void with paramedics, while others intend to use community nurses. I do not have a problem with that, but there has been no work force planning exercise, and no thought has been given to consistency of training and standards. Again, the verdict is "Fail".
Recommendation 19 states:
"Other than in exceptional circumstances, patients should he able to receive the medication at the same time and in the same place as the out of hours consultation".
I am not sure that that happens at the moment, as I have received a number of letters stating that, when the local supermarkets that have pharmacies shut, which on a Sunday happens at 4 o'clock, it is almost impossible to obtain medication. The demise of the neighbourhood chemist living above the shop has added to the crisis. My area local pharmaceutical committee has developed a community pharmacy on-call scheme, which works with NHS Direct. That is clearly to be welcomed, but it does not meet the provision in recommendation 19 of the Carson standards. Verdict: "Fail".
Recommendation 22 states:
"The fully integrated model of out of hours provision set out in the Review should be achieved by all GPs and out of hours providers by 2004".
I will concede that when the recommendations were made, the change in the GP contract was probably but a twinkle in a Minister's eye. Even when allowances for that are made, I can only despair at how things seem to be shaping up. There is an inadequate grip on what is needed. Nobody seems to know who will be able to travel and who will require a home visit, and there seems to be too little forward planning about training the necessary staff. The guidance of the strategic health authority seems to be absent.
We have a golden opportunity to provide a service with well-staffed local centres, augmented by a mobile fleet of health professionals including nurses and paramedics. Access to the service would be by a single phone call. The service provider should be able to coordinate that with NHS Direct and the ambulance service. Future changes should be communicated to all residents so that they are aware of what the most appropriate course of action is and what they can realistically expect if they are ill in the evenings or at weekends.
I finish by returning to Primecare, where I started. It admits that it experienced a large number of problems when it moved its call-handling service from the Southampton area to the centralised area in Birmingham. That experience should not be allowed to repeat itself. We must learn from the mistakes of the past. Any new systems will have teething problems. In cases dealing with sick people who need an emergency response, we must make sure that the teething problems are not serious and do not cause worse illness, or even death.
3.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on securing the debate. I know that it will be of great importance to her constituents. I also congratulate the staff of the national
308WH
health service across the whole of Hampshire on their work. I thank them for their efforts to deliver high-quality services. I know that they are dedicated to producing good services for everyone and they deserve our admiration. No doubt they will take the hon. Lady's concerns on board and have a constructive approach in doing what they can to address them.
All hon. Members rightly attach great importance to developments in the national health service in their constituencies and in the ability of local people to access high-quality health services as and when they need them. The need for access is particularly important in the evening and at the weekend, when many people feel isolated from convenient local health services. That is why, in March 2000, the Department of Health commissioned an independent review of GP out-of-hours services. The report that followed, "Raising Standards for Patients: New Partnerships in Out-of-Hours Care", also known as the Carson report, resulted in the Government endorsing the view that a new, modern and integrated out-of-hours service was a crucial component in delivering safe and reliable health care. That new model of service is set to ensure that a high-quality out-of-hours service is available to everyone, irrespective of where they live and who provides it.
We have put in place new quality standards and are working towards close integration between NHS Direct and GP out-of-hours services. By 2004, a single phone call to NHS Direct will be a one-stop gateway to out-of-hours health care. Calls will be passed on, if necessary, to the appropriate GP co-operative or deputising service. I was pleased to hear that NHS Direct gave the correct advice to the hon. Lady's constituent immediately. I would encourage all constituents to act on, and not second-guess, the advice that it gives because it is starting to produce advice to a very high standard.
GPs have a statutory responsibility to provide out-of-hours care before 8 am and after 6.30 pm and at weekends and bank holidays. The majority of GPs, as is the case in the hon. Lady's constituency, delegate that responsibility either to a GP co-operative or to a commercial service, so patients do not usually see their own GP for an out-of-hours consultation.
From April 2004, subject to PCT approval, GPs can choose to hand over responsibility for out-of-hours care of their patients to their local PCT. PCTs will have a legal responsibility to ensure that patients are well cared for out of hours and continue to be offered safe, fast and convenient care, delivered to nationally set quality standards. Strategic health authorities will performance-manage PCTs in the transition period. We are in discussions with SHAs to ensure the robustness and sustainability of PCT plans. I will ensure that the SHA serving the hon. Lady's constituency is sent a copy of Hansard so that its staff can read her comments. However, as her speech raised many matters for her local SHA and PCT, I encourage her to engage with them and make known her concerns so that they can act on them.
The opt-out was a key factor in our being able to win support for the contract among doctors. It enables GPs to opt out to improve their working lives and it will have a positive impact on GP recruitment and retention and increase capacity in primary care, which will be

309WH
important to our constituents. It will also provide PCTs with a greater opportunity to commission an integrated service that brings together out-of-hours services with emergency care, NHS Direct and ambulance services, and covers the whole range of unscheduled care. The hon. Lady is right to identify it as an opportunity to get out-of-hours services right in her constituency.
The vast majority of practices in the hon. Lady's constituency have said that they intend to opt out of their responsibility for their patients' care out of hours, opting instead for transferring that to the PCT. It will contract a commercial provider that is able to offer a single point of access and a thoroughly integrated service to ensure that care is offered to the patient on a case-by-case basis by the most appropriate health care professional.
Sandra Gidley: I understand that the planned service will not provide a single point of access using NHS Direct. If people ring NHS Direct they will be referred directly, which is a step in the right direction, but they will not be encouraged to ring it in the first instance. I do not know whether that is a capacity problem or whether sufficient thought has not been given to it.
Dr. Ladyman: I cannot tell the hon. Lady exactly why she has been given that information. I can only tell her that it is our ultimate intention to make the NHS a one-stop shop. In planning the out-of-hours service with the commercial provider, the PCT must ensure that it is working to achieve those objectives. Perhaps there are local reasons why the PCT does not think that appropriate in her constituency, and it must meet her, as constituency MP, to discuss that further. This is a matter for local planning and consultation.
In many places, elements of the out-of-hours services are already configured in the way that I described, with existing out-of-hours providers typically covering areas encompassing more than one PCT. In those circumstances, it is easy to understand why co-operation and co-ordination among PCTs is essential and why certain economies of scale have led to the development of a cost-effective and more comprehensive and integrated service.
PCTs should build on the strengths of existing providers and work closely with them and other PCTs to plan their out-of-hours provision. SHAs will support them in that process. The aim is to introduce out-of-hours services that provide care that meets the quality standards and provides a basis for integrated networks of unscheduled care, including out-of-hours care. The PCTs, supported by SHAs, should develop commissioning solutions that fit local circumstances and meet the priorities.
We now have 34 exemplar sites that test current models of integration and partnership working. They provide single-call access to out-of-hours primary care services through NHS Direct and cover 10 million people. If the hon. Lady has been told that that is not an option in her area, she should take the matter up with her PCT and suggest that it obtain guidance from the exemplar sites to determine what might be achieved.
Additional resources of £110 million over three years from 2003–04 have been announced to help fund the PCT with the provision of out-of-hours services. A
310WH
further £28 million was announced in November last year, to be focused on those PCTs facing the biggest challenge in developing their out-of-hours services.
PCTs in Hampshire have been working collaboratively with stakeholders, including the local medical committees, to develop out-of-hours services and to ensure that patients continue to gain access to health services whenever and wherever required. I understand that four PCTs in west Hampshire, a cluster that covers the hon. Lady's constituency, have joined together to develop effective out-of-hours arrangements for their population. I also understand that that project is being co-ordinated by a steering group with clinical representation from the four organisations, together with further representation from the local medical committee and NHS Direct. If she thinks that that group has not consulted her on the matter in some way, she may wish to contact her PCT and insist on a discussion with it.
From July 2004, the four PCTs in west Hampshire will contract with Primecare for out-of-hours services for one year. That will involve the provision of call handling and triage for local providers. In addition, locally trained staff will assist with priority calls, triaging calls from a central position in Hampshire. Decisions will be taken laterally about how out-of-hours services are provided, depending on the development of local services. I am confident that that will build on the current out-of-hours service for the residents of Hampshire.
I am aware that there have been some challenges and problems associate d with the out-of-hours service provided for the west Hampshire population by Primecare. The hon. Lady expressed those concerns eloquently. The concerns and challenges have, in the main, related to the quality of the call-handling service and the delays encountered by patients attended by on-call doctors. The majority of those complaints relate not to clinical performance but to delays in response times.
PCTs must ensure that the out-of-hours services that they commission or provide meet the national quality standards set out in regulations, to which all significant professional bodies are signed up. All organised out-of-hours providers must meet those standards in the transitional period between 1 April and 31 December and all providers will have to meet the revised quality standards, which are under review by an expert group.
It is important that the momentum for improvement is not lost. I understand, for example, that the PCTs are in continuous dialogue with Primecare to explore concerns and to identify opportunities for improvement, which to date include improving Primecare call handlers' local knowledge, enabling them to manage calls quickly and safely, and establishing a group dedicated to the assessment of performance and to ensuring service quality for out-of-hours services.
I understand that work is also under way to integrate primary care out-of-hours services with out-of-hours arrangements in mental health services, social services and transportation I am assured that the Hampshire and Isle of Wight strategic health authority is taking a strong role to ensure that out-of-hours services are developed and delivered appropriately for their area. As well as having a performance role, I understand that the SHA is securing the support of national advisers as well

311WH
as facilitating joint work across the county on issues such as the work force, education and training. There is significant evidence to suggest that the Hampshire and Isle of Wight health system has identified the matter as their priority for development. I understand that the health community has invested an additional £3 million.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): In anticipation of the Division, that is about to be called, and to avoid unnecessary disruption of the opening comments of the next speaker, I suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.
4 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

Call Centres (Offshoring)
4.18 pm
Mr. Bob Laxton: I am pleased to have been granted this debate because it gives me the opportunity to raise the concerns of a sizeable number of my constituents and those in surrounding constituencies who will either lose their jobs or find that their jobs are at risk because of decisions by a number of companies—two in my constituency—that have decided to offshore some of their call centre work to India.
To set the scene, around 6.000 call centres operate in the United Kingdom, some small and some sizeable. They employ around 500,000 people, which is equivalent to about 1.7 per cent. of the total work force. Call centre work has developed and a number of years ago, when we had high unemployment, that work was often directed into areas where traditional manufacturing work had disappeared. Call centres have been a mainstay of some of those areas ever since.
A research study by Mintel showed that competition from low-wage rival call centre companies in India could mean the closure of perhaps one third of all call centres by 2005. That would equate to about 90,000 jobs. Other pundits have said that hundreds of thousands of jobs could go as call centre work is offshored, not just to India but to other parts of the globe as well. However, I do not believe that that will be the case.
There has been a lot of debate in the media about protectionism—about how the Government can engage with this process and stop it from happening. In reality, they cannot, and should not, be in the business of passing legislation designed to protect call centre work in this country. I am not about to argue that protectionism should be introduced in any way, shape or form. There are benefits in some of the work going to India or wherever. As the economy develops in countries such as India, there will be a ramping up of trade and we will see other benefits as a result. Protectionism should not feature in the debate.
For some, the argument might, from a simple point of view, involve protectionism. However, it is not a case of protectionism versus free trade but of quality of service versus as yet unproven levels of savings from offshoring call centre work. Even the national Call Centre Association admits that there is evidence that organisations that have taken the offshoring route because they thought it would be an effective way of making savings and improving quality of service have failed to realise those benefits.
There have been two announcements in my constituency. Some 170 jobs will go from the Abbey bank call centre based in the city centre by the end of the year. I contributed to a debate on BBC Radio Derby and listened to what people who rang in before and after the debate said. What was interesting was that almost to a man and a woman, all of them said, "We are not happy about Abbey bank doing this. We have been with the Abbey bank and its predecessor, the Abbey National building society, for many years. but if UK jobs are being lost through the work being offshored"—although not necessarily to India—"we'll remove our accounts and place them elsewhere." Companies need to take serious note of that.

313WH
The other jobs that will be affected are those in the National Rail Enquiries service. It is a complex process operated by the Association of Train Operating Companies. The private rail companies that operate the National Rail Enquiries service contract the work out to BT, which sub-contracts it to a company called ClientLogic. A decision has been taken to offshore 50 per cent. of the National Rail Enquiries service. That work will be going out to India later this year. As a direct result, nearly 400 jobs will go from the ClientLogic call centre in Derby. Very regrettably, that poses some threat to the whole ClientLogic call centre operation in Derby, which employs about 700 people.
The Call Centre Association has raised issues relating to quality of service. Unlike Abbey bank, where individuals can say that they are not happy with the company's policy and move their accounts elsewhere, the National Rail Enquiries service is a national, single point of service and there is no alternative for customers. We are, therefore, left with that service. If it deteriorates, the customers ringing it will not be interested in whether it is the fault of the Association of Train Operating Companies or the National Rail Enquiries service, BT or whatever. The buck will stop at the Government's door. I have had some discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport on my concerns about that.
Mr. David Clelland: Is my hon. Friend aware that Lloyds TSB is proposing to close a call centre in my constituency with a loss of 1,000 jobs barely two years after the call centre was opened with a fanfare of trumpets and a promise from the chairman that they would be long-term sustainable jobs? Does he think that Lloyds TSB should have some loyalty to this country and its employees? If it and other companies are not going to be loyal to this country, that will fall at the Government's door, as he said. It is not good enough for Ministers to say that this is a global economy. With thousands of jobs under threat and others haemorrhaging from this country as a result of offshoring, surely the Government have to do something.
Mr. Laxton: Both my hon. Friend and I will listen with great interest to the Minister's comments. I am aware of the decision taken by Lloyds TSB. It must take account of the impact that that will have on its customer base if customers are not happy with the work going to China, India or wherever. If they are not happy that it is being offshored, they have the opportunity to move their accounts elsewhere, which would he to the overall detriment of Lloyds TSB. My point about National Rail Enquiries is that as customers we have no alternative as to where we place our business if we are unhappy with its decision to offshore its work.
In some of the discussions bandied around and some of the Select Committee meetings that I have sat in on, I have learned that the National Rail Enquiries service expects to save around £25 million in the cost of its operation as a result of offshoring. There are, however, concerns about the quality of service. Some interesting research has been undertaken. One of the studies by an industry analyst, ContactBabel, published in January this year, found that the service provided by offshore
314WH
Indian call centres was not all that it was made out to be, but I am sure that there are good and bad call centres in India, as, of course, there are in the UK.
The general analysis was that calls were answered more quickly because the staffing levels were higher than they would be in the UK, but from a customer's point of view problems are answered, dealt with, expedited and resolved much more quickly and simply in the UK, which is something that businesses must take into account. Cost savings can be made by offshoring, but in my view they will he outweighed by frustrated and angry customers if they do not receive the quality of service that they expect.
Research carried out by Phil Taylor at the university of Stirling and Peter Bain at the university of Strathclyde also found communication difficulties. That might be a problem in the UK. I would have difficulty understanding some of the regional dialects of people in the part of the country represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). However, customers and companies need to take those issues into account rather than just looking at the bottom line and saying, "We can make lots of savings—let's go for it."
We have carried out research on other call centres in my constituency. Egg, which is the banking arm of the Prudential, is committed to keeping its work in the UK and in Derby. It uses few external consultants and does pretty much all of its work in-house. Companies such as Alliance and Leicester, Northern Rock and mmO2 said that the cost-savings from offshoring would be modest and outweighed by the loss of control over their operations. They also thought that offshoring would mean losing their most vital form of communication with their customers, which they believe to be a good way of generating business.
Nationwide has also pledged not to move work offshore and is opening a new centre in Swansea. Some 20 per cent. of its business comes from UK call centres. It has stated that it is staying put because it values having roots in the community. It has also said that there has been an overwhelming customer response to its announcement that it will stay in the UK. I am sure that the Minister will pick up on my point, which I repeat ad nauseum, that this is not just about companies saying, "We can make huge savings by offshoring"; they need to consider the other side of the equation as well.
There is a wider impact. The UK service sector makes up about 70 per cent. of gross domestic product, and many call centres are concentrated in areas where there used to be manufacturing jobs, including both my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge. Of course, offshoring does not only involve call centres. We might be seeing the start of many jobs being moved offshore, including those that require workers of low or medium skill, or perhaps even those who are highly, skilled. What impact would that have on the service sector and our GDP?
I reiterate that the issue is about companies weighing up the economics of moving work offshore. They must consider the costs, benefits and the supposed gain from lower-cost services. It is also about weighing up the politics. I cited as an example the possible deterioration of National Rail Enquiries. That would be a political issue because the buck would stop with the Government, not with the companies involved. The

315WH
problem is companies thinking in the short term, by putting immediate and unproven cost-cutting and profitability above quality of service.
The Government need to help UK companies to innovate and invest so that there s employment and growth in the service sector. There is already some growth in that sector and new call centres are coming online. We hope that that will continue. From a fiscal point of view, the Government should consider the situation with regard to VAT. The way in which it is currently imposed encourages firms to offshore because they do not then pay it on certain elements of their business activities. The Treasury should consider the fact that that acts as a financial incentive for companies to offshore. It has closed a loophole but opened another of which companies may wish to take advantage.
Those are the sorts of issues that the Government should consider. We have nothing to fear from offshoring, but we need to help companies. We need the Government to say to them, "Look it isn't just a simple matter of saving costs. That has to be balanced against the impact that it may make on your company's productivity and the level of business activity within your company." I wait with interest to hear the Minister's response to my comments, in particular about how Government can assist companies in this context.
4.35 pm
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on securing this debate on an important and topical issue. The House last debated it in Westminster Hall on 10 December 2003, and it seems that hardly a week goes by without an announcement of one kind or another about intentions to offshore, or concerns about the impact on jobs in the UK.
The bulk of the announcements, as my hon. Friend said, have related to call centres. The debate in December followed some high-profile announcements by companies in the financial services sector of intentions to place both call centre and back-office processing work overseas, and in India in particular. The IT sector, as I have seen on a couple of visits, including one just a few weeks ago, is another area where India is very strong; a quarter of the 1 million graduates that it produces each year are qualified in science and IT.
We need to keep the issue in perspective. Outsourcing is not new. Companies have been buying in services, instead of providing them in-house, for years. Most outsourcing by UK companies is still placed with other UK companies. Even offshoring—that is outsourcing abroad—has gone on for a long time. British Airways first offshored some of its business processes to India in the early 1990s.
The advance of new technology, however, and the development of e-commerce, have certainly increased the scope for services offshoring. Communication costs have fallen and speed and efficiency have increased. For example, the cost of a telephone call from India to the UK has fallen by more than 80 per cent. in little more than three years.
316WH
The recent spate of announcements has given the impression of an increasing trend. My hon. Friend made a valid point about this: offshoring will suit some companies, but not all. He mentioned some companies, to which I would add the Royal Bank of Scotland, Alliance and Leicester, and Nationwide, which have all announced their intention not to offshore. Others have tried offshoring and decided to return work to the UK. Littlewoods, for example, recently announced that it would be closing its Indian call centre and returning the operation to the UK.
Offshoring is not, therefore, a one-way street. Not every service, in any case, can be delivered across borders. However, where that is possible, other factors such as customer relationships of the kind that my hon. Friend spoke about can have an impact on the offshoring decision.
We need to remember that this is not a zero-sum game. Last year in the UK we succeeded in attracting 700 inward investment projects into the UK, including 19 from India. India is becoming a major inward investor into the UK. Those 700 inward investment projects generated between them nearly 35,000 new jobs; the figure included 35 new customer contact centres.
Globalisation is a reality that means more opportunities, including opportunities for the UK. We are not, as my hon. Friend said, in a position to stop it, but neither should we want to, because the UK in particular is a large net beneficiary of what is happening. A point on which I agree with my hon. Friend is that the UK call centre sector remains a UK strength. Despite the apparent trend towards offshoring there are still 5,500 call centres in the UK, employing about 400,000 people. The evidence, as my hon. Friend said, is that that figure is continuing to rise.
There is much going on, and still much that we need to know. To deepen our understanding of offshoring and the current drivers, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced, in December, three important initiatives. First, we published a consultation document asking for comments and reaction by the end of January. We received 40 replies, which we are now studying. The consultation document was called "Services and Offshoring: the Impact of Increasing International Competition in Services". It is still available on the Europe and world trade section of the DTI website; indeed, we would still be glad to receive further responses to it. Having studied all those replies, the Government will respond to the consultation in the White Paper on trade and investment that, as my right hon. Friend announced recently, will be published in the summer.
Secondly, we commissioned an independent study of the competitiveness of UK call centres. We have appointed a consortium of three firms, including ContactBabel, which is due to report to us in April. Call centres have a huge variety of roles, from direct selling to customer relations management, across nearly all commercial and industrial sectors, as well as the public sector. There are a great many conflicting predictions about current trends in call centre numbers and employment. The study will therefore capture a fuller picture and identify the UK industry's main strengths and weaknesses. I also hope that that analysis will

317WH
inform actions that the industry can take, in partnership with the Government or alone, in response to the increasingly competitive worldwide market for call centre services.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend hosted a round table early last month at which a number of businesses, trade unions and academics gave their views about offshoring. That round table was held under the Chatham House rules and a report was not published, but there were some important messages of consensus. The first is that companies' decisions on location in the era of global competition must be commercial. If Governments sought to interfere in those decisions, there would be a greater risk of business as a whole being driven offshore, with the loss of even more jobs. It is important, however, to involve the work force in the decision-making process. That is why I warmly welcome the examples of Barclays and HSBC, with which Unifi has reached a consultation agreement. I also welcome the example of BT, which has a similar agreement with Connect and has successfully undertaken offshoring, but by agreement.
Secondly, in reaching decisions on where to locate, companies need, as my hon. Friend rightly emphasised, to consider the business case carefully. There was broad consensus at the seminar that the UK cannot compete on labour costs alone and should not try to do so. Offshoring decisions are driven principally by low labour costs, but, as my hon. Friend rightly said, businesses need to take account of other factors as well, because if standards of customer service decline, they will soon see the impact on their business. Companies understand that, but it is important that they do their homework carefully, as my hon. Friend said.
Where decisions to offshore result in the loss of UK jobs, we must do all that we can to get people back into work as quickly as possible. Jobcentre Plus, our rapid response scheme, can play a key part in that, by intervening when there is a problem. The regional development agencies can help by encouraging new businesses into towns or regions that are affected by offshoring decisions. The learning and skills councils can help people to learn new skills and improve their employment prospects.
Mr. Clelland: What would be the point of Jobcentre Plus, the learning and skills councils or anyone else encouraging people to take up jobs in call centres, for instance, when the evidence shows that there is absolutely no security of employment?
Mr. Timms: I do not think that that is the position. As I have said, the number of people working in call centres in the UK continues to increase. We shall see what the study that we have commissioned says when it reports at the end of April, but we are determined to do what we can to work for the competitiveness of the UK call centre industry in the competitive conditions in which it
318WH
operates. At the moment, around 60 per cent. of jobseeker's allowance claimants leave the register within three months of joining it and 80 per cent. leave within six months. We have the lowest levels of unemployment in the UK that we have seen for three decades or so.
The seminar's third key message, which reflects the growing consensus in business and trade unions, is, as my hon. Friend was right to emphasise, that recourse to protectionism is not the right way forward. We are a trading nation, and are heavily dependent on open markets throughout the world for our exports of goods and services. We are the second largest exporter of services in the world. We export more than £85 billion-worth of services, compared with imports of £70 billion, and simply cannot afford to close our markets to services provided from abroad, because we would lose far more employment than we could possibly gain. Closing our markets would also be inconsistent with our aim of helping developing countries out of poverty through trade. Indeed, it would be perverse to do so when countries such as India are growing through the sort of international trade that we in the United Kingdom have encouraged. Fortunately, no organisations on this side of the Atlantic are calling for protectionist responses, unlike organisations on the other side of the Atlantic, whose calls I noted when I was in Washington last week. Such steps would be profoundly mistaken and would severely damage the UK and our trading partners.
Offshoring is an innovative business process. It can drive down costs and drive up productivity, benefiting firms and consumers. For the UK economy as a whole, offshoring brings opportunities as well as challenges. That was well illustrated to me in a couple of discussions that I had when I was in India last month, in which we talked, among other things, about outsourcing and offshoring. The UK deputy high commissioner in Mumbai told me that a group from Germany had travelled to Mumbai just before Christmas with the brief of trying to persuade Indian companies to form exactly the sort of partnerships with German companies that they had formed with UK companies. The German group was there because it could see that the UK is developing a significant competitive edge and is attracting more inward investment into the UK because of the competitiveness benefit of such partnerships between UK and Indian companies.
I also had a discussion with Mahindra British Telecom, an enterprise that started as a straightforward offshoring of BT software development activities, but which has become an important supplier of software to the telecoms industry in its own right. It is now investing back in the UK, and has its European headquarters in Britain. It is employing people and creating new jobs in the UK, based on the success of its previous activities.
We need to bear in mind the full scope of what is happening and rise to the challenges that offshoring offers us.
It being twelve minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Leader of the House how many Parliamentary Questions have been tabled to him since 1 January 2003, broken down by(a) Ordinary Written and (b) Named Day; what percentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days; and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157743]

  Mr. Hain
  Ministers have an obligation to Parliament to ensure that Members receive a substantive response to their Named Day question on the named day and to endeavour to answer an Ordinary Written question within a working week of it being tabled. Ministers and their Departments should make every effort to ensure that the live load of questions still awaiting a substantive reply should be kept to a minimum at all times.

  From 1 January 2003 to Friday 27 February 2004:
  102 Ordinary Written Questions were tabled, of which 100 per cent. were answered within 10 working days.
  49 Named Day Questions were tabled, of which 96 per cent. were answered by the specified date.

TREASURY

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to his Department of administering Child Benefit was(a) in total and (b) per claimant in the last year for which figures are available. [158077]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Child Benefit is administered by the Child Benefit Office which only became a part of the Inland Revenue on 1 April 2003 so figures for a full year are not available.

  Contraband/Counterfeit Goods (Northern Ireland)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) quantity and (b) monetary value of (i) illegal fuel, (ii) cigarettes and (iii) counterfeit goods seized over the last year in Northern Ireland. [157390]

  John Healey
  The latest published seizure figures for illegal fuel in Northern Ireland are contained in HM Customs and Excise Annual Report 2002–03 (HC 52) and for other commodities in the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force, Strategic Response 2002–03, which is available from their website at www.octf.gov.uk
  924W

  National Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of real personal disposable income was in each year since 1980; and what the percentage change was in each year compared with the previous year. [157407]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Meacher, dated 3 March 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the level of real personal disposable income. I am replying in his absence. (157407)
  The information available is shown in the table. The data are presented as annual values for 1980 to 2002. Annual data for 2003 are not published until 26 March 2004.
  The households' series used for these data are for the combined household and non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) sectors. The accounts for the household and NPISH sectors are currently combined: separate estimates are not available.

  UK real households' disposable income1: 1980–2002

  Real households' disposable income (£ billion)1

  Percentage change, year-on-year

  1980

  372

  1.7

  1981

  371

  -0.5

  1982

  369

  -0.3

  1983

  377

  2.0

  1984

  391

  3.7

  1985

  404

  3.4

  1986

  421

  4.1

  1987

  436

  3.7

  1988

  460

  5.5

  1989

  482

  4.7

  1990

  499

  3.5

  1991

  509

  2.0

  1992

  523

  2.8

  1993

  537

  2.8

  1994

  545

  1.5

  1995

  558

  2.3

  1996

  571

  2.4

  1997

  595

  4.1

  1998

  597

  0.3

  1999

  616

  3.3

  2000

  655

  6.2

  2001

  685

  4.7

  2002

  696

  1.6

  1Chained volume measures, with reference year 2000.

  Source:

  UK National Accounts (ONS).

  Independent Brewers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent meetings he has had with representatives of independent brewers. [157688]

  John Healey
  Treasury Ministers and officials hold meetings on a regular basis with a wide range of representative bodies. I met the Society of Independent Brewers (SIBA) on 6 February 2004 and discussions have been held with SIBA on the Customs and Excise document "Small Breweries' Relief: A Call for Evidence" published on 29 July 2003.
  925W

  Occupational Physiotherapy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to address the different tax treatment of in-house occupational physiotherapy and a contracted service. [157853]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government keeps all taxes under review and any changes will be considered as part of the normal Budget process. There is currently no specific employment benefit tax relief for the cost of private health care; employees will generally be chargeable on the cost of this treatment, whether provided directly by the employer or via payment to a health provider.

  Treatment provided by physiotherapists that are registered with the Health Professionals Council is exempt from VAT, whether provided in-house or purchased on a contract basis. This service remains free to patients when provided on the NHS.

  Office of Government Commerce
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what annual records are kept on Government Department purchases from portfolio contract holders by the Office of Government Commerce; and if he will make a statement. [158097]

  Mr. Boateng
  Portfolio contract holders are required to submit to OGCbuying.solution on a quarterly basis the total value of contract sales arising from purchases made by Central Government, the Ministry of Defence, HM Prison Service and the National Health Service.

  This information relates to sales totals only, and the OGCbuying.solutions does not receive or keep records of individual purchasing transactions.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department since 1 January 2003, broken down by(a) ordinary written and (b) named day; what percentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157739]

  John Healey
  84.4 per cent. of the 3,489 ordinary written questions tabled to the Chancellor of the Exchequer between January 2003 and February 2004 were answered substantively within 10 working days; and in the same period, 70.2 per cent. of the 544 named day questions were answered on the nominated day.

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) public finance initiative and (b) public private partnership contracts have been signed for Lancashire projects in each of the last three years, broken down by (a) contract amount and (b) project. [157693]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on signed private finance initiative projects is submitted to the Treasury by departments. A spreadsheet of these data, which were last submitted in July 2003, is available from the HM Treasury website at: HYPERLINK http://www.hm http://www.hm.gov.uk/documents/public_private_partnerships/ppp_pfi_stats.cfm
  926W
  The spreadsheet can be searched by date of signature, capital value and region.

  Small Business Taxation
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with representatives of small and medium enterprises on changes to the taxation of small businesses. [157849]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers meet regularly with business leaders and others to discuss a wide range of subjects, including the taxation of small business, and to consider the role the Government can continue to play in fostering enterprise, improving productivity and ensuring a competitive economy.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds would be of making 2 per cent. the highest rate of stamp duty levied above existing thresholds. [157570]

  Ruth Kelly
  The revenue cost of restructuring stamp duty on property transactions according to the scheme described, which applies a 1 per cent. rate on transactions value above £60,000 and a 2 per cent. rate above £250,000, is estimated to be £1.8 billion in 2004–05. This does not include any allowance for behavioural changes.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) the Child Poverty Action Group and (b) other charities regarding (i) the administration of the Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit since 6 April 2003 and (ii) take-up rates of tax credits. [158266]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Officials from the Inland Revenue, HM Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions meet the Child Poverty Action Group and other interest groups regularly to discuss a range of tax credits issues.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds would be of reducing the standard rate of income tax to 21 per cent. [157571]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to table 1.6 "Direct effects of illustrative tax changes" on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax_expenditures/table-16.pdf.

  Thalidomide Trust
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current draft agreement between the Inland Revenue and the Thalidomide Trust. [158750]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax affairs of the Thalidomide Trust, like those of all taxpayers, are confidential and a matter for the trustees and the Inland Revenue. If the
  927W
  trustees wish to make a statement about any discussions they have had with the Inland Revenue that is for them to decide.

  UK Presidencies (G8/EU)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues in the last 12 months on the priorities the Government intend to pursue when the UK assumes the presidencies of the(a) G8 and (b) EU. [156182]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe gave him on 26 February 2004,Official Report, column 483W.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bangladesh
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution his Department is making to the development of education in Bangladesh. [157876]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  My right hon. Friend approved a grant of £100 million over six years as the UK contribution to a sector-wide programme for primary education in Bangladesh which I was able to announce during my visit to Bangladesh in January. This is the largest single grant that DFID has ever made to Bangladesh. Its purpose is to help increase access to education for 2 to 3 million extra children. In addition. DFID also supports two other Government programmes and a number of education programmes run by NGOs aimed specifically at providing education to hard to reach children who would otherwise miss out, for example working children.

  Haiti
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on aid to Haiti. [157877]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A Small Grants Scheme finances development activities in basic sanitation, HIV/AIDS and rural livelihoods. Haiti also benefits from projects financed by the DFID Civil Society Challenge Fund.

  The UK's main support to Haiti is provided through the European Union. The UK finances approximately 13 per cent. of the European Development Fund budget (Haiti's allocation under the latest EOF is frozen pending political progress). The UK also provides support to Haiti through its membership of the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank; the latter resumed lending to Haiti in 2003.

  DFID will consider the imminent United Nations Flash Appeal when launched.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has held with the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the involvement of UK companies in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [157878]
  928W
  Hilary Benn
  I have raised the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and we will be discussing it further later this month.

  India
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to increase aid to India. [157879]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID provided £161 million of bilateral development assistance to India in 2002–03. In the New Delhi Declaration of January 2002 the two Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, looked forward to expenditure of over £300 million. We are making progress towards this budget and expect to be able to disburse some £200 million in 2003–04.

  Doha Trade Round
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the significance for developing countries of completing the Doha trade round. [157880]

  Hilary Benn
  The benefits of the Doha round for developing countries will depend on the final outcome at the conclusion of the negotiations. This was originally scheduled for January 2005 but it is unlikely with the collapse of the WTO ministerial at Cancun that this deadline will be met. It is widely acknowledge that multilateral trade reform can have significant benefits for developing countries. For example, the World Bank estimates that eliminating all barriers to trade in goods would generate an extra US$250 billion to US$620 billion in global income, up to half of which would go to developing countries. In terms of poverty reduction, this could lift over 300 million people out of poverty by 2015.

  Nonetheless, while the reforms may lead to aggregate gains in a country's economic welfare, they inevitably create losers. As well as undertaking studies on the effects of trade reform on livelihoods and food security of the poor segments of the population in developing countries, DFID is working with a number of developing country partners and through the multilateral system to link the trade agenda within countries' own development strategies. The intention is to ensure that liberalisation is accompanied by other policies to help maximise the economic opportunities for all and mitigate adverse impacts on poor households.

  Uganda
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the extent is of collaboration with other EU donors to ensure that humanitarian aid to Uganda is effective. [157881]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID works closely with other European Union partners and the European Commission to ensure that humanitarian assistance provided to northern Uganda is as effective as possible. European Union Heads of Mission and technical advisers based in Kampala meet regularly to consider the latest developments on the ground and to coordinate assistance to all affected areas. On a number of occasions EU donors have made joint assessment visits
  929W
  to the north. The DFID office in Uganda stays in close touch with the European Community Humanitarian Office for East Africa based in Nairobi, Kenya.

  Collaboration between EU member states is part of wider arrangements for coordination of humanitarian assistance to northern Uganda. In this context EU member states, as a group, work particularly closely with UN agencies and other donors.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the humanitarian crisis in northern Uganda; and what action he is taking to address it. [157614]

  Hilary Benn
  The humanitarian impact of the conflict in northern Uganda is severe. About 1.4 million people have been displaced across the region. Over the past 18 years, more than 20,000 children have been abducted by the brutal Lord's Resistance Army (LRA).

  While the conflict persists, we will continue to play a strong role in addressing its humanitarian consequences. Over the last year we have provided £8.4 million of humanitarian assistance, which has been channelled through the World Food Programme, UNICEF and the Uganda Red Cross Society. In addition, we are supporting a number of programmes responding to the plight of children affected by the conflict. With our help, UNICEF and Save the Children Fund are improving the conditions for the large number of unaccompanied children who are sleeping in town centres at night to avoid abduction. We are helping to re-integrate ex-LRA child combatants with their families and local communities.

  Along with other colleagues in the donor community including UN agencies and NGOs, we continue to monitor and assess the humanitarian impact of the situation and to consider what more we can do to assist those affected.

  Commonwealth
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of his Department's budget will be spent in Commonwealth countries in 2003–04; and what percentage change upon the budget for 1998–99 this represents. [157882]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Of the proportion of the DFID programme which goes to specific geographical destinations, Commonwealth countries received £624 million (65 per cent.) in 1998–99 and £877 million (59 per cent.) in 2002–03. This is a 40 per cent. increase in cash terms. Figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  HIV/AIDS
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action his Department is taking to tackle HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. [157883]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID recognises that HIV/AIDS is a terrible human catastrophe and is one of the most important development challenges facing Africa. The UK is the second largest bilateral donor of HIV/AIDS assistance in the world. In 2002–03 UK spend to address HIV/AIDS and sexual health globally amounted to over £270 million. This Department has HIV/AIDS 930W
  investments in most of our 16 focus countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, indirect support is being provided to address HIV/AIDS through budget support. We have committed over £25 million to support the International Partnership Against AIDS in Africa (IPAA) initiative—a regional; Africa-led initiative, and $280 million over 8 years to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. We will make reducing the vulnerability of poor people to HIV and to the impact of AIDS a priority for the extra resources the UK will be providing to Africa in 2006.

  Considerable additional financial support continues to be provided through institutions such as WHO, UNAIDS, UNFPA, and NGOs and civil society organisations in a coherent effort to combat the disease and support those already living with it.

  But we are committed to doing more. The Government has published a Call for Action on HIV/AIDS. This is the first stage in an intensified effort on HIV/AIDS, and a new UK strategy will be published later in the year. The Call for Action highlights the need for: better funding, better donor co-ordination, better HIV/AIDS programmes and stronger political support. The UK has pushed for HIV to be a focus issue for the Africa Partners Forum. HIV remains a high order issue for the G8 Africa Action Plan. The UK will prioritise HIV/AIDS and Africa during the UK Presidency of the G8 in 2005.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to the global campaign to tackle AIDS. [157885]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK is the second largest bilateral donor of HIV/AIDS assistance to developing countries. Our bilateral funding has increased seven-fold, from £38 million in 1997–98 to more than £270 million in 2002–03. The UK was instrumental in setting up the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria and has committed US$ 280 million over seven years to ensure it has long term stability of funding. The Government published its Call for Action on HIV/AIDS on World AIDS Day, which emphasises the UK's commitment to AIDS and highlights the need for stronger political direction; better funding; better donor coordination and better HIV/AIDS programmes.

  Ethiopia
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on development assistance to Ethiopia. [157884]

  Hilary Benn
  As I saw during my recent visit, the problems facing Ethiopia are immense. Almost one half of its 70 million people live below the national poverty line. Hunger, HIV/AIDS and the need to provide basic services pose enormous challenges.

  The time is right for the international community to play a much larger role in helping Ethiopia meet these challenges. This is what the UK intends to do. On current plans, UK development assistance will increase from £19 million this financial year to £57 million in 2005–06. This will include substantial direct budget support. We will also support the Ethiopian Government's own plans to tackle the roots of hunger.
  931W
  At the same time, we will continue to respond to immediate humanitarian needs. This year, despite the good harvest, some 7.2 million people will still need support to stay alive. The reason is not a shortage of food as a whole in Ethiopia—it is poverty. During my visit, I agreed to provide immediate further assistance of £10 million to meet both food and non-food needs, including water, sanitation and health. We will continue to keep the situation under very close review.

  Employee Ownership
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department provides support to governments actively to develop employee ownership of business units programmes. [157794]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provides support to governments both directly and indirectly to develop programmes that promote employee ownership of business units. In South Africa, for example, DFID is providing a range of assistance to Government to support employee ownership of privatised enterprises. This has included assistance to the Department of Public Enterprises to incorporate employee share ownership schemes in its programme to divest the state-owned forestry company's holdings. DFID is also providing support to the Government of Serbia to implement its privatisation programme, which allows for employees to bid for up to 30 per cent. of the shares in the companies.

  DFID also contributes indirectly to promoting employee ownership of business through its membership of major international financial institutions such as the World Bank. Group and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which actively promote employee share ownership in restructuring and privatisation programmes in a number of countries. DFID has not received requests from governments to help develop employee ownership of existing business units in the private sector.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support his Department provides to governments undertaking privatisation programmes to enable employees to buy and run businesses. [157795]

  Hilary Benn
  Few governments have as a policy objective privatisation programmes aimed specifically at enabling employees to buy and run businesses. However, DFID provides extensive support to governments to develop the micro, small and medium enterprise sector. Our support includes assistance to governments to improve the legal and regulatory framework for enterprise; the development of financial institutions to increase the availability of finance needed to establish and operate businesses, and programmes to strengthen local management skills and business support services. These support programmes encourage and enable all entrepreneurs in the community to buy and run businesses, including employees of state-owned enterprises.

  In China, for example, DFID's support to the enterprise sector combines support for state-owned enterprise reform with an enterprise development
  932W
  programme to promote the development of small, private businesses. This programme includes consulting and training services and a credit guarantee scheme to increase bank finance for small enterprise and is open to employees of state-owned enterprises and to the wider entrepreneurial community.

  CDC
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the airline travel policy for the directors of(a) CDC and (b) Actis is in respect of (i) European and (ii) inter-continental flights. [157826]

  Hilary Benn
  The existing CDC airline travel policy will apply to both CDC and Actis and covers all staff, including directors.

  Economy class travel will be used for all flights of less than six hours duration, while business class travel is allowed for flights of over six hours duration or for overnight flights. First class travel may only be used in special circumstances such as intra-continental travel where business class is not available and is subject to prior approval.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the total cost of the reorganisation of CDC and Actis. [157828]

  Hilary Benn
  Our estimate of total costs of the reorganisation of CDC is £11.5 million. This is made up as follows:

  £ million

  DFID Advisory costs

  3.5

  CDC Advisory and staff costs

  5.6

  CDC Implementation costs

  2.4

  Both CDC and DFID have statutory duties and duties of due diligence to discharge. These have to be carried out fully and thoroughly and need properly qualified professional expertise. It was also important to find the right corporate model and to achieve the best value for money. The costs are commensurate with the degree of care and attention needed in the restructuring of a £1.1 billion enterprise.

  Chad
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance has been given to Chad to deal with displaced people from Darfur, Sudan. [158593]

  Hilary Benn
  The United Nations estimates that there are 110,000 Sudanese refugees in Eastern Chad, displaced
  by the fighting in the Darfur region of Sudan.

  We contributed £1 million to UN High Commissioner for Refugees' work in Chad in October last year. We are currently considering some further contributions to international agencies working with Sudanese refugees.
  933W

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what GM crops are being grown in developing countries; and what the advantages over the comparable non-GM crops are of these crops, as cited in peer-reviewed research. [156804]

  Hilary Benn
  The bulk of GM crop production in developing countries is commercial. Of the six countries responsible for 99 per cent. of global crop production by area in 2003, four were developing countries: Argentina (21 per cent.), Brazil (4 per cent.), China (4 per cent.) and South Africa (1 per cent.). Almost all of Argentina's soybean production is now GM, while GM cotton now accounts for 58 per cent. of China's total cotton area1. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications publication "Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2003" provides more information.

  A recently published report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics contains a number of case studies detailing the actual and potential benefits of GM crops for developing countries. These are not necessarily related to yield increases but may, for example, involve reduced farmer inputs.

  GM technology has the potential to provide commercial farmers in developing countries with new opportunities to increase the yield or quality of their crops. In particular, GM technology may enable farmers to protect their crops from environmental stresses and attacks from pathogens and insects.

  GM technology also has the potential to improve the yield and quality of smallholder crops, where the emphasis is on increasing production without the need for increased inputs.

  Decisions about the use of GM crops are, of course, a matter for developing country Governments to take.

  1Source:
  ISAAA, "Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2003"

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contracts have been placed by(a) the United States of America, (b) the United Kingdom and (c) other countries and institutions for the clearing of unexploded ordnance in Iraq; what the values of these contracts are; whom they are with; what the requirements are for which the contractors are being paid; whether sub-contracting to do the actual clearance work is provided for in the main contracts; what relationship is expected between the contractors and military forces stationed in the country, non-governmental organisations and Iraqis; and if he will make a statement. [157138]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is supporting de-mining and the clearance of unexploded ordnance in Iraq both through non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the UN.

  DFID has signed contracts with the NGO Mines Advisory Group for work northern Iraq (£781,639) and southern Iraq (£1,201,263). These contracts cover direct de-mining activities utilising a combination of expatriate staff and locally recruited de-miners.
  934W
  In addition, DFID has funded humanitarian mine action through the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS). The total provided to UNMAS is £4,357,358, including a grant of £357,358 for the purchase of plastic explosives for use in unexploded ordnance disposal. UNMAS has subcontracted the actual de-mining under these contracts to a number of international NGOs and commercial de-mining companies.

  DFID expects the relationship between NGO contractors, commercial de-miners and the military to be one of close cooperation. On the military side, relevant engineer specialists of the British Battle Group have been particularly involved in this. We also encourage a focus on capacity building of Iraqi de-miners as much as possible.

  Information on de-mining work funded by the US, including the establishment a 110-strong 'Iraqi Mine/UXO Clearance' NGO, can be found at www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/20031213a_mines.htm.

  IT Companies (Working Conditions)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to encourage IT firms to ensure that all their sub-contractors in developing countries provided decent working conditions for their employees; and if he will make a statement. [157354]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government's commitment to supporting improvements in labour standards is firmly based on the International Labour Organisations' Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the core labour standards that it incorporates. The Government calls on IT firms and other businesses sourcing goods from developing countries to follow the OECD Guidelines for National Enterprise, which set out principles for responsible business conduct including labour standards.

  Effective and well-judged implementation of labour standards can play an important part in the reduction of global poverty by promoting broad based economic, social and political development. The Government supports initiatives that promote corporate social responsibility in ways that reduce poverty and support growth. The Department for International Development is providing practical support to the development of socially responsible business practice through the Ethical Trading initiative. This is an alliance of business, trade unions and non-governmental organisations committed to improving working conditions in the supply chains of its corporate members. DFID helped to establish the ETI in 1998 and our current partnership is worth £1,300,000 over three years.

  Middle East
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans his Department has to assist economic development in the Middle East. [157756]

  Hilary Benn
  Promoting economic growth that benefits all people in a sustainable way is one of four objectives of our Regional Assistance Plan for the Middle East and North Africa. It is also a primary
  935W
  objective of our Interim Country Assistance Plan for Iraq. Copies of both papers been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. We are working with the European Commission to help improve the effectiveness of their programmes in the region, for example by funding studies to help them strengthen trade links and private sector development. We strongly support European Investment Bank efforts to assist small and medium-sized enterprises, which are engines of growth in the region.

  In Iraq, we are providing technical expertise in economic transition to the Coalition Provisional Authority, strengthening economic management capacity within Iraqi ministries, and supporting the development of small and medium. sized enterprises. We also provide bilateral assistance to Yemen and Palestine, some of which has a specific focus on economic development. Most recently, we have been working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and HM Treasury to help develop plans for the G8 group of countries and the EC to further promote economic development in the region.

  North Korea
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the scale of the movement of refugees from North Korea to China since 1995. [157545]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no accurate figure of the number of North Koreans in China because they tend to remain hidden for fear of discovery and repatriation to North Korea. Estimates vary greatly. The Ministry of Reunification in South Korea estimates that there are 10,000 long-term migrants in China. Some NGO groups estimate there are 300,000 North Koreans in China, based on surveys of villages in the border region.

  The Chinese Government says that, by United Nations definitions, North Koreans who enter China illegally are economic migrants, not refugees. The UK regularly raises the question of North Korean border crossers at our biannual UK/China Human Rights Dialogue.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his policy on development aid to North Korea. [157553]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development (DFID) does not give development assistance to North Korea; nor do we have any plans to start a bilateral programme there. DFID policy is to focus its human and financial resources on a manageable number of key country programmes where the UK has comparative advantage and expertise.

  Since 1997, DFID has provided £3,298,000 in humanitarian assistance to North Korea. Most recently, DFID approved a grant of £1,023,000 to support UNICEF's work in 2004, in primary health care (including provision of essential medical supplies such as vaccinations) and improvements to the water and sanitation systems. In 2002–03 DFID provided £200,000 to the International Federation of the Red Cross for its flood prevention work, and in 2001–02 the Federation also received £75,000 for emergency assistance to flood victims and £800,000 to support the
  936W
  health care system through the distribution of drugs and basic medical equipment. In the same year, DFID channelled £1,200,000 through the United Nations Children Fund to support its primary health care programme.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of energy supplies in North Korea; and what steps his Department is taking to improve them. [157554]

  Hilary Benn
  Insufficient energy supplies impact on the humanitarian crisis in North Korea. Power shortages prevent effective operation of water pumping stations, thereby reducing the overall supply of water. The diminishing supplies of fuel wood compounds this problem as families are unable to boil water before use, which in turn increases the prevalence of water borne diseases and diarrhoea and malnutrition worde. Fuel wood is also used for heating and cooking.

  Nevertheless, energy is only one factor in the overall humanitarian crisis in North Korea, and the Department for International Development seeks to target its assistance in a way that will have the greatest impact. DFID is currently supporting the strengthening of water and sanitation, health care and disaster mitigation. This approach is in accordance with our assessment of the situation and follows discussions with the United Nations Resident Representative for North Korea.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much emergency(a) medical and (b) food aid was provided by the United Kingdom to North Korea in each of the last 10 years. [157555]

  Hilary Benn
  The financial figures available go back as far as 1996 when the United Kingdom gave £23,907 to Save the Children and the World Food Programme (WFP) for a nutrition assessment, £100,000 to the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) for the procurement and distribution of food for those still dependent on food aid following the 1995 flood, and another £100,000 for supplementary food for flood victims. The WFP also received £100,000 for supplementary food and project management costs for flood victims.

  In 1997 we provided £80,000 to the IFRC for relief to provinces affected by floods following a tidal wave, and a further £495,000 for supplementary food needs for 139,000 beneficiaries.

  In 1999 the Department for International Development (DFID) provided
  £131,459 to a pilot project run by CONCERN to increase food security and channelled £200,000 through World Vision to improve food security and promote sound agricultural practices, £120,000 through Save the Children to improve nutrition and early childhood development at national and village level, £158,437 through Oxfam to treat the public water supply in order to reduce the prevalence of water-born diseases and £625,000 to the United Nations Development Programme for its Geographic Information System and policy reform work including a micro-credit system.

  In 2000, DFID provided £50,000 to the IFRC for emergency assistance to storm victims.
  937W
  In 2001–02 DFID provided £1,200,000 to support UNICEF's primary health care programme, as well as £75,000 to the IFRC for emergency assistance to flood victims and £800,000 for its programme to support the health care system through the distribution of drugs and basic medical equipment.

  In 2002–03 The Department provided £200,000 to the IFRC for its flood prevention work and recently approved a grant of £1,023,000 to support UNICEF's work, in 2004, in primary health care, including improvements to the water and sanitation systems as well as essential medical supplies such as vaccinations.

  It should be noted that the European Commission provided approximately £37.5 million in humanitarian assistance to North Korea since 1995, of which the UK has contribution is around £6.4 million.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of food supplies in North Korea; and what steps his Department is taking to improve them. [157557]

  Hilary Benn
  Owing to the environment of secrecy restrictions on agencies operating there, it is difficult to be certain of figures regarding the situation in North Korea. A joint study between the Government and the United Nations Children's Fund showed that 42 per cent. suffer from chronic, or stunting malnutrition and 9 per cent. of the population suffer acute malnutrition (compared with 16 per cent. of children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo). The Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that the North Korean food output falls short of need by 944 thousand tonnes.

  While significant improvements in nutrition rates have been observed through food aid and improved harvests, the international response has been marked by breaks in supply that leave aid beneficiaries vulnerable. Following a recent delay, food distribution has restarted and all but 600,000 core beneficiaries will receive cereal rations up until June.

  It is important to tackle the problem of malnutrition through a balanced approach to its causes. Both DFID and the European Commission Humanitarian Office, are concerned that food aid currently accounts for 90 to 95 per cent. of requested assistance, while poor water and sanitation increases the prevalence of water-born diseases and diarrhoea, which in turn worsens malnutrition. A significant proportion of the population of 22 million have poor quality water and sanitation and only 52 per cent. have access to safe drinking water.

  DFID has recently agreed to provide £1.023 million in support of UNICEF's work in water, sanitation and primary health care (e.g. vaccinations and other essential medical supplies).

  The European Commission is funding targeted food aid through the WFP and other organisations. In January it agreed to give 5 million Euros. The UK contributed £3,338,000 to this.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the 938W
  Government of North Korea about its plans to install (a) broadband, (b) internet technology and (c) mobile phone networks. [157550]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien:
  None.

TRANSPORT

  Air Passengers (Firearms)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport rules apply to passengers transporting guns on air journeys(a) departing from, (b) arriving at and (c) passing through British airports. [157607]

  Mr. McNulty [holding answer 1 March 2004]
  Passengers must surrender firearms or any dangerous articles before entering the restricted zone (RZ) of the airport and cannot regain possession of them in circumstances which would enable them or others to take them onto an aircraft or undermine the security of the airport. Thus departing passengers must surrender any firearms they wish to transport to airport or airline staff prior to undergoing security screening and entering the RZ. Arriving passengers are handed back firearms upon completion of their journey in the presence of a Customs Official or police officer. Transit and transfer passengers do not regain possession of their weapons in the RZ.

  HM Customs and Excise are responsible for the checking of firearms licenses and certificates at the airport.

  Chorley Railway Station
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the Government are contributing towards improving Chorley Railway Station. [157716]

  Mr. McNulty
  Chorley Station is benefiting from £137,000 of grant through the "Rail Passenger Partnership" scheme administered by the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Heathrow
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many aircraft movements there were in each period from November to October since 1980 at Heathrow. [157409]

  Dr. Howells
  The available information is as follows:

  Air transport movements (ATMs) 1 at Heathrow airport: Calendar years 1980 to 2002 Thousand

  ATMs

  1980

  277

  1981

  250

  1982

  255

  1983

  265

  1984

  278

  1985

  288

  1986

  294

  1987

  308

  1988

  330

  1989

  347

  1990

  368

  939W

  Air transport movements (ATMs) 1 at Heathrow airport: calendar years 1980 to 2002

  Thousand

  ATMs

  1991

  362

  1992

  388

  1993

  396

  1994

  409

  1995

  419

  1996

  427

  1997

  429

  1998

  441

  1999

  449

  2000

  460

  2001

  458

  2002

  460

  20032

  420

  1 All scheduled movements (whether loaded or empty) and loaded charter movements, but excluding empty positioning flights by scheduled aircraft. and empty charter movements.

  2 January to November 2003.

  Source:

  Civil Aviation Authority.

  Local Government Finance
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grants were awarded to local authorities in Dorset by his Department in financial year 2003–04 that fall outside the revenue support grant. [156204]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right. hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Raynsford) on 1 March 2004,Official Report, column 750W.

  Lorry Road User Charge
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the net cost to hauliers of the introduction of the Lorry Road User Charge; and if he will make a statement. [157040]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have established a Lorry Road User Charge sub-group of the Road Haulage Forum, through which it conducts a dialogue with representatives of the haulage industry on a wide range of issues relating to the development and introduction of a charging scheme.

  The Government have made clear their intention that the Lorry Road User Charge will be broadly revenue neutral for the UK haulage industry. That position has not changed. The extra revenue raised through the charge will be offset by reductions in fuel duty.

  M1
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further developments are planned to improve the(a) safety and (b) capacity of (i) junctions and (ii) carriageways on the M1 between junctions 15 and 16 to cope with the increase in traffic use arising from the Milton Keynes/Northampton sustainable communities plan. [157441]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have no current plans for major improvements to this section of the M1. Following publication of the draft Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) Sub-Regional Strategy, the 940W
  Highways Agency, together with the three affected Regional Assemblies, looked at strategic transport impacts of the growth proposals on the highway network. Their report has been put in the Library for the public examination of the MKSM Sub-Regional Strategy which begins on 23 March 2004. We will respond to the findings of the public examination in due course.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons carriageway closures are in place between junction 1 and junction 2 of the Ml motorway; when this stretch of motorway was last subject to carriageway closures; and for what reasons these works and those previously undertaken were not carried out at the same time. [157924]

  Dr. Howells
  The M1 between junctions 1 and 2 is currently being resurfaced because the road surface is coming to the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced. The opportunity is also being taken to carry out other major repairs to the infrastructure along this stretch of the motorway.

  This section was last subject to significant carriageway closures at the end of for essential repairs to lighting columns and for advance drainage works in preparation for the current resurfacing scheme. A period of time was needed on this project between drainage works and resurfacing to allow the ground to dry out and settle.

  M6
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the purpose of the planned four-lane M6. [157717]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The West Midlands to North West Multi-Modal Study produced a long-term strategy for the M6 corridor aimed at improving road, rail and other public transport links within the corridor over the next 20 to 30 years. The study clearly demonstrated that some road widening is a necessary component of a strategy aimed at tackling congestion on the M6 motorway. The Secretary of State confirmed his support for the study's recommendation, including widening the motorway from dual 3 to dual 4 lanes between junctions 11a and 19, in his announcement of December 2002.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speeches he made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004; and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156149]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretary of State has made speeches on a range of transport issues, many of which are available on the departmental website at www.dft.gov.uk.

  PowerShift Project
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the PowerShift project; and if he will make a statement. [157925]
  941W
  Dr. Howells
  The PowerShift programme, which provides grants to encourage the purchase of low emission vehicles, has had its most successful year to date in 2003–04, with all the funding being fully committed. It estimated that the programme will support the purchase/conversion of 4,200 vehicles in 2003–04 compared with a total of 2,139 in 2002–03 (figures from the Energy Saving Trust).

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the status of the PowerShift project is; how many new applications have been processed this year; how many new applications are being dealt with; and if he will make a statement. [157926]

  Dr. Howells
  The PowerShift programme will begin accepting applications for 2004–05 shortly. The Energy Saving Trust expects to process applications for 4,200 vehicles in 2003–04. We expect applications to continue at a high level next year.

  Road Transport Directive
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to publish the draft regulations implementing the Road Transport Directive. [158225]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We expect to publish the draft regulations implementing the Road Transport Directive by the end of May. My officials are currently analysing responses from our consultation exercise and the results of this will be published shortly.

  Speed Cameras
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many challenges there have been to speed camera fines in the last 12 months. [148941]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that information is not held centrally on the number of people prosecuted for speeding offences who elect to challenge a fixed penalty notice.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the costs were of(a) purchasing and (b) operating speed cameras in Essex in each of the last six (i) financial and (ii) calendar years for which figures are available. [152476]

  Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 3 February 2004]
  We do not hold information centrally on the costs of local and police authorities' camera operations prior to the establishment of the Safety Camera Programme in April 2000. The information on the costs of the Essex Partnership for 2000–01 and 2001–02, which is compiled by financial year, is in the following table. Capital expenditure includes the purchase of camera equipment. Revenue expenditure covers the cost of administration of the prosecution process by conditional offer fixed penalty.

  £M

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Essex

  Capital

  612,027

  1,036,298

  Revenue

  1,234,453

  2,967,465

  Total

  1,846,480

  3,003,763

  942W
  The figures for 2002–03 will be contained in the report of the third year of the safety camera cost recovery scheme, which is to he published shortly. The results of the two-year trial of the programme demonstrate that safety cameras, covering sites with known problems of speed-related accidents, reduce collisions and road injuries. The third-year report will update the data on the road safety benefit; of safety cameras.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if will take steps to remove speed cameras from non-hazardous sections of road. [156503]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The rules of the Safety Camera Programme require Partnerships to place cameras at sites or on routes with a history of speed related accidents, to review their sites regularly and to adjust enforcement strategies accordingly.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the Ministers who have travelled to Big Conversation meetings in ministerial cars. [158124]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the honourable Gentleman to answer provided by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4 December 2003,Official Report, column 113W. Guidance on the use of official cars is set out in "Travel by Ministers". Detailed information relating to the use of cars by individual Ministers is not held centrally.

  Civil Service Bill
  Mr. Health
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps are being taken to introduce a Civil Service Bill in this session of Parliament. [158122]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement of 21 January 2004,Official Report, columns 1341–49.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many of the buildings for which his Office has responsibility are vacant. [158047]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office is responsible for one office building that is currently vacant, and for which the lease expires in December 2004. There is one small residential property on the Centre for Management and Policy Studies' Sunningdale Park site that is also currently vacant.

  Local Government Finance
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what grants were awarded to local authorities in Dorset by his Department in financial year 2003–04 that fall outside the revenue support grant. [156202]
  943W
  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 1 March 2004, official Report column 750 W.

  Online Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the minister for the Cabinet Office which Government services are available online. [158046]

  Mr. Alexander:
  Departments report quarterly to the Office of the e-Envoy (oeE) on the progress made towards getting their services available online. Details of the services that are currently available online are published on the oeE website. The URL for the most recently published data is: http://www.e-envoy.gov.UK/assetroot/04/00/62/72/04006272.rtf

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the cabinet office how many appointments to public bodies were of people with party political affiliations in each
  of the last three years; and what those appointments were. [158121]

  Alexander
  Details of the number of appointments and re-appointments to public of people who have declared political activity are published in the commissioner for public appointment annual report. Summary details for the last three years are:

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrats

  Other1

  Total

  2000–01

  Number

  150

  452

  79

  55

  736

  Percentage

  3.9

  11.7

  2.0

  1.4

  19.0

  2001–02

  Number

  94

  502

  87

  44

  727

  percentage

  2.7

  14.3

  2.5

  1.3

  20.7

  2002–03

  Number

  111

  407

  74

  55

  647

  Percentage

  3.2

  11.7

  2.1

  1.6

  18.6

  1Other includes Plaid Cymru, Scottish National party, Northern Ireland political Parties, Green party, independents etc.

  The term political activity encompasses activity, undertaken on behalf of a Party or candidate, that is already in the public domain. Examples include standing for Political office, acting as a political agent or canvassing on behalf of a political party. Information on political affiliation is not collected.

  Neither political activity (nor political affiliation) is a criterion for appointment except in a very few number of cases where statute dictates specific representation. Details of an individual's declared political activity is published with the announcement of the appointment by the relevant sponsoring department. This information is not held centrally.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister for the cabinet office how many special advisers occupy offices maintained at public expense. [158123]

  Mr. Alexander
  At 1 March, there were 77 special advisers in post.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Testing
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals will be tested as a result of the proposed EU REACH legislation on chemicals; and if she will set out the basis for her estimate. [155857]

  Alun Michael
  the EU proposal on REACH requires information to be gathered on chemicals in order to provide the basis for protecting human health and the environment. This information may come front a number of sources, one of which is animal testing. The Commission has estimated that this draft regulation will require data to be gathered on approximately 30,000 chemicals. Of these, 20,000 are thought to be produced or imported in quantities of less than 10 tonnes. At this tonnage the current Commission proposal requires 25 animals per chemical. It should be remembered that in most cases the tests are expected to demonstrate that the chemical concerned is safe and therefore involves no threat to humans or animals.

  the Commission proposal would require further data as tonnage increases to reflect the greater potential human and environmental exposure. Under a worst case scenario over 1,500 animals may be needed per chemical for those produced at over 1,000 tonnes (estimated from the testing requirements of the Regulation and OECD guidelines). The tests performed need to comply with the relevant requirements for the protection of laboratory animals set out in directive 86/609/EEC where, among other things, methods used must be refined in such a way as to minimise the amount of suffering caused to the animals concerned. Further, the chemical industry already has some of this data and there are other sources of information such as modelling of data and grouping of chemicals to read-across data from one chemical to another, all of which will reduce the amount of new testing that will be required. If recent experience from a major testing programme in the USA were to be duplicated in Europe, the number of new animal tests that will need to be undertaken will be significantly lower than the number given above.

  It is an overall objective, for the UK government, in negotiating this Regulation. to ensure that animal testing is kept to the minimum necessary to protect human health and the environment. One of the ways we aim to do this is by applying an intelligent approach to testing.

  Agriculture and Fisheries Council
  Mr. Salmond
  to ask the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs what progress has been made with the renegotiation of the December fisheries council; and whether the issue of the impact of force majeure on days at sea has been addressed. [157068]

  Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 27 February 2004]:
  The
  Government has been pressing the European Commission to bring forward urgently amendments to the haddock permit scheme agreed at the December Fisheries council. expect to receive a proposal from the commission for such changes in the next few days. We expect to receive a proposal from the Commission for such changes in the next few days. We have also pressed the Commission to add a force

  945W
  majeure provision to the measure for limiting fishing effort. We understand that the Commission are sympathetic to inserting such a provision into the legislation.

  Animal By-products Regulations
  Mr. Gray:
  To ask the Secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 12 February 2004, Official Report, column 1558W, on Animal By-products Regulations, what assessment has been made of whether adequate protection from rodents and birds might be achieved using suitable netting instead of solid walls in intermediate reception centres. [156614]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  One of the requirements of the Regulation is that Intermediate Plants must have appropriate arrangements for protection against pests such as insects, rodents and birds. While netting may offer adequate protection against birds, it is not clear how it could offer sufficient protection against insects and rodents. However, we are prepared to consider in individual circumstances if an operator can demonstrate that it does offer such protection.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Grogan:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to the Farm Animal Welfare Council report of June 2003 on welfare at slaughter; and if she will make a statement. [155936]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  We expect to issue shortly for public consultation our draft response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of red meat animals at slaughter or killing. The public consultation exercise will be widely publicised. Allowing time for comments to be considered, we expect to issue the final response document around the middle of the year.

  Norman baker:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what position her Department is taking in discussions within the European Union on maximum journey times for animals destined for slaughter. [156343]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  At the 24 February Agriculture Council the Secretary of State confirmed the Government's preference for replacing the long distance transport of animals for slaughter with a trade in meat. Until that can he achieved journey times for slaughter animals should be reduced, taking account of animal husbandry and geography.

  Mr. Hancock:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the levels of antibiotics being fed to animal; and what the figures were 10 years ago. [156874]

  Mr. Bradshaw:
  There are no comprehensive figures available on the usage of veterinary antibiotics in the UK. However since 1998 the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) has published figures on the annual UK sales of all veterinary antimicrobial products from
  946W
  1993 onwards. These have been published in a series of five reports, the most recent of which, published in November 2003, details reported sales between 1998 and 2002. All of these reports are available on the VMD website (www.vmd.gov.uk) or as hard copy direct from the VMD. It is generally accepted that the pattern of reported sales veterinary antimicrobials directly relates to the pattern of their usage in the UK.

  Due to a change in the methodology VMD used to calculate these figures, reported sales before 1998 are not directly comparable with those after 1998. However taken as a whole these figures provide a baseline of sales of antimicrobials over a 10-year reporting period. They show that over the last 10 years the total reported sales of therapeutic antimicrobials have remained broadly constant (ranging between 392 tonnes and 495 tonnes of active ingredient) except for a peak in 1996 (553 tonnes). Total reported sales in 2002 amounted to 457 tonnes of active ingredient, a slight reduction from 2001 (459 tonnes) and 2000 (462 tonnes).

  Reported sales of antimicrobial growth promoters have reduced from their peak of 122 tonnes in 1995 to between 23 tonnes (1999) and 46 tonnes (1998) of active ingredient over the last five years. (It is known that there are some missing data for some years so changes may not be as significant as they appear.) This reduction probably partly reflects a reduction since 1999 in the number of active ingredients authorised for use as antimicrobial growth promoters. Reported sales in 2002 amounted to 27 tonnes compared to 43 tonnes in 2001.

  Andrew George
  To ask the secretary of state Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation prohibits (i) a farmer and (ii) any other from (A) purchasing, (B) transporting, (C) owning and (D) being legally responsible for the welfare of farm animals in circumstances where they have previous convictions for mistreating farm animals; and if she will make a statement. [157101]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  section 3 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 allows a court to disqualify a person convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal from having custody of any animal for such a period as it thinks fit. This can mean a lifetime ban from keeping animals. This legislation applies equally to farmers and other persons responsible for looking after animals.

  Article 9 and Schedule 12 of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, as amended, set down the conditions under which authorisations may be granted for the transport of animals. In considering whether an applicant is a fit person to hold an authorisation the minister may have regard to any relevant circumstances, including any offences involving animal welfare.

  We are considering a new system of three tiers of offences under the proposed Animal Welfare Bill. The most serious offence would refer to those involved in the fighting of animals, the second would maintain the current offence of cruelty, whilst the third would impose a statutory duty to promote the welfare of animals kept by man. In addition. We intend to increase the effectiveness of the courts' power to disqualify.
  947W

  livestock movements
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will lift the six-day rule which applies to auction marts and slaughterhouses. [156883]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Livestock moving to auction markets and slaughterhouses do not trigger a six-day standstill on arrival.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many calves have been refused passports because they have not been registered within 27 days in each of the last three years. [156043]

  Alun Michael
  The number of passports refused over the last three years because of late registration has been:

  Total passports applications received

  Passports initially refused as late

  Passports issued after appeal

  Net passports refused

  2001

  2,998,238

  2,035

  775

  1,260

  2002

  2,885,188

  1,011

  646

  365

  2003

  2,952,404

  3,982

  570

  3,412

  Cetaceans
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what projections she has made of the future population of(a) dolphins and (b) porpoises within (i) British waters and (ii)European Union waters; and if she will make a statement. [156213]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State has made no projections to date on the future populations of dolphins and porpoises in British and Union waters.

  However, the Government is supporting new survey work to he undertaken in 2004–05 by a consortium of international researchers, co-ordinated by the sea Mammal Research Unit, on the distribution and abundance of small cetaceans —particularly harbour

  2002 Report of the Advisory Committee on Ecosystems of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

  Species Year

  ICES Area or geographical locality

  Abundance estimate

  95 per cent. Confidence limits

  Method

  Reference

  Harbour porpoise

  1994

  IVa

  98,564

  66,679–145,697

  Ship-based line transect

  Hammond et al., 2002

  IVb + c

  169,888

  124,121–232,530

  Vlif+g + h+j

  36,280

  12,828–102,604

  Bottlenose dolphin

  1992

  Moray Firth (southwestern IVa)

  129

  110–174

  Photographic mark-recap Photographic identification or direct observation.

  Wilson et al, 1999

  2001

  French coasts Vile Villa

  250–300

  n/a

  ICES, 2002

  1991–1993

  Cornwall

  15

  n/a

  ICES, 1996

  1994–1995

  Dorset

  5

  n/a

  2001

  Cardigan Bay, Waliis

  135

  85–214

  White and Webb, 1995 Baines et al. ,2002

  213

  183–279

  Ship-based line transect

  948W
  porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and common dolphins (Delphinus delphis)—in the shelf waters of the Atlantic margin, the North Sea and adjacent waters. This work will include development of methods of monitoring abundance and identifying population trends between major decadal surveys, and recommendations for monitoring protocols by individual species and areas.

  international funding is being sought in support of this work and the UK has pledged £275,000 towards it.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the(a) dolphin and (b) porpoise populations within (i) British waters and (ii)European Union waters; what the estimate was for these species 20 years ago; and if she will make a statement. [156214]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Obtaining population estimates for cetaceans is difficult. There is a wide margin of error around most abundance estimates and the geographical limits of most biological populations of dolphin species are not known.

  To date, major surveys of cetacean distribution or abundance have not been Carried out at regular intervals. The following table gives figures from the 2002 report of the Advisory Committee on Ecosystems of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) illustrating the latest information on the populations and abundance of small cetaceans occurring in UK waters. The populations are given in terms of ICES areas or geographical locality. A map showing the ICES areas has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  A consortium of international researchers, co-ordinated by the Sea Mammal Research Unit, is planning to carry out a survey of the distribution and abundance of small cetacean— particularly harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and common dolphins (Delphinus delphis)—in 2004–05. The survey area is intended to cover the shelf waters of the Atlantic margin, the North Sea and adjacent waters. International funding is being sought in support of this work and the UK has already pledged £275,000 towards it.

  Reliable estimates for dolphin abundance in British and European Union waters in 1984 are not available.
  949W

  Species Year

  ICES Area or geographical locality

  Abundance estimate

  95 per cent. Confidence limits

  Method

  Reference

  White-beaked and,

  Atlantic white-sided dolphins

  1994

  IVa

  1,685

  690–4,113

  Ship-based line transect

  Hammond et al, 2002

  IVb

  9,242

  5,344–15,981

  Vllf+ g + h + j

  833

  159–4,360

  Atlantic white-sided dolphin

  1998

  Faroes-Shetland channel

  21,371

  10,000–45,000

  Ship-based line transect

  Macleod, 2001

  1998

  Vla(N)

  74,626

  35,000–160,000

  2000

  Parts of VI a&b VI1 b/c, VI Ij&k

  5,490

  1,134–10,015

  O'Cadhla et al, 2001

  Common dolphin

  1994

  VUf + g + h + j parts of VI a&b

  75,449

  22.900–284,900

  Ship-based tine transect

  Hammond et al, 2002

  2000

  VII b/c, Vllj&k

  4,496

  2,414–9,320

  O'Cadhla et al., 2001

  1993

  Bay of Biscay

  61,888

  35,461–108,010

  Goujon et al.,1993

  Striped dolphin

  1993

  Bay of Biscay

  73,843

  36,113–150,990

  Ship-based line transect

  Goujon etal., 1993

  Country Code
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress her Department is making on its revision of the Country Code; and whether the revised code will require dogs to be kept on a short fixed lead(a) near livestock and (b) during the bird breeding season on land to which the statutory rights of access to open country under the countryside and rights of way act 2000 applies. [156767]

  Alun Michael
  The duty to issue a code of conduct for the guidance of persons visiting the countryside lies statutorily with the Countryside Agency. The agency has been consulting widely on proposals for updating the code, which was last revised in 1981. The agency aims to publish a new code in the summer, which will include general guidance on legal responsibilities regarding dogs. The code will not introduce any new responsibilities.

  The Countryside and Rights of Way act 2000 itself requires people exercising the new right of access to keep dogs on short leads when in the vicinity of livestock, and on all access land between 1 March and 31 July. The Act also provides for local restrictions on dogs, including bans, where necessary, and allows landowners to exclude dogs for up to six weeks in any one year from fields or enclosures where lambing is taking place and for up to five years from land managed for the breeding and shooting of grouse.

  The Countryside Agency has been seeking views on meeting its obligations under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to provide guidance for people using the new right of access and for people with an interest in land to which the new right applies. Information about the statutory requirements relating to dogs will be included in communications with the public when the new right of access is introduced.

  Horses and Ponies
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many equines were slaughtered for human consumption in England in each year since 2000, broken down by type; [156566]

  (2) how many tonnes of horsemeat were (a) produced in England and (b) exported from England in each year since 2000; [156567]
  950W
  (3) how many tonnes of horsemeat were imported into the UK in each year since 2000; [156568]

  (4) how many horses were exported from the UK to the EU in each year since 2000; [156569]

  (5) how many horses, intended for slaughter, were exported from the UK to the EU in each year since 2000; and how many horses were exported to countries outside the EU; [156659]

  (6) how many horses that were not intended for human consumption were slaughtered in the UK in each year since 2000. [156660]

  Alun Michael
  the information requested is given in the following table:

  UK production and trade in horses and horsemeat 2000–03

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Equines slaughtered (units—England)

  9,112

  10,479

  8,284

  6,727

  for human consumption

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  not for human consumption

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Horsemeatproduction (tonnes)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Horsemeat (tonnes)

  Imports

  From:

  theEU

  0

  6

  0

  0

  the rest of the world

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Exports

  To:

  theEU

  2,857

  2,417

  2,022

  1.566

  the rest of the world

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Horses (units)

  Imports

  Of which:

  Pure-bred breeding horses

  theEU

  4,163

  1,733

  1,902

  2.234

  the rest of the world

  1.104

  835

  715

  728

  Horses for slaughterm

  the EU

  —

  —

  —

  —

  the rest of the world

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horses other than for slaughter

  theEU

  503

  1,986

  383

  286

  the rest of the world

  147

  48

  183

  190

  Exports

  Of which:

  Pure-bred breeding horses

  theEU

  1,641

  1,714

  1,392

  2,041

  the rest of the world

  934

  842

  1,088

  2,223

  Horses for slaughter

  theEU

  —

  —

  —

  —

  the rest of the world

  —

  —

  —

  —

  951W

  UK production and trade in horses and horsemeat 2000–03

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Horses other than fir slaughter

  the EU

  1,572

  1,292

  662

  1,555

  The rest of the world

  695

  375

  364

  338

  source:

  H M Customs and Excise

  Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities & Food) Consultancy

  Trade and IT, ESD, DEFRA

  2003 EU data is provisional and subject to amendment

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural affairs (1) which EU Directive or Regulation requires horse traceability for disease surveillance purposes; [156655]

  (2) what recent discussions she has had with the EU about disease surveillance in horses. [156656]

  Alun Michael
  There is currently no requirement in Eropean legislation for a horse traceability system for disease surveillance purposes, but both the Government and the horse industry consider that there is a need for a national equine database. Defra is therefore working with the industry to set up such a database that will help to implement the horse passports requirements, and underpin economic and animal health and welfare strategies for the horse and its role within the rural economy.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to the Department of implementing the minimum values Legislation was in each of the last three years. [156663]

  Alun Michael
  The cost to the Department of horse and pony export licensing (commonly referred to as the minimum values legislation) in England during the last three financial years was:

  £

  Amount

  2000–01

  41,643

  2001–02

  39,705

  2002–03

  43,374

  Illegal Imports
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for the establishment of a single agency to address legal and illegal imports of food. [155392]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In its response to the Reports of the Foot and Mouth Disease inquiries in November 2002, The Government said that there was a case for a single agency to oversee all aspects of the management of the legal trade in imported foodstuffs, but that we would first aim to secure a step change in the co-ordination and delivery of local authority inspection of imported foodstuffs and products of animal origin within one year. We will review the first year's program with the step change project, which has been co-ordinated by the Food Standards Agency and in the light of that consider the case for an agency later in the Spring.

  Responsibility for anti-smuggling checks on illegal imports of food was transferred to HM Customs and Excise in April 2003. The Government have no plans for changes in those responsibilities.
  952W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of local authorities in the detection of illegal meat imports that have evaded customs and border inspections. [155394]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Local authorities have made and
  continue to make seizures of products of animal origin inland. Central records do not differentiate between legitimate imports which now fail to meet relevant regulations, shipments that have entered the EU through other member states and any that may have evaded customs and border inspections in the UK.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment,
  Food and Rural Affairs when she will report to parliament on the progress of the illegal meat strategy. [1553911]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Progress against the Government's action plan on illegal imports in 2002–03 is reported in the Annual Review of controls on imports of Animal Products. Copies have been placed in House Libraries.

  The 2003–04 Action Plan is appended to the Review, and we are working with HM Customs and other responsible parties to implement it. Progress will be reported in the second annual report which will be published in early summer.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the sufficiency of resources allocated to HM Customs and Excise to address illegal meat imports and of how they compare with those of its equivalent in other European countries. [155847]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have almost doubled the amount of funding available to HMCE in 04/05 to put more resources into addressing illegal imports of meat, fish, plants, and their products. We do not have details of what resources other EU countries have in place but know that the UK is viewed as being more advanced in this area.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role her Department has played in tackling the import of illegal meat. [156488]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for policy issues relating to imports of products of animal origin and plant and plant products.

  HM Customs and Excise are responsible for enforcement at points of entry to the UK and local authorities are responsible for enforcement inland.

  We continue to liaise closely with HM Customs and Excise and the Food Standards Agency to ensure a coherent approach in tackling illegal imports.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether the Ad Hoc Ministerial Group 23 will consult organisations outside Government when undertaking the review of step change; [155396]
  953W
  (2) if she will ask Ad Hoc Ministerial Group 23 to broaden the scope of the review into step Change to include a review into the effectiveness of the Government's illegal meat strategy; [155397]

  (3) when Ad Hoc Ministerial Group 23 has met; and if she will publish The minutes and agenda; [155398]

  (4) if she will list the members of Ad Hoc Ministerial Group 23; and what its remit is. [155399]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Ministerial Committee on Illegal Imports (Misc 23) was established by the Prime Minister in july 2003 to Co-ordinate policy on imports of animals, plants, fish and their products. It is composed of the following members:

  Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Chair)

  Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Economic Secretary

  Minister of State, Home Office (Beverley Hughes)

  Minister of State, Department for Transport

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health (Melanie Johnson)

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh)

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope)

  The Chairman of the Food Standards Agency is invited to attend.

  It has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. This practice is now formalised by Exemption 2 of Part ii of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Knackeries/Hunt Kennels
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many knackeries were licensed in the UK in each year since 2000; [156661]

  (2) how many hunt kennels were licensed in the UK in each year since 2000 [156662]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Prior to the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003, which came into force on 1 July 2003, Knackers' Yards required approval under the Animal By-Products Order 1999. Hunt Kennels required registration under the Order.

  In June 2003. before the Animal By-Products Order was revoked, there were 73 approved Knackers' Yards and 293 registered Hunt Kennels. We do not have a breakdown of how many were approved in each year.

  Motor cycling
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are being taken to prevent unauthorised off-road motor cycling. [158090]
  954W
  Alun Michael
  The Forestry Commission and Countryside Council for Wales are jointly organising the Wales Off-road Motorcycle Conference to take place on 6 may. The Conference will consider how best to curtail unlawful off road motorcycling and how to develop, as an alternative, facilities for motorcycling as a managed outdoor recreational activity.

  In addition, the Government have published a consultation paper setting out its proposals for tackling the problems that can arise through the use of motorcycles and other mechanically propelled vehicles on public rights of way.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to her Department since 1 January 2003, broken down by(a) ordinary written and (b) named day; what precentage in respect of (a) were answered within 10 working days; and what percentage in respect of (b) were answered by the specified date. [157516]

  Alun Michael
  records for session 2002–03 were not maintained in such a way to enable the Department to extract the information requested without incurring disproportionate costs.

  However, according to our records Defra received a total of 5.444 parliamentary questions broken down as follows:

  a. 3,836 were ordinary written;

  b. 851 were named day.

  To date, in the current parliamentary session we have received a total of 1,784 parliamentary questions, broken down as follows:

  a. 1,104 were ordinary written, of which 923 were answered within 10 working days which equates to 83.6 per cent;

  b. 190 were named day and 42 were answered on the specified date which equates to 22.1 per cent.

  Defra endeavours to reply to all parliamentary questions within parliamentary deadlines wherever possible.

  Peat
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps her department is taking(a) to collect and (b) to publish data for the regular two-yearly monitoring of the use of peat and peat alternatives; [157173]

  (2) what steps her Department is taking to meet the Biodiversity action plan targets for the replacement of peat in the horticulture industry. [157174]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The latest information on monitoring of peat and alternative products for growing media and soil improvers in the UK was published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2003. The Department now has responsibility for this issue. We are considering arrangements for a further monitoring exercise later this year with a view to publishing the data in 2005.
  955W
  In the meantime we have commissioned ADAS to produce a report which will provide details of the current use of peat and growing media alternatives in the commercial horticulture sector in England.

  The Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) is carrying out research into the use of recycled and compost materials in the production of growing media. The research includes a programme of demonstration growing trials across the UK, covering a range of plant types, growing regimes and commercial situations. The growing trials involve trials of peat-free and reduced peat formulations against a standard peat based formulation. It is expected that the results from the research will be published in April this year.

  pollution
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs What the concentration was of(a) nitrogen dioxide, (b) sulphur dioxide and (c) benzene in each (i) London borough and (ii) London ward in each of the last five years. [156666]

  Alun Michael
  The United Kingdom Automatic Urban and Rural Air Quality Monitoring Network currently has 22 sites in the greater London area.
  Annual mean concentrations of each pollutant for each

  Table 1:Annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations at each site in the Automatic Urban and Rural Air Quality Monitoring Network in Greater London in 1999–2003

  Highest annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentration (micrograms per metre cubed)

  Sites

  London borough

  Ward

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  West London

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Abingdon Ward

  55

  53

  52

  46

  55

  Camden Kerbside

  Camden

  Adelaide Ward

  66

  63

  66

  66

  65

  London Marylebone Road

  City of Westminster

  Baker Street Ward

  91

  93

  84

  81

  107

  London Bromley

  Bromley

  Bickley Ward

  65

  63

  61

  41

  42

  London Bloomsbury

  Camden

  Bloomsbury Ward

  67

  59

  51

  —

  —

  Hounslow Roadside

  Hounslow

  Brentford Clifden Ward

  60

  52

  54

  58

  —

  London Cromwell Road 2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Brompton Ward

  93

  88

  76

  72

  76

  London Southwark

  Southwark

  Browning Ward

  56

  52

  55

  47

  —

  Haringey Roadside

  Haringey

  Bruce Grove Ward

  51

  51

  48

  46

  53

  London Sutton

  Sutton

  Carshalton Central Ward

  34

  32

  35

  —

  —

  Southwark Roadside

  Southwark

  Consort Ward

  —

  63

  65

  58

  67

  London Hackney

  Hackney

  Eastdown Ward

  60

  51

  48

  47

  50

  London Eltham

  Greenwich

  Eltham Park Ward

  36

  33

  34

  30

  38

  London Wandsworth

  Wandsworth

  Fairfield ward

  51

  49

  53

  52

  62

  Tower Hamlets Roadside

  Tower Hamlets

  Holy Trinity Ward

  70

  65

  69

  61

  67

  London Bexley

  Bexley

  North End Ward

  37

  35

  36

  31

  37

  London Lewisham

  Lewisham

  Rushey Green Ward

  54

  —

  —

  50

  58

  London North Kensington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  St. Charles Ward

  46

  40

  42

  40

  45

  London Brent

  Brent

  St. Raphael's Ward

  37

  36

  37

  29

  32

  Sutton Roadside

  Sutton

  Sutton Central Ward

  43

  40

  44

  —

  —

  London Teddington

  Richmond Upon Thames

  Teddington Ward

  32

  28

  29

  25

  28

  London A3 Roadside

  Kingston upon Thames

  Tolworth South Ward

  59

  55

  54

  58

  73

  London Bridge Place, London Westminster

  City of Westminster

  Victoria Ward

  63

  —

  —

  43

  52

  54

  Londan Hillingdon

  Hillingdon

  Yiewsley Ward

  —

  48

  46

  45

  54

  Table 2: Annual mean sulphur dioxide concentrations at each site in the Automatic Urban and Rural Air Quality Monitoring Network in Great Londan 1999—2003

  Highest annual mean sulphur dioxide concentration (micrograms per metre cubed)

  Sites

  London borough

  Ward

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  London Marylebone Road

  City of Westminster

  Baker Street Ward

  13

  15

  12

  10

  12

  London Bloomsbury

  Camden

  Bloomsbury Ward

  13

  11

  11

  7

  8

  London Cromwell Road 2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Brompton Ward

  12

  8

  7

  7

  6

  London Southwark

  Southwark

  Browning Ward

  8

  8

  9

  6

  8

  Southwark Roadside

  Southwark

  Consort ward

  10

  5

  7

  5

  6

  London Eltham

  Greenwich

  Eltham Park Ward

  5

  6

  6

  4

  5

  London Bexley

  Bexley

  North end Ward

  7

  7

  7

  8

  10

  London Lewisham

  Lewisham

  Rushey Green Ward

  8

  —

  —

  4

  6

  956W
  year between 1999 and 2003 for the London boroughs and London wards are given in tables 1, 2 and 3, for nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and benzene, respectively.

  There are a total of 33 boroughs and 785 wards (1991 ward data) in London. For nitrogen dioxide there are currently 16 London boroughs and 19 London wards that have monitoring in the national network. For sulphur dioxide there are currently 10 London boroughs and 13 London wards that have monitoring in the national network. For benzene there are currently four London boroughs and four London wards that have monitoring in the national network. Data from different sites are not necessarily directly Comparable due to the different locations of the sites, for example, kerbside, roadside, background and suburban. The data for all the sites within the United Kingdom Automatic Urban and Rural Air Quality Monitoring Network are available from the national air quality Information archive (www.airquality.co.uk).

  In addition, a number of London boroughs carry out independent monitoring which is within the London Air Quality Network. Thirty-one boroughs have nitrogen dioxide monitoring, 26 boroughs have sulphur dioxide monitoring and one borough monitors benzene.
  957W

  Table 2: Annual mean sulphur dioxide concentrations at each site in the Automatic Urban and Rural Air Quality Monitoring Network in Great London 1999—2003

  Highest annual mean sulphur dioxide concentration (micrograms per metre cubed)

  Sites

  London borough

  Ward

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  London North Kensington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  St. Charles Ward

  6

  6

  6

  4

  5

  London Brent

  Brent

  St. Raphael's Ward

  4

  4

  4

  3

  4

  Sutton Roadside

  Sutton

  Sutton Central Ward

  8

  9

  9

  —

  —

  London Teddington

  Richmond upon Thames

  Teddington Ward

  6

  5

  5

  4

  5

  London Bridge Place, London Westminster

  City of Westminster

  Victoria Ward

  7

  —

  —

  4

  9

  London Hillingdon

  Hillingdon

  Yiewsley Ward

  10

  10

  9

  7

  8

  Table 3: Annual mean benzene concentrations at each site in the Automatic Urban and Rural Air Quality Monitoring Network in Greater London 1999—2003

  Highest annual mean benzene concentration (micrograms per metre cubed)

  Sites

  London borough

  Ward

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  London Marylebone Road

  City of Westminster

  Baker Street Ward

  10.8

  6.3

  4.5

  3.9

  3.1

  London UCL, London Bloomsbury (pumped tube data)1

  Camden

  Bloomsbury Ward

  3.6

  2.1

  —

  —

  1.9

  London Eltham

  Greenwich

  Eltham Park Ward

  2.5

  1.6

  —

  —

  Haringey Roadside (pumped tube data)1

  Haringey

  Bruce Grove Ward

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.0

  1Pumped tube data are collected using a non-automatic technique.

  Fisheries
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to regulate public fisheries. [156859]

  Mr Bradshaw [holding answer 27 February 2004]
  fisheries are managed on at a European level under the common fisheries policy, nationally under UK legislation, and within six miles by sea fisheries committees or the Environment Agency.

  There are two major reviews being carried out which could impact on the management of public fisheries; the prime Minister's strategy unit's review of the UK fishing industry and the Defra review of marine Fisheries and Environmental Enforcement which is looking specifically at the organisation of enforcement. These Reviews are due to report in the near future and it is possible that their recommendations will lead to changes in current regulations.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Malcolm Bruce
  to ask the secretary of state for Environment, food and rural affairs how much(a) her department and (b) each agency and Non-departmental public body sponsored by her department spent on (i) advertising and (ii) Information campaigns in each year since its creation; what her estimate is for 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [149723]

  Alun Michael
  the department does not Maintain separate records of its expenditure for advertising and information campaigns. The expenditure for publicity by Defra's Communications Directorate, includes marketing, advertising, publications, events, shows and direct mailings, and is recorded for the financial years since Defra's creation in June 2001 as follows.
  958W

  £million

  2001–02

  6.6

  2002–03

  4.7

  2003–04

  13.7

  1 estimate

  This includes communications on a Wide range of matters, much of it necessary or beneficial to the public and the wide range of industries in which Defra has an interest, together with local government, voluntary organisations and other bodies.

  Information relating to agencies and non-departmental bodies sponsored by the Department is not held centrally and could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  Recruitment advertising
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the secretary of state for Environment, food and Rural Affairs how much her Department has spent on recruitment advertising in each year since 1997. [156453]

  Alun Michael
  As Defra was created In June 2001; information prior to this date is unavailable.

  Given the current structure of the human resources function within the Department the information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Rural payments agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will instruct the rural payments agency to change its policy on accepting art initialled alteration of a figure on a subsidy claim. [156045]

  Alun Michael
  Following legal advice, the Rural Payments Agency has reviewed its procedures on accepting alterations on subsidy claims. It will no longer accept initialled alterations.
  959W
  With effect from the 2004 scheme year IACS applicants are being advised that amendments must be crossed through, the correct information entered and the change signed and dated. Correction fluid is not to be used.

  Defence

    Armed Forces (Irish Citizens)
    Mr. Swire
    To ask the secretary of state for Defence how many citizens of the Republic of Ireland are serving in her Majesty's armed forces. [155649]

    Mr. Ingram
    There are currently 65 naval service personnel and 200 Army personnel with a Republic of Ireland nationality shown on their Record of Service.

    Insufficient data are available to produce reliable estimates for the RAF.

  Army Strength
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) establishment and (b) strength of all ranks above major in the Army; and if he will make a statement. [154489]

  Mr. Chaplin
  As at January 2003, the liability for officers over the rank of Major in the Army is:

  Number

  Lt. Col.

  1,579

  Col.

  546

  Brig.

  175

  Maj. Gen.

  27

  Lt. Gen.

  5

  Gen.

  2

  The information requested on strengths of all ranks over major in the army is contained in Tri-Service publication 9, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Army

  Exercise

  Grand Prix1

  Mono Prix2

  Sharp Point3

  Pineapple4

  Oakapple5

  Crabappleb6

  1999

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2000

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2001

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2002

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2003

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Total number of exercises

  13

  4

  4

  5

  4

  5

  Duration of each exercise (weeks)

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Approximate number of personnel involved in each

  700

  140

  140

  120

  140

  45

  1 A battalion exercise

  2 A company exercise

  3 A squadron level primary healthcare exercise

  4 A squadron level explosive ordnance clearance exercise

  5 A squadron level engineer construction exercise

  6 A troop level engineer construction exercise

  Missile Defence Centre
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what expenses are expected to be met from the Government's investment in the missile Defence
  960W
  Mr. Keetch;
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons units are receiving lists of names for manning control review. [154490]

  Mr. Caplin
  The nomination of personnel for manning control action is a unit responsibility. Before January 2001 lists of individuals approaching Manning Control points were regularly issued to Commanding Officers by the Infantry Manning and Career Management Division. In January 2001 this practice ceased. However, it subsequently proved that the information needed could not easily be taken from the relevant local computer systems. Following requests from individual units divisional lists were therefore resumed in January 2004. Commanding Officers are not required to take any action unless they believe that an individual should be subject to manning control.

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK military personnel are deployed in Colombia; and how many Colombian military personnel are being trained in the UK. [157712]

  Mr. Ingram
  On the subject of the number of United Kingdom military personnel deployed in Colombia, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 910W.

  One Colombian military officer is currently attending the Advanced Command and Staff Course at the joint Services Command and Staff College, Shrivenham.

  Kenya
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military exercises have taken place in Kenya in each of the last five years, broken down by(a) number of troops involved and (b) length of exercise. [158035]

  Mr. Ingram
  The details of British military exercises that taken place in Kenya over the last years; broken down by the number of participating troops and length of the exercise are
  shown in the following table:

  Centre; what expenses will be met by industry; how much investment is expected from industry; what output are expected from the centre; and if he will make a statement. [154902]
  961W
  Mr. Hoon
  The expenses incurred by the Missile Defence centre (MDC) fall into the broad categories of running costs for the Centre itself and funding for specific technical work carried out in support of its objectives. In the period from the MDC's Opening last July to the end of financial year 2003–04 the Ministry of Defence expects to contribute some £5.5 million, while the estimated contribution by industry will be some £2 million.

  The outputs expected from the MDC in 2003–04 include: advice on missile defence issues; the development of models and databases to facilitate the formulation and evaluation of concepts for defending the United Kingdom against the ballistic missile threat; and the construction and testing of hardware elements of potential use to the United States Ballistic Missile defence (BMD) programme. These outputs are intended to inform national BMD Policy, establish a leading role for the UK in missile defence, and secure significant participation by UK industry in the us BMD programme.

  North Korea
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate he has made of the number of ballistic missiles(a) owned and (b) exported by North Korea; [157549]

  (2) What assessment he has made of the biological weapons capacity of North Korea; [157548]

  (3) What estimate he has made of the numerical strength of the special forces of North Korea; [157547]

  (4) What assessment he has made of the (a) artillery and (b) missile launcher capacity of North Korea. [157546]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our assessment of North Korea's ballistic missile threat was published in December 2002 in the public discussion paper on Missile Defence, a copy of which is held in the library of the House. The paper is also on the Ministry of Defence website www.mod.uk. North Korea has some hundreds of SCUD short-range ballistic missiles and NO DONG medium-range ballistic missiles in service. It is estimated that North Korea has also exported at least 400 ballistic missiles.

  North Korea is a State Party to the Biological and Toxin weapons Convention. North Korea has the infrastructure to support the development of chemical and biological weapons and we remain very concerned by persistent reports that it is pursuing programmes to develop WMD.

  The North Korean special operations Forces totals nearly 90,000 personnel of whom roughly 40,000 are deployable combat personnel; the rest are support staff.

  We estimate that the North Korean army has around 30,000 artillery pieces. North Korea possesses many thousands of launcher systems for its artillery and ballistic, air defence and coastal defence missiles.

  The international Institute for Strategic Studies' annual publication 'The military Balance' gives details of military forces and capabilities.
  962W

  Queen's Lancashire Regiment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. [158263]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Queen's Lancashire Regiment is a mechanised battalion currently with 19 Mechanised Brigade in Catterick. They are due to be posted to Cyprus this month, with responsibility for the security of the sovereign Base Area and will carry out this duty until March 2006. Additionally, from April 2004 the Battalion will have a reinforcement role in Iraq.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Gambling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the proposals in the draft Gambling Bill on consumer debt. [158317]

  Mr. Caborn
  The policy document published with draft clauses in November as Cm 6014 drew attention to the risks of people gambling sums which they could not afford, and to the measures to be included in the Bill to address these risks, which include powers for the Gambling Commission to regulate advertising, credit and inducements, as well as provision for gambling debts to become enforceable. These and other measures are intended to avoid the growth in gambling opportunities from being accompanied by growth in the incidence of problem gambling; but we have made no separate assessment in terms of consumer debt generally.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and sport what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposals outlined in the draft Gambling Bill upon the work of social services departments. [158351]

  Mr. Caborn
  We do not think that the proposals should have any overall impact on the work of social services.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposals outlined in the draft Gambling Bill upon the number of casino planning and licensing applications. [158430]

  Mr. Caborn
  We expect there to be an increase, not least because the proposals envisage abolition of the provision in the current law that casinos may be established only in specified permitted areas.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposals in the draft Gambling bill upon(a) problem gambling and (b) money laundering. [158345]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment published in November with draft clauses as Cm 6014 noted that proposals which extended the choice and availability of gambling carried a risk of increasing problems in these areas, but drew attention to the
  963W
  effective system of licensing and regulation by a new Gambling Commission, with powers and resources not currently available, intended to address this risk.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what research her Department has assessed into the links between use of gaming machines by under 18-year-olds and the prevalence of gambling problems [158347]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have taken note of the research studies cited in the report of the Gambling Review Body (Cm 5206) and included in the survey of relevant research evidence which formed part of the 2003 report by Professor Collins for the Responsibility in Gambling Trust (a copy of which is available on the Trust's website). A number of these studies relate to gaming machine play by children and young persons.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to commission a baseline study on the prevalence of problem gambling in the United Kingdom. [158348]

  Mr. Caborn
  The results from the prevalence study which were published in 2000, and which were taken into account by the Gambling Review Body, provide the most recent baseline. We think that it would be desirable for a further study to be carried out before the provisions of the Bill are brought into effect.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the merits of adopting a harm-indexed approach to forms of gambling. [158353]

  Mr. Caborn
  The draft Gambling Bill reflects the principle that the degree of regulation to be applied to different kinds of gambling activity should reflect the degree of regulatory risk which t hey involve, those risks being of harm to children and the vulnerable; unfairness to participants; or crime or disorder.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the link between levels of problem gambling and restrictions on the use of gaming machines by under 18s in other European countries. [158691]

  Mr. Caborn
  There is little reliable information currently available to support possible hypotheses on this matter.

  Grants (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants that fall outside the revenue support grant were made available to(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley from her Department in each of the last four financial years. [1565091

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The following grants that fall outside the revenue support grant were made available to Lancashire by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in each of the last four financial years.

  Lancashire has received the following grants from Arts Council England in the last four financial years1.
  964W

  Financial year

  Number of grants

  Total amount (£)

  2000–01

  0

  0

  2001–02

  4

  132,000

  2002–03

  3

  65,400

  2003–04

  14

  35,035

  Total

  21

  232,435

  English Heritage has offered the following grants to Lancashire in the last four financial years1

  Repair grants

  Heritage economic regeneration schemes

  Financial year

  Number of grants offered

  Total

  Number of grants offered

  Total

  2000–01

  6

  302,173

  5

  207,850

  2001–02

  10

  267,386

  8

  527,411

  2002–03

  5

  256,793

  6

  299,166

  2003–04

  5

  93,381

  7

  751,166

  Total

  26

  919,733

  26

  1,785,593

  Lancashire has received the following grants from Sport England in the four financial years1

  Financial year

  Number of grants

  Total amount (£)

  2000–01

  5

  72,790

  2001–02

  10

  153,340

  2002–03

  9

  135,600

  2003–04

  5

  44,000

  Total

  29

  405,730

  In 2001–02, Lancashire county council was awarded £178,000 from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund for reader development activities in the Burnley area.

  Bolton Museum and Art Gallery and the Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery, Preston, are partners in the North West regional hub as part of "Renaissance in the Regions" (the national framework for England's museums and galleries). The North West hub received £160,000 in 2003–04 for "Renaissance", with a further £80,000 from the Education Strategy Fund (which delivers education programmes to school-aged children). The total grant to the North West hub for the period 2003–06 will be £1.42 million for "Renaissance"and £580,000 for the Education Strategy Fund.

  Lancashire County Museums Service's textile industry collections are Designated (a pre-eminent collection of national or international importance held in a non-national museum) and have been awarded the following grants through the Designation Challenge Fund since it was established in 1999:

  2000–01: £32,693— Development of plans for new displays at Whitakers Mill and improvements to storage.

  2001–02: £122,210—Refurbishment and development of the "Spinning a Tale" Gallery, which portrays the mechanisation of the textile industry.

  2002–04: £66,749—Improve access to the Designated collections held at Helmshore Textile Museums and Queen Street Mill Museum.

  In 2003–04, the North West Regional Development Agency received DCMS funding of £713,000 towards implementing their tourism strategy for the region. Lancashire will be among the beneficiaries of this funding.
  965W
  Lancashire has received the following awards from the National Lottery in the last four financial years2

  Financial year

  Number of awards

  Total amount (£)

  2000–01

  480

  21,798,686

  2001–02

  365

  25,691,632

  2002–03

  537

  25,800,444

  2003–04

  416

  25,188,943

  Total

  1798

  98,479,705

  (b) The following grants that fall outside the revenue support grant were made available to Chorley by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in each of the last four financial years.

  English Heritage has offered Chorley the following grants in the last four financial years1

  Repair grants

  Heritage economic regeneration schemes

  Financial year

  Number

  Total (£)

  Number

  Total

  2000–01

  1

  7,500

  0

  0

  2001–02

  2

  20,653

  0

  0

  2002–03

  2

  74,000

  0

  0

  2003–04

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  5

  102,153

  0

  0

  Chorley has received the following grants from Sport England in the last four financial years1

  Financial year

  Number of grants

  Total amount (£)

  2000–01

  1

  12,290

  2001–02

  1

  12,740

  2002–03

  0

  —

  2003–04

  0

  —

  Total

  2

  25,030

  In 2003–04, the North West Regional Development Agency received DCMS funding of £713,000 towards implementing their tourism strategy for the region. Chorley will be among the beneficiaries of this funding.

  Chorley has received the following awards from the National Lottery in the last four financial years2

  Financial year

  Number of awards

  Total amount (£)

  2000–01

  31

  169,139

  2001–02

  42

  3,087,645

  2002–03

  74

  5,150,093

  2003–04

  47

  2,352,584

  Total

  194

  10,759,461

  1Excluding Lottery grants.

  2The data has been derived from the Department's Awards Database and is based on information supplied by the distributing bodies. Full details of each of these projects can be found at: http://wwwlotteryculturc.gov.uk/introduction.asp

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding and grants are given for theatres in Chorley. [157977]

  Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for Arts Council England. I understand that there is currently no funding going to theatres in Chorley though the grant schemes operated by the Arts Council are open to all applicants who meet the published criteria.
  966W

  National Lottery
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her plans to make the distribution of National Lottery funds more responsive to public opinion. [157785]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government made a commitment in the National Lottery Funding Decision Document to increase the public's involvement in decisions on Lottery spending. The new merged distributor will pioneer new ways to achieve this. In preparation, the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund are already beginning to look at new ideas for consulting local people about particular local decisions. Other options on involving the public are being explored, including some of those set out in the decision document. Lottery distributors are also working together to identify best practice and to develop options for increasing public involvement in decisions about Lottery funding themes and local Lottery spending.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Heritage Lottery funding was given to each of the principal seaside towns in England and Wales from(a) the inception of the Lottery to 1997 and (b) 1997 to date, listed in descending order. [156039]

  Estelle Morris
  The amount of Heritage Lottery Funding that was given to each of the principal seaside towns in England and Wales from(a) the inception of the Lottery to, 1997 and (b) 1997 to date, listed in descending order was:

  £

  (a) Inception—31 December 1996

  Brighton

  1,218,650

  Folkestone and Hythe

  116,000

  Thanet

  183,000

  Blackpool

  97,500

  Weston-Super-Mare

  71,500

  Conwy

  60,000

  Isle of Wight

  57,000

  Southport

  34,000

  Hastings and Bexhill

  7,200

  Bournemouth

  —

  Eastbourne

  —

  Lowestoft

  —

  Southend-on-Sea

  —

  Torbay

  —

  Whitstable and Herne Bay

  —

  Worthing

  —

  (b) 1 January 1997 to date

  Brighton

  13,130,219

  Hastings and Bexhill

  6,920,138

  Conwy

  6,765,877

  Southport

  5,538,238

  Thanet

  5,054,713

  Isle of Wight

  5,149,466

  Folkestone and Hythe

  5,412,968

  Bournemouth

  3,407,225

  Weston-Super-Mare

  1,954,475

  Whitstable and Herne Bay

  1,707,311

  Southend-on-Sea

  1,694,929

  Torbay

  939,100

  Lowestoft

  775,547

  Blackpool

  745,800

  Eastbourne

  435,650

  Worthing

  2,062,145

  Parthenon Sculptures
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received from the Greek Government regarding the ownership of the Parthenon Sculptures. [157777]

  Estelle Morris
  Representations made to Government from the Greek Government have focused primarily on reuniting the Parthenon Sculptures in the planned new Acropolis Museum in Athens on a long term basis.

  In giving evidence before the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in June 2000, the Greek Government emphasised that their current case rested on the proposal for a change in location of the Sculptures, rather than ownership issues.

  In October 2002, the Prime Minister of Greece presented the Prime Minister with a copy of a proposal for the Reunification of the Parthenon Marbles in Greece which suggested that the restitution of the Marbles he carried out in the form of a long-term loan from the British Museum to the new Acropolis Museum, "bypassing the issue of ownership".

  The Government have stated that they consider the Parthenon Sculptures to be a matter for the Trustees of the British Museum who are independent of Government.

  Satellite Television
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with service providers on access to free-to-view, commercial terrestrial channels, via satellite; and if she will make a statement. [157776]

  Estelle Morris
  May last year, the BBC paid for "solus" viewing cards enabling customers who did not wish to pay a subscription to receive the public service broadcasting channels by satellite. However, following the move of its broadcast services to a new satellite, all of the BBC's digital channels are now available via satellite without the need for a viewing card. It has therefore stopped paying for the provision of solus cards.

  Following representations from the Government last year, an agreement was reached between the other main broadcasters and BSkyB to ensure that existing solus card viewers could continue receiving the other public service channels after their current cards expired in 2003. Viewers were able to purchase a new card, valid until at least 31 December 2005, for a one-off fee of £20+ VAT. This offer was extended until 31 January 2004.
  968W
  We understand that the broadcasters have no current plans to provide solus cards to new satellite customers. However, the Government remains committed to ensuring that analogue terrestrial broadcasting signals are maintained until everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels (BBC1 and 2, ITV1, Channel 4/S4C and Five) can receive them free-to-view via at least one of the digital platforms.

  Television Licence (Pensioners)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will fund free television licences for pensioners. [157689]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government have already introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over but have no plans to extend this concession to all pensioners. However, the arrangements for funding the BBC after the expiry of the Corporation's current Royal Charter at the end of 2006 are due to be considered as part of the Charter review process. The review will include a detailed examination of the concessionary arrangements.

SCOTLAND

  Public Transport
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures have been introduced to encourage use of public transport by the disabled. [155423]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The specific issues in relation to public transport in Scotland are devolved and a matter for the Scottish Executive. Nicol Stephen., MSP, is the Scottish Executive Minister with responsibility for transport.

  I understand, however, that the Scottish Executive is committed to ensuring that public transport is accessible to people with disabilities.

  Supreme Court
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the appropriate number of Scottish members of the new Supreme Court. [156769]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The consultation on the Supreme Court was undertaken by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Responses from Scottish organisations went directly to them. My right hon. Friend has not received any representations on the number of Scottish members of the new Supreme Court.
  969W

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cardiology Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what benefits derive from local hospitals providing nurse-led cardiac care services. [157339]

  Angela Smith
  All cardiac care inpatient services in local hospitals are consultant led. Cardiology nurses involved in the provision of cardiac services deliver essential elements of the patients' care, such as lifestyle advice in the case of cardiac rehabilitation. Their skills and knowledge allow for a more holistic approach to the care of patients.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost of local hospitals providing a mobile coronary care service involving(a) a senior house officer and (b) nurses only. [157340]

  Angela Smith
  A number of different models currently exist for mobile coronary care units. Some are led by junior doctors, some by nurses and others by paramedics. Models of service delivery need to be flexible enough to respond to local needs including geography, demographics and existing service provision. Different types of vehicle are used and different grades of staff are involved, even within one discipline such as nursing. There is no average cost or typical unit. Any estimate of costs for a generic model therefore, whether led by doctors or nurses, would not be meaningful.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what actions doctors can take as part of a mobile coronary care service that cardiology nurses are unable to offer. [157381]

  Angela Smith
  Mobile coronary care units are staffed by cardiology nurses and/or junior doctors. There is no difference in the procedures that can be undertaken by a doctor and a nurse when involved in a call-out.

  During call-outs the coronary care team has access to a telemedicine link with their base hospital, which allows them to obtain the opinion of a senior cardiac doctor if the need arises.

  Number of hours (on average) worked by consultants, registrars, senior house officers and junior house officers—week beginning 26 January 2004 (unless otherwise indicated)

  Health and social services trusts

  Consultants

  Registrars

  Senior House Officers

  Junior House Officers

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust1

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  43.0

  0.0

  54.2

  0.0

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  N/A

  50.1

  48.6

  53.2

  Causeway HSS Trust

  43.0

  50.7

  45.4

  54.8

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust2

  40.0–44.0

  40.0

  45.0

  0.0

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  N/A

  48.0–60.0

  48.0–55.0

  50.0

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  N/A

  47.3

  42.1

  50.8

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  N/A

  N/A

  46.5

  0.0

  Greenpark Healthcare HSS Trust3

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust4

  N/A

  32.5

  40.3

  N/A

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trusts5

  N/A

  53.0

  46.0

  54.0

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust6

  40.0

  58.0

  62.0

  56.0

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  40.0

  40.0–48.0

  40.0–48.0

  0.0

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  45.0–50.0

  45.0–50.0

  45.0–50.0

  50.0–55.0

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  N/A

  41.9

  48.4

  0.0

  970W

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which former officials of the Department have asked for permission to join(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte and Touche, (c) Ernst and Young and (d) KPMG. [156906]

  Mr. Pearson
  No former Civil Servants from the 11 departments of the Northern Ireland Administration and the Northern Ireland
  Office have, during the calendar years 2001, 2002 and 2003, applied for permission to join PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte and Touche, Ernst and Young or KPMG.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what secondments(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte and Touche, (c) Ernst and Young and (d) KPMG have made to his Department since 2001; for what (i) periods and (ii) tasks the secondments were made; whether secondments of staff from his Department have been made to those firms; and for what (A) periods and (B) tasks. [156921]

  Mr. Pearson
  Since 2001 no secondments, either inward or outward, have taken place between the 11 departments of the Northern Ireland Administration and the Northern Ireland Office and the companies mentioned.

  The answer excludes agencies and NDPBs.

  Doctors' Hours
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hours on average were worked weekly by(a) consultants, (b) registrars,(c) senior house officers and (d) junior house officers at each of the Province's health trusts in the most recent period for which figures were available. [157395]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is provided in the table. Detailed information of this nature, however, is not routinely collected by trusts and can be difficult to obtain due to the non-standard working patterns of medical staff. Where precise figures have been unavailable, a number of trusts have attempted to provide a best estimate or range.
  971W

  Number of hours (on average) worked by consultants, registrars, senior house officers and junior house officers—week beginning 26 January 2004 (unless otherwise indicated)

  Health and social services trusts

  Consultants

  Registrars

  Senior House Officers

  Junior House Officers

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust7

  68.0

  65.0

  62.0

  56.0

  Ulster Community and Hospital Group HSS Trust8

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  United Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  N/A

  53.3

  48.8

  47.6

  1Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust cannot readily provide number of hours worked. The majority of the doctors are contracted for a basic 40 hours per week but many are working alternative shift patterns and are on 'on call' rotas.

  2Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust has provided approximate hours worked as the medical staff participate on 'on-call' rotas. As such, hours worked each week will vary depending on the intensity of work required in that particular week.

  3Greenpark Healthcare HSS Trust cannot readily provide number of hours worked.

  4Homefirst Community HSS Trust has provided figures supplied from the trust's last monitoring return. Information supplied is as at February 2004.

  5Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust cannot provide figures for consultant hours as they are currently undertaking a diary exercise on hours worked and this information is not available at present but will be available in due course.

  6Newry and Mourne HSS Trust have not monitored hours in the period so they can only give an approximation based on the rotas set out for each grade of staff.

  7Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust have provided consultant figures from 2001 Consultant Appraisal Exercise and Registrar, SHO and Junior House Officer figures from Junior Doctors New Deal Monitoring.

  8Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust has not provided figures due to the disproportionate cost of obtaining the information.

  Ethnic and Religious Integration
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much emphasis in targeting social need is given to integrating ethnic and religious groups. [157320]

  Mr. Spellar
  New Targeting Social Need (TSN) is Northern Ireland's main policy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and has three priority areas which focus on Employment/Employ ability, addressing inequality in other areas such as health and housing and Promoting Social Inclusion.

  The Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) element of New TSN involves Departments working, both collectively and with partners outside Government to identify and tackle factors, which can contribute to social exclusion. One of the initial priority areas identified under PSI was the position of minority ethnic people in Northern Ireland.

  A formal PSI Working Group was set up to develop a strategy to promote inclusion of minority ethnic people in Northern Ireland and to tackle racial inequalities. A Race Equality Unit was established in 2001 within the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister to oversee the development of the Race Equality Strategy. The Unit's role is to lead on action—by Government and in partnership with external stakeholders—to tackle social exclusion of minority ethnic people in Northern Ireland and racial inequalities. It maintains close links with the Home Office, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Executive and the administration in Republic of Ireland.

  A draft of the Strategy was published for consultation in February 2003. A finalised version of the Strategy, which takes account of the results of the consultation, will be published in summer 2004.
  972W

  Fatal Shootings
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the circumstances were of the fatal shooting involving members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland on 29 April. [145735]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Ombudsman advises that the fatal shooting on 29 April 2003 involving the Police Service of Northern Ireland was referred to her office and that the incident is currently under investigation.

  Giant's Causeway
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the timetable is for the restoration of the visitor centre at the Giant's Causeway, County Antrim; and if he will make a statement. [157274]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Government have set Easter 2006 as the target date for the provision of new visitor facilities at the Giant's Causeway.

  A Prior Information Notice which declares Government's intention to run parallel international competitions for both the architectural design and for the interpretation and fit out of the new facilities will be placed in the Official Journal of the European Union during week commencing 1 March 2004. This is the first step in the process and will be followed by the Formal Notice for the Architectural Design Competition which will invite expressions of interest. The architectural competition, which will be supervised by the International Union of Architects in Paris, will be run in accordance with UNESCO standard regulations for international competitions for World Heritage Sites.

  Health Service (Complaints)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints were received in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months by each health trust regarding(a) hospital, (b) community and (c) other care. [156321]

  Angela Smith
  Information is not available in the format requested. The following table presents information on the total number of complaints received
  973W
  by each Health and Social Services Trust in the year ending September 2003. The Trusts are categorised according to whether they are hospital Trusts, community Trusts, mixed (hospital and community) Trusts, or other Trusts.

  Number of complaints received by each Health and Social Services Trust in the year ending September 2003, by category of Trust

  Health and Social Services Trust

  Total Number of Complaints

  Belfast City Hospital

  142

  Green Park

  126

  Mater Infirmorum

  90

  Royal Group of Hospitals

  418

  United Hospitals

  281

  Craigavon Area Group

  177

  Altnagelvin Group

  205

  Hospital Trusts (Total)

  1,439

  North and West Belfast

  160

  South and East Belfast

  300

  Homefirst

  233

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  71

  Foyle

  57

  Community Trusts (Total)

  821

  Down Lisburn

  271

  Ulster Community and Hospitals

  331

  Causeway

  471

  Armagh and Dungannon

  80

  Newry and Mourne

  123

  Sperrin Lakeland

  85

  Mixed Trusts (Total)

  1,361

  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service

  192

  Other Trusts (Total)

  192

  Northern Ireland Total

  3,813

  Note:

  Community Trusts may provide services in non-acute hospitals, as well as services outside hospital

  Autistic Spectrum Disorders
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of sufferers of autistic spectrum disorders in Northern Ireland are deemed to have a learning disability. [156382]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Physiotherapy
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 4 February 2004,Official Report, column 946W, on physiotherapy, if he will provide six monthly totals for each of the last five years of patients who waited between three and six months for an initial physiotherapy assessment. [156439]

  Angela Smith
  Information is collected centrally on numbers of persons attending a first out-patient appointment of an episode of care with a community physiotherapist, rather than on initial physiotherapy assessments. The number of persons who had waited between three and six months for their appointment is shown in the following table. The information is in respect of six-month intervals from the quarter ending 974W
  30 September 1998 to the quarter ending 30 September 2003 (the latest date for which such information is available).

  Persons who waited between three and six months

  Quarter ending

  Total number of persons

  Number

  Percentage

  30 September 1998

  9,863

  905

  9.2

  31 March 1999

  10,679

  1,505

  14.1

  30 September 1999

  11,837

  1,504

  12.7

  31 March 2000

  11,704

  2,235

  19.1

  30 September 2000

  11,492

  1,403

  12.2

  31 March 2001

  13,446

  1,995

  14.8

  30 September 2001

  12,754

  2,800

  22.0

  31 March 2002

  14,154

  2,741

  19.4

  30 September 2002

  14,303

  2,610

  18.2

  31 March 2003

  15,644

  2,632

  16.8

  30 September 2003

  12,798

  2,542

  19.9

  Integrated Transport System
  Lady Hermon
  T o ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the development of an integrated transport system for Northern Ireland. [157659]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland 2002– 12, the underlying principles and strategic direction of which were unanimously agreed by the Northern Ireland Assembly in July 2002, sets out a strategic framework for the future planning, funding and delivery of an integrated transport system for the region.

  The implementation of the RTS is overseen, monitored and reviewed by the Regional Transportation Strategy Steering Group. The Department for Regional Development has also established an External Advisory Board, the Integrated Transport Stakeholder Group which offers advice on the implementation of the RTS.

  Delivery of the RTS is being progressed through three transport plans; the Belfast Metropolitan Transport Plan, the Regional Strategic Network Transport Plan and the Sub-Regional Transport Plan. Work on the BMTP is well advanced and a proposed BMTP is due for release for Equality Impact Assessment consultation in March 2004. Taking any EQIA comments into account, publication is expected later in the year.

  The RSTN TP is expected to be published in summer 2004. The SRTP is being developed in association with local Development Plans and is to be completed in 2006.

  Intergovernmental Bodies
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) cost and (b) number of staff was in the (i) North-South Ministerial Council, (ii) British Irish Council and (iii) Inter-Governmental Conference in each year since they were created. [156625]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The cost and number of staff in each year since December 1999, when these Bodies were established, are as follows.
  975W
  (a) North/South Ministerial Council

  Cost (£)1

  Staff

  1999–2000

  94,949

  6

  2000–01

  737,162

  15

  2001–02

  787,609

  16

  2002–03

  606,889

  16

  2003–04

  2489,964

  15

  1Expenditure by the NI Administration which includes salaries, administration and cost of meetings.

  2Provisional figure (up to 31 January 2004)

  (b) British-Irish Council

  Each member of the British-Irish Council is responsible for the costs of its participation. The British and Irish Governments provide the Secretariat for the Council, in co-ordination with officials of each of the other members and bear the costs between them. In addition to servicing the work of the Council, the officials are involved in carrying out a range of other duties. It is not therefore possible to provide the cost of the British-Irish Council since its inception nor to identify detailed staff numbers. However, the cost to the NI Administration for Ministerial meetings in NI and travel and subsistence costs for Ministerial meetings outside NI are as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  6,365

  2000–01

  7,420

  2001–02

  10,158

  Institution

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  (a) North-South Ministerial Council

  1

  22

  24

  18

  0

  0

  (b) British-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference

  1

  0

  0

  2

  3

  1

  (b) British-Irish Council

  1

  2

  1

  4

  4

  0

  Olympic Bid
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in relation to the London 2012 Olympic Bid; and what steps he has taken to promote Northern Ireland as a venue for events within that bid. [157655]

  Angela Smith
  Regular contact takes place with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport through an inter-departmental group on the Olympic bid and one of the issues discussed by this group is how the regions, including Northern Ireland, can benefit from the games. Northern Ireland has been suggested as a venue for the early rounds of the football tournament and there is also the possibility of hosting training and acclimatisation camps for competing countries prior to the Games. The Olympic Bid has also become a standing item on the agenda for the Sports Cabinet, which is attended by UK Sports Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many days on average his Department took 976W

  £

  2002–03

  19,448

  2003–04

  2,597

  (c) British-Irish Inter-governmental Conference

  The cost of the British-Irish Inter-governmental Conferences since 1999 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The expenditure of the British-Irish Inter-governmental Secretariat is met by the two governments. The costs given are in relation to the British Government since 2 December 1999.

  Cost(£)

  1Staff

  1999–2000

  2232

  14

  2000–01

  488

  14

  2001–02

  554

  12

  2002–03

  539

  12

  2003–04

  3445

  12

  1Figures given include staff from the Northern Ireland Office and the Irish Government.

  2As the British-Irish Inter-governmental Conference was established on 2 December 1999, this figure covers the period 2 December 1999 to 31 March 2000.

  3Provisional figure (up to 31 January 2004)

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings of the(a) North-South Ministerial Council, (b) British-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference and (c) British Irish Council took place in each year since they were created. [156626]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The numbers of ministerial meetings that have taken place are as follows:

  in Session 2002–03 to give a substantive answer to a parliamentary Question for ordinary written answer; and what the greatest number of days taken to answer such a question was. [155921]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This information is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I would like to assure the hon. Member that my department understands the importance of providing prompt and accurate answers to all Parliamentary Questions.

  Child/Adolescent Psychiatry
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the longest time is for which a person has waited for child and adolescent psychiatry assessment in each board or trust area where the information is available. [157387]

  Angela Smith
  The following table details the longest time a patient has been waiting for child and adolescent psychiatry assessment at each of the health trusts in Northern Ireland which provide child and adolescent psychiatry services. The latest information available is representative of the position at 31 January 2004.1,2
  977W

  Provider trust

  Longest wait

  Down and Lisburn HSS Trust

  24 months

  Ulster Community and Hospitals HSS Trust

  5 months

  Foyle HSS Trust

  36 months

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  25 months

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust1

  12 months

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  8 months

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  12 months

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  23 months

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust2

  3 months

  The Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  48 months

  1Latest available data for Homefirst Community HSS Trust refers to patients waiting at 26 January 2004.

  2South and East Belfast HSS Trust figures refer to patients waiting at 1 March 2004.

  Note:

  Data for all other trusts refers to patients waiting at 31 January 2004.

  Source:

  HPSS Trusts

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals are waiting for assessment by child and adolescent psychiatry services. [157388]

  Angela Smith
  Information obtained from health trusts in Northern Ireland indicates that, at the end of January 20041,2 1,289 children were awaiting assessment by child and adolescent psychiatry services.

  Number of children awaiting assessment by child and adolescent psychiatry services in Northern Ireland

  Provider trust

  Total number of children waiting

  Down and Lisburn HSS Trust

  137

  Ulster Community and Hospitals HSS Trust

  95

  Foyle HSS Trust

  127

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  176

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust1

  318

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  59

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  69

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  80

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust2

  56

  The Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  172

  Northern Ireland

  1,289

  1Latest available data for Homefirst Community HSS Trust refers to patients waiting at 26 January 2004.

  2South and East Belfast HSS Trust figures refer to patients waiting at 1 March 2004.

  Note:

  Data for all other Trusts refers to patients waiting at 31 January 2004.

  Source:

  HPSS Trusts

  Road Accidents
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence he has collated on road traffic accidents caused by slow driving. [157391]

  Angela Smith
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) is responsible for the collection of road traffic collision statistics in Northern Ireland and I have been advised that statistics relating specifically to collisions caused by slow moving vehicles are not held.
  978W
  While it is accepted that slow drivers can, on occasion, cause annoyance to other road users, there is no evidence to indicate that slow driving is a major cause of collisions.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has collated regarding the impact of speed cameras on the number of road traffic accidents; and if he will make a statement. [157453]

  Angela Smith
  There have been safety camera schemes similar to the initiative being piloted in Northern Ireland running in Great Britain for a number of years. In the two years of the Great Britain pilot, the number of people killed and seriously injured at camera sites fell by 35 per cent.

  The Northern Ireland Safety Camera Pilot Scheme has been in operation since July 2003 and it is too early to make a valid assessment of its contribution to the reduction of road deaths and serious injuries. There is, however, every reason to believe that there is potential for reductions in deaths and serious injuries in Northern Ireland similar to those in Great Britain.

  Victims Memorial Fund
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Government intend to provide additional funding to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund for Victims; and if he will make a statement. [156119]

  Angela Smith
  Since 1998, the Government have allocated more than £20 million to victims' issues. More than £7 million of this has been allocated to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund (NIMF). A number of other initiatives have also been funded. More than £8 million has been allocated for core and project funding to groups working in support of victims. Trauma centres have been established in Belfast and Omagh and Trauma Advisory Panels have been established in each Health Board Area. We are also raising awareness across the public sector about victims' needs, and the special sensitivities required when dealing with those who have experienced traumatic events.

  Significant progress has been made in a relatively short period of time but more needs to be done. That is why I am currently working to develop the next generation of victims' policy. As part of this work I am engaged in a consultation process with victims and survivors and with experts and practitioners in the field to find out more about: victims' needs; to what extent existing initiatives, including the NIMF, are meeting these needs; what are the unmet needs; and where the priorities lie. The outcome of this process, which is ongoing, will inform decisions on future policy and funding.

  Waste Recycling
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many district councils in Northern Ireland offer a household waste recycling service. [157660]
  979W
  Angela Smith
  All District Councils in Northern Ireland provide a household waste recycling service. The level of provision differs according to each council's operational and budgetary constraints. In all cases, the Waste Management Plans of councils provide for the expansion of these services to maximise recycling and the diversion of waste from landfill.

  Councils provide access to recycling facilities for a range of materials at Civic Amenity Centres. These usually include glass, cans and paper. Some centres also collect plastics, wood and green waste for composting.

  Civic Amenity Centres are complemented in all council areas by the provision of 'bring facilities' in supermarket car parks or other public locations. These usually consist of glass bottle banks and can banks.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Links
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department has

  Projects

  Details

  Timesaver Initiative

  Timesaver has been incorporated as part of the Business.gov programme. The new Businesslink.gov.uk website is a key delivery arm of the programme.

  Carter Review of Payroll Services

  There was general support for the principle of greater use of information technology. The incentive payments to encourage smaller employers with less than 50 employees to file electronically will begin from 2004–05. The electronic filing of employer returns are expected to become a universal requirement from 2010. The payroll support given by Business Support Teams and the employers' help lit le will be expanding.

  Small Firms Litmus Test

  Revised Small Firms Impact Test introduced in February 2003 as part of new Regulatory Impact Assessment process. A database of businesses has been developed to assist policy makers.

  Revitalising Local Business Partnerships

  SBS introduced a Partnership Fund which aims to build on the work currently undertaken by LBPs and encourage LBPs to promote and sustain partnerships. The LBP website was launched in 2001. SBS provide a forum highlighting best practices within the partnerships. SBS have a part-time national LBP co-ordinator. A second national conference was held in June 2003 to mark the 10th anniversary of the first LBP (Barnsley).

  Parental Leave and Dispute Resolution

  Maternity and Paternity package introduced in April 2003. Dispute and Grievance Package including revised ACAS Code coining into force Oct 2004. Small business heavily involved in the shaping of the policy.

  Disability

  SBS has developed relationships with the Disability Rights Commission on the drafting of its code. SBS has worked with Employers Forum on Disability to ensure that Business Advisors can offer best advice to small business. Input into the new Bill and other initiatives on disability are on-going.

  Better Regulation Task Force Small Shopkeepers Report

  12 recommendations made to Government. Six were accepted, five accepted in part and one not accepted. Progress made, for example, on liquor licensing reform, single internet portal and guidance.

  Food Standards and Food Labelling Requirements

  SBS has forged closer links with the FSA and is working with the agency on the introduction of new simplified standards for the food sector. The aim is to minimise the impact on small businesses.

  Climate Change Levy

  In 2002 the SBS in conjunction with Ecotec undertook research into the impact of the Levy on small businesses. These results were fed into wider DTI work being completed on the levy.

  Health and Safety Bill

  The majority of elements within the Health and Safety Bill were transport related and were incorporated into a Transport Bill with all the health and safety issues dropped from it and not being pursued.

  Business Support
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms have been helped by(a) grants for research and development, (b) grants for investigating an innovative idea and (c) knowledge transfer partnerships since their introduction. [157191]
  980W
  taken to reduce administrative demands of Business Link projects on small businesses. [157228]

  Nigel Griffiths
  By their very nature Business Link projects offer services to SMEs and do not make additional demands upon them. Business Link Operators provide information, advice or access to experts on any aspect needed to start and expand a business and access to a range of business support solutions including DTI business support products.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the 10 projects to reform the regulatory environment for small business referred to in figure 19.3 of the Trade and Industry Departmental Report, Cm 5916. [157195]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government remain committed to creating a business environment in which all business, especially small business, has the chance to start, grow and employ staff. It recently published its Action Plan for Small Business on 8 January 2004, which details the measures it will take to reduce the regulatory burden. The Action Plan supersedes and builds on the 10 projects, details of which are set out as follows.

  Nigel Griffiths
  The information is as follows.

  a. 207 Grant for R&D offers have been made between 1 June 2003 to 31 December 2003.

  b. 75 Grant for Investigating an Innovative Idea offers have been made between 1 June 2003 and 31 December 2003.

  981W

  c. Since the first Knowledge Transfer Partnerships were considered in September 2003, 130 partnerships have been approved and so far 16 of them have begun work on their projects.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been spent on the Small Firms Loan Guarantee scheme since it was created; and of this total, how much has been spent on administration. [157194]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Between the start of the scheme in June 1981 and 31 March 2003 the total programme expenditure has been £482.8 million. Expenditure on administration between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2003 is estimated at £1.97 million of which £0.37 million is included within the total of £482.8 million and £1.6 million is additional. Earlier administrative cost could be determined only at disproportionate cost.

  Consumer Direct
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) responsibilities and (b) planned expenditure of Consumer Direct for each year between 2003 and 2006. [157196]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The information is as follows:

  a. The responsibilities of Consumer Direct are: to provide consistent consumer advice by telephone, e-mail and online, thereby improving accessibility and meeting unmet demand estimated at 400,000 to 1.5 million calls per year; to improve the quality and coverage of information for Trading Standards through access to a central consumer complaints database; and to refer consumers who need additional help and support to the agencies best placed to assist them, including Trading Standards and Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  b. The service will provide clear, practical advice for consumers who want to: sort out problems with suppliers of goods and services; know their rights as consumers; report scams and find out how to avoid them; receive advice on how to seek out reputable traders. The overriding aim is to empower consumers to resolve issues themselves. It will not provide product specific information or recommend individual organisations or service providers, nor will it intervene with a trader on a consumer's behalf.

  Consumer Direct will begin operation in four Pathfinder nations/regions this summer (Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the South West Nationwide rollout (excluding Northern Ireland) will be completed by 2007.

  (b)The planned expenditure of Consumer Direct is:

  (£) million

  2003–04

  3

  2004–05

  11

  2005–06

  16

  This expenditure may be subject to adjustment depending on the speed of roll out following implementation of the pathfinders.
  982W

  Debt Collection Agencies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations exist for debt collection agencies regarding the amount of evidence that must be represented to them before they take up a claim. [155662]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) licence debt collection under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The OFT publishes guidance which is intended to set out the type of behaviour that falls within the category of unfair business practices and which call into question fitness to retain or be given a licence. The most recent guidance on debt collection was published in July 2003.

  The guidance does not specify what evidence must be provided to a debt collection agency before they take up a claim but it does state that "sending demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question" and "ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled" are examples of unfair practices.

  The guidance also makes it clear that the creditor remains responsible for third parties acting on their behalf and states that if they "choose to do business or continue to do business with third parties engaged in questionable fitness, then their own fitness will be called into question."

  A copy of the guidance can be obtained from the Office of Fair Trading, Fleetbank House, 2–6 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8JX.

  Department Branding
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department spent on branding the Department between 1997–98 and 2003–04, broken down by(a) consultancy fees, (b) design and orders for new stationery, (c) website design and (d) other material featuring now logos. [154075]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department does not centrally collect the information sought at the required level of detail and to provide it would entail disproportionate cost.

  However, in 2003 as a result of the DTI Review and the subsequent need to reduce the number of competing brands and logos emanating from the Department all design work has been rationalised around the single and well-recognised DTI logo. £300,000 was spent on identity development and design guidelines—including the production of electronic stationery templates—with the purpose of saving future design costs for the Department. In addition £3.000 has been spent on new stationery, £5,000 on the website and £10,000 on new publicity materials. At all times current and future costs are being kept to a minimum—with the new design guidelines phased in as appropriate.

  Dirigibles
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has conducted on the potential(a) environmental and (b) economic benefits that could be derived from dirigibles in meeting future aviation needs. [157702]
  983W
  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. We do not envisage that dirigibles will play a significant role, if any, in meeting future air passenger transport needs.

  Disadvantaged Communities
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to encourage enterprise in disadvantaged communities. [157232]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Promoting more enterprise in disadvantaged communities and among groups of people currently under-represented in enterprise is one of the seven core strategies in the "Action Plan for Small Business" that we published in January 2004.

  We have introduced, and are continuing to develop, a range of measures that includes:

  establishing the Phoenix Fund with a £145 million budget to improve the quality of business support and access to finance (funding a diverse range of initiatives that target specific geographic areas as well as women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, offenders and refugees);

  tasking Business Links to ensure that their services meet the needs of everyone in their areas interested in setting up and running their own business, irrespective of where they live;

  developing enterprise areas (the 15 per cent. most deprived wards) as a means of co-ordinating better policy development;

  support for the Inner City 100 Index which celebrates and role models the success of entrepreneurs from disadvantaged communities;

  specific tools to help community-based social enterprises develop their business skills;

  through the Phoenix Fund supporting the production of City Growth Strategies to help disadvantaged communities to put enterprise at the heart of regeneration.

  E-commerce
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures her Department is taking to regulate the use of(a) symbols and (b) hallmarks by web-traders. [157212]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government do not regulate directly the use of symbols and hallmarks by web-traders. Some web-traders use these devices to show that they subscribe to voluntary codes of practice for electronic commerce. The Government encourage the development of self-regulatory approaches to electronic commerce as a light touch alternative to legislation.

  The Enterprise Act 2002 empowers the Office of Fair Trading to approve consumer codes of practice. These arrangements apply to consumer codes generally; they could cover codes for e-commerce, but are not specific to such codes or to symbols and hallmarks used by web-traders.

  The Trade Marks Act 1994 protects signs that are used to indicate the origin of goods, and the courts have confirmed that this law applies equally to the use of such signs on the internet.
  984W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses have been accredited with the TrustUK e-hallmark in each year since its inception; and what assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of TrustUK in increasing consumer confidence for on-line shopping. [157213]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The number of businesses accredited with the TrustUK e-hallmark in each year since its inception is:

  Number of web-traders

  2000

  3,765

  2001

  4,500

  2002

  5,285

  2003

  12,941

  1Decrease in numbers follows the closure of the Consumers' Association's Which? WebTrader scheme in January 2003.

  Figures provided by TrustUK.

  Trust UK is a private sector organisation, which was originally set up with Government endorsement by the Alliance for Electronic Business and The Consumers' Association.

  The Department has participated in two reviews of the TrustUK scheme. These reviews concluded that TrustUK should switch from regulatory work to promoting best practice more generally.

  In 2003, DTI decided to withdraw the secretariat services it provides to the TrustUK approvals committee. This decision took into account the pressure on DTI resources, recent changes to the legislative framework including the Enterprise Act 2002 (which sets out a new approach to codes of practice), and the Department's belief that TrustUK, as a private sector self-regulatory organisation, should be able to operate independently.

  The extent to which schemes like TrustUK are able to enhance consumer confidence depends on their ability to generate demand from business and profile among consumers.

  Since its launch TrustUK has achieved much. Its criteria for e-commerce codes and its "code of codes" model have attracted positive interest and among other things have influenced the European Commission's thinking on an EU-wide code scheme for e-commerce.

  Engineering/Manufacturing Jobs (North-West)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs in(a) engineering and (b) manufacturing have been lost in (i) the North West and (ii) Lancashire since 1997. [156983]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Although official statistics do not provide estimates of the number of jobs lost, the ONS Annual Business Inquiry does show the changes in the total number of employee jobs by region.

  In the North West, there were 83,000 (or 16 per cent.) fewer employee jobs in manufacturing and 31,000 (or 15 per cent.) fewer employee jobs in engineering in 2002 compared to 1997.
  985W
  In Lancashire, there were 12,000 (or 11 per cent.) fewer employee jobs in manufacturing and 1,000 (or 2 per cent.) fewer employee jobs in engineering in 2002 compared to 1997.

  This information is given in the following table.

  Employee jobs in engineering and manufacturing for the North West and Lancashire

  1997

  2002

  Net change

  Manufacturing

  North West

  532,000

  449,000

  -83,000

  Lancashire

  106,000

  94,000

  -12,000

  Engineering

  North West

  197,000

  167,000

  -31,000

  Lancashire

  44,000

  43,000

  -1,000

  Note:

  Engineering defined as SICs 27 to 35

  Source:

  1997 Resealed Annual Employment Survey, Office for National Statistics

  2002 Annual Business Inquiry, Office for National Statistics

  Industrial Disputes
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to minimise the impact of working days lost owing to labour disputes on the(a) public administration, (b) education and (c) health sectors. [157238]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The DTI does not have lead responsibility for these sectors. While the number of stoppages in 2003 was an all-time low, the Government via the lead Department concerned makes contingency plans, where appropriate, to minimise the impact on the public.

  Information Security
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures her Department have taken to ensure that Government Departments are adequately protected from internet hackers and fraudsters. [157806]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Cabinet Office provides all Government Departments with comprehensive guidance on information security which is regularly updated as required. This includes advice on how to protect against internet hackers and fraudsters. Departments also subscribe to UNIRAS, the Government's incident reporting and alert scheme, which provides immediate warnings and advice on how to protect against the latest threats.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inward investment decisions were made in the United Kingdom in each year between 1999 and 2003; what the expenditure of British Trade International was on inward investment; and how many new jobs were created through inward investment. [157202]
  986W
  Nigel Griffiths
  The following figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies best estimate of jobs created by the investment in its first three years. The figures take no account of subsequent developments. There is no requirement to notify UK Trade and Investment and so these figures include only those projects where UK Trade and Investment and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Also in the table is a breakdown of inward investment expenditure by UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), formerly British Trade International. These figures include the part funding of the English Regional Development Agencies.

  Number of Projects

  Number of new jobs

  UKTI investment expenditure (£ million)

  1999–2000

  800

  54,365

  15.3

  2000–01

  880

  71,168

  18.7

  2001–02

  844

  35,362

  18.1

  2002–03

  711

  34,446

  20.9

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many away days were organised by Jobcentre Plus in 2003: and what their total cost was. [157200]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether those whose mining compensation claims have been concluded based on erroneous pension calculations will receive payment of any balance due on a correct recalculation. [155595]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department has agreed with the claimants' solicitors that where an offer of compensation is made using the interim pensions spreadsheet in the absence of a final version of the calculator, claimants may either:

  i. accept the offer as a full and final settlement of all heads of damage, including pension loss, in which case there is no entitlement to a top-up payment; or,

  ii. accept the offer in full and final settlement of all heads of damage, except pension loss, in which case the claimant may claim a top-up payment once the calculator is finalised.

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for(a) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and (b) vibration white finger have been received to date under the Coal Health Compensation Scheme from the (a) Leigh, (b) Makerfield and (c) Wigan constituencies; and how many have received (i) full and final settlement and (ii) an interim award only. [156727]
  987W
  Nigel Giffiths
  [holding answer 1 March 2004]: The figures as of 31 January 2004 are:

  Claims received

  Full and final settlements

  Interim payments

  Leigh

  COPD

  3,779

  974

  603

  VWF

  701

  422

  388

  Makerfield

  COPD

  3,015

  675

  453

  VWF

  646

  349

  378

  Wigan

  COPD

  2,553

  537

  388

  VWF

  366

  180

  186

  Constituency figures can be found on the DTI website: www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth. The information is complied in the middle of the month and shows the figures for the end of the previous month.

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cumulative total paid out under the Coal Health Compensation Scheme to former miners and their families in the(a) Leigh, (b) Makerfield and (c) Wigan constituencies was in each of the last five years. [156728]

  Nigel Griffiths [holding answer 1 March 2004]
  The figures are:

  £

  Total damages paid1

  Leigh

  1999

  443,229

  2000

  1,439,124

  2001

  3,197,967

  2002

  6,240,815

  2003

  10,999,680

  Makerfield

  1999

  337,963

  2000

  1,234,187

  2001

  2,766,916

  2002

  5,154,127

  2003

  9,114,523

  Wigan

  1999

  193,935

  2000

  772,161

  2001

  1,694,785

  2002

  3,494,494

  2003

  6,027,178

  1Cumulative as at end of year.

  Notes:

  1. Statistics represent COPD and VWF claims combined.

  2.Total damages paid are cumulative as at the end of the year.

  3. Produced from data copy as at 22 February 2004.

  Constituency figures can be found on the DTI website: www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth. The information is complied in the middle of the month and shows the figures for the end of the previous month.

  Minimum Wage
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in each London borough are earning the minimum wage. [156678]
  988W
  Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 1 March 2004]
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for each borough of London. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 80,000 people in London stood to benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999.

  The DTI estimates that between 50,000 and 60,000 people in London benefited from the increase in minimum wage rates in October 2003.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list, for each bilateral meeting that she has had in the last two years with senior executives of commercial organisations,(a) the date of the meeting, (b) the commercial organisation with whom she met and (c) whether the meeting was at (i) her instigation and (ii) the instigation of the commercial organisation concerned. [156336]

  Ms Hewitt [holding answer 26 February 2004]
  I meet representatives from many commercial organisations during the course of my ministerial duties. Obtaining the information as requested could be achieved only at disproportionate cost to the taxpayer.

  North Korea
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to promote trade between the United Kingdom and North Korea. [157541]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  HMG has not undertaken any trade promotion activity with or in North Korea in the light of North Korea's pursuit of a clandestine nuclear weapons programme. The resumption of such activity is dependent upon substantial progress being made towards a resolution of the nuclear and diplomatic issues.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the benefits to UK firms of North Korea's legislation to exempt foreigners from dual taxation. [157551]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None at present.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the benefits to UK firms of North Korea's legislation to give foreigners investment protection guarantees. [157552]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Paid Leave
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the work force has less than three weeks' annual paid leave. [155265]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  According to the UK Labour Force Survey 1.7 per cent. of full-time employees had less than 15 days paid holiday including bank holidays in autumn 2003 compared to 4.6 per cent. in autumn 1997. From 1999 onwards the working time regulations provided 20 days paid annual leave entitlement including bank
  989W
  holidays per year. In autumn 2003, 2.5 per cent. of full-time employees had less than 20 days paid annual leave including bank holidays compared to 6.8 per cent. in autumn 1997.

  Small Business
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small businesses have reported access to(a) finance and (b) regulation as barriers to growth in each year since 1997. [157233]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Prior to summer 2001 there were no Government surveys that collected robust information on the concerns of small businesses.

  The following table records the proportion of small businesses reporting that access to finance was a barrier to growth in four surveys of small and medium enterprises conducted by the Small Business Service since 2001.

  These surveys did not collect information on the proportion of small businesses reporting that regulation was a barrier to growth. They did, however, collect data on the proportion of small businesses reporting that regulation was one of the main obstacles to the success of their business. This information is also recorded in the following table.

  In each survey, around two thousand owner-managers were interviewed.

  The proportion of English small businesses with 1–249 employees1 who said that they had had a problem with raising finance and that this had slowed the growth of their business2

  Percentage

  Wave 1 (summer 2001)

  6

  Wave 2 (autumn 2001)

  3

  Wave 3 (winter 2001–02)

  2

  Wave 4 (summer 2002)

  2Not available

  Wave 5 (autumn 2002)

  1

  1Excludes firms with no employees.

  2This question was not asked in Wave 4 of the Omnibus Survey.

  Source:

  Small Business Service Omnibus Survey

  The proportion of English small businesses with 1–249 employees1 who, when asked what were the main obstacles to the success of their business, mentioned regulation2

  Percentage

  Wave 1 (summer 2001)

  2Not available

  Wave 2 (autumn 2001)

  25

  Wave 3 (winter 2001–02)

  28

  Wave 4 (summer 2002)

  20

  Wave 5 (autumn 2002)

  22

  1Excludes firms with no employees.

  2This question was not asked in Wave 1 of the Omnibus Survey.

  Source:

  Small Business Service Omnibus Survey.

  The results of the most recent survey of small businesses conducted by the Small Business Service (autumn 2003) will be published in summer 2004.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many national strategies for 990W
  the Small Business Service have been (a) developed and (b)
  implemented; and how her Department intends to monitor these. [157237]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In December 2002, the Small Business Service (SBS) published "Small Business and Government—The Way Forward"—a strategic framework for a government-wide approach to helping small businesses based around seven themes identified as key drivers for economic growth, improved productivity and enterprise for all. Government have used this framework to build a single, cross-government action plan for small business. The SBS published the Action Plan on 8 January 2004.

  Implementation is now underway. Progress is being monitored through a web-based implementation programme accessible at www.sbs.gov.uk which sets out milestones and target dates for the implementation of the actions, together with relevant contact points within Government. It is being updated on a regular basis.

  Takeovers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from the CBI on the proposed EU Directive on Takeovers. [157902]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department received representations from, arid had regular meetings with, the CBI and other business and City consultees throughout the negotiations on the EU Takeovers Directive. We expect the Directive to be finally adopted in the near future.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry what assessment she has made of the(a) costs and (b) benefits of long hours working for (i) non-manual and (ii) manual workers in the UK. [155289]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department has commissioned and published a two volume study entitled "Working long hours: a review of the evidence" (DTI Employment Relations Research Series No. 16) which summarises the costs and benefits of long hours working for both manual and non-manual workers in the UK. It can be found at the following web address: http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/inform.htm.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what position she plans to take in the Council of Ministers on the European Parliament's proposal to end the freedom of employees to work more than 48 hours a week; and if she will make a statement. [156462]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Council of Ministers will exchange views on the Commission's Communication published on 5 January 2004 when they meet on 4/5 March.

  The UK believes legislation should provide minimum standards of employment protection while maintaining the flexibility our individual labour market requires and which many workers prefer. We believe that maintaining the opt out allows workers choice as well as protection.
  991W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the UN Commission on Human Rights regarding the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in respect of human rights in Burma. [157463]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We fully support the efforts of Sergio Pinheiro, the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights. We are currently working with our EU partners on this year's Commission on Human Rights Resolution on Burma, including on Pinheiro's Mandate.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the UN Special Envoy to Burma. [157467]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am in regular contact with Tan Sri Razali Ismail, the UN Special Envoy to Burma and last met him when he visited London in July 2003. We fully support his tireless efforts to promote reconciliation in Burma and we urge the regime to allow him to return to Burma soon—he and the UN have a crucial role to play in the reconciliation process.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the treatment of Rohingya Muslims under Burma's 1982 Citizenship Law; [157469]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the treatment of Rohingya Muslims in Arakan State in Western Burma. [157470]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are concerned by the issue of ethnic minority rights and the abuses suffered by ethnic groups in Burma including the Rohingya Muslims. The UK welcomes and is supportive of all efforts to encourage the Burmese military regime to enter into genuine and substantive dialogue with democratic and ethnic group leaders in Burma leading to national reconciliation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Burmese Government about the level of political detentions in the country since May 2003; '[157615]

  (2) what representations he has made to the State Peace and Development Council in Burma about the release of all prisoners of conscience from prison; [157627]

  (3) what representations he has made to the State Peace and Development Council in Burma about the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest; [157628]

  (4) what representations he has made to the State Peace and Development Council in Burma about lifting all restrictions on the activities of the National League for Democracy and other political parties in Burma. [157632]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have repeatedly called on the Burmese regime to release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest, to release all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience and to allow freedom of speech 992W
  and activity for the National League for Democracy and all political parties. Most recently I pressed these issues when I met the Burmese Ambassador on 23 February.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of political detentions in Burma(a) between May 2002 and May 2003 and (b) since May 2003. [157616]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We estimate that there were approximately 1,300 political prisoners in Burma between May 2002 and May 2003. We estimate that there are currently about 1,350 political prisoners in Burma.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of rapes committed by members of the Burmese Army in 2003. [157630]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We do not have the information to make a reliable estimate.

  Mr.Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects that the Burmese Army will complete the withdrawal of troops from(a) Karen, (b) Karenni and (c) other ethnic areas. [157631]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not possible to predict when the Burmese Army will complete its withdrawal of troops from these areas.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of the use of child soldiers in Burma by the State Peace and Development Council. [157634]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are deeply concerned by reports of child soldiers in Burma. UNICEF estimates that as many as 70,000 child soldiers are in the Burmese national army and Human Rights Watch reported in October 2002 that they constituted one fifth of Burma's army and can be as young as 11-years-old. The issue has been included in successive EU co-sponsored UNGA and UNCHR resolutions. In January 2004, the UN Security Council passed a Resolution on Children Affected by Armed Conflict. We highlighted our concerns on child soldiers in Burma.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the ceasefire agreement between the State Peace and Development Council in Burma and the Karen National Union; [157635]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the Burmese Government about the establishment of a process for monitoring infringements of the ceasefire between State Peace and Development Council troops and those of the Karen National Union. [157722]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  When I met the Burmese Ambassador on 23 February, I welcomed the talks between the State Peace and Development Council and the Karen National Union to agree a ceasefire. I hope that these talks will lead to a permanent peace settlement.
  993W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the extent of forced labour in Burma. [157643]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Burmese Government have still to address effectively the international community's concerns over the use of forced labour in Burma. In 2002 and 2003 there was a worrying number of credible reports suggesting forced labour was widespread in Burma, especially in the border areas where the military presence remains high. At the International Labour Organization (ILO) Governing Body meeting on 20 November 2003 the EU expressed grave concern at the Burmese Government's failure to take effective action on forced labour and stressed the need to fully implement the recommendations from the ILO High Level Team report of September 2001 without any further delay. The ILO's Governing Body meeting in March 2004 will give further consideration to the situation in Burma.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had contact with the Karen National Union; and what was discussed. [157645]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have had no direct contact with the Karen National Union.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last communicated with representatives of the State Peace and Development Council in Burma; and what the content of the exchange was. [157646]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I met the Burmese Ambassador on 23 February to discuss the State Peace and Development Council plans for a National Convention. I pressed for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners. I stressed the need for an inclusive, transparent National Convention with a clear time-frame. We welcome the move from detention to house arrest of U Tin Oo, but we call for his and Aung San Suu Kyi's full release.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of(a) Karen and (b) Karenni people who have been displaced by the Burmese Army in each of the last three years. [157647]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We estimate that approximately 140,000 refugees, mostly from Karen and Karenni States, live in refugee camps on the Thai/Burmese border. As many as one million live as illegal migrants in Thailand. We estimate there are about 630,000 internally displaced people within Burma.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Burma; and what representations he has made to the Burmese Government about the matter. [157723]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There has been no significant improvement in the human rights situation in Burma. I regularly raise our concerns on humanitarian issues with the Burmese authorities, most recently when I met the Burmese Ambassador on 23 February. We cosponsored the UN General Assembly Human Rights Resolution on Burma last December and will play an 994W
  active role in the forthcoming UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. We strongly support the efforts of the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Sergio Pinheiro.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Burmese Government about the need for an independent investigation into the violence perpetrated in Depayin on 30 May 2003. [157726]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have repeatedly condemned the violent regime-sponsored attack on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her convoy on 30 May 2003. The UK cosponsored the UN General Assembly Resolution on Burma in December 2003 that called on the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) to hold a full and independent enquiry into Depayin with international co-operation. We await the SPDC's response.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Burmese Government about the fate of the 11 people sentenced to death for high treason under Article 122(1) of the Penal Code. [157727]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances and we, together with European Union partners, call on all countries to abolish the death penalty. The EU Presidency expressed the EU's grave concern over the sentences in a demarche to the Burmese authorities in December.

  Corporate Taxation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the co-ordination of corporate taxation within the European Union. [157117]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's view is that fair tax competition is the way forward for Europe, not tax harmonisation. The Government will not support any action at European level that would threaten jobs and investment or damage the competitive position of British business.

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which former officials of the Department have asked for permission to join(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst and Young and (d) KPMG. [156902]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1998, we are unaware of any former officials of 1 he Foreign and Commonwealth Office who have asked for permission to join Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst and Young or KPMG.

  To locate individual requests from officials earlier than 1998 would incur disproportionate costs.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United
  995W
  Kingdom recognises the legal right of the United States to build and operate a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. [157156]

  Mr. Mullin
  The extent to which arrangements between the US and Cuba permit the US to build and operate facilities in Guantanamo Bay is primarily a matter for the two Governments concerned.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information has been provided to him by(a) the United States Department of Defense and (b) other US authorities in respect of information obtained from the four detainees holding British citizenship being kept in detention at Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay. [157157]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are nine British nationals currently detained at Guantanamo Bay.

  In accordance with exemption 1 of Part 2 the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, we do not disclose information received in confidence from a foreign government.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the locations where British(a) citizens and (b) residents were detained before being taken to the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay; on what dates (i) British diplomats and (ii) members of the security and intelligence services visited each detainee; and whether any British (A) citizen and (B) resident being held at Guantanamo Bay has been permitted a visit from a legal representative. [157188]

  Mr. Mullin
  In accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, we are not in a position to give details of where the British nationals at Guantanamo Bay were detained prior to their transfer there. Exemption 15 of Part 2 the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies. British diplomats visited the British detainees in January 2002, February 2002, May 2002, November 2002, April 2003 and September 2003. Officials have questioned the British detainees about matters relevant to national security. The Government have a duty to protect the UK's national security. As far as we are aware, no British nationals or British residents have been permitted a visit from any legal representative.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK passport holders live in Hong Kong. [157567]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are approximately £3.6 million British passport holders living in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a visit by a Minister in his Department to Hong Kong will next take place; and what talks have taken place with China on a ministerial visit to Hong Kong. [157985]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Foreign engagements for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are kept under constant review. It is not practice to announce such visits until they are firm. Because of the unpredictable nature of world events, final decisions on 996W
  overseas visits are often not possible until very shortly before the day of travel and occasionally not until they are under way.

  The most recent visit to Hong Kong by a Foreign Office Minister was by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr.Rammell) in December 2003.

  Due to the high degree of autonomy afforded to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) under the "One Country, Two Systems" principle, we discuss the timing of ministerial visits to Hong Kong with the SAR Government.

  Iran
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent elections in Iran. [157649]

  Mr. Rammell
  Over the last 10 years Iran has made progress towards greater political freedom. But the flawed parliamentary elections held on 20 February were a clear setback.

  On 23 February, EU Foreign Ministers expressed their deep regret and disappointment that large numbers of candidates, including many sitting deputies, had been prevented from standing, thus making a genuine democratic choice by the Iranian people impossible. For elections in any country to be regarded as free and fair, electors must have a chance to vote for candidates with a range of views.

  Iraq
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether(a) Ministers and (b) officials from (i) his Department and (ii) other Departments have had contact with Mr Nadhmi Auchi since the conflict in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [142019]

  Mr. Rammell
  Pursuant to his answer on 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 84W.

  Since replying, it has been brought to my attention that my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean wrote to Mr. Nadhmi Auchi on 7 July 2003 in response to his letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 May 2003 about the Anglo Arab Organisation. United Kingdom Trade and Investment (UKTI) officials also met with Mr Auchi in June 2003, in connection with his role in the Anglo-Arab Organisation and in July sent him a list of their events in the region. Mr Auchi also sent three invitations to the Prime Minister and his officials, all of which were declined

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the earliest possible date for the holding of elections in Iraq; and what steps he is taking to expedite such an election. [157652]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General, Lakhdar Brahimi, visited Iraq in February to look into the processes and timing of elections. His report, issued on 23 February, made clear that elections were not feasible before the end of 2004 at
  997W
  the earliest. We accept this assessment and stand ready to support the UN and the Iraqis in preparing for elections based on the UN's suggested timetable. We have worked hard with the Iraqis to agree a Transitional Administrative Law, an essential step towards early elections.

  Middle East
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the Israeli separation fence on health service provision in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. [157637]

  Mr. Rammell
  Israel's building of a barrier on occupied territory restricts the free movement of people and essential supplies—including the provision of health services—between the Occupied Territories and Israel and other countries, as well as within the Occupied Territories. We are concerned by reports that a number of Palestinians have been deprived of urgent medical attention as a result of delays at checkpoints. We continue to express our serious concerns over the route and impact of the fence to the Israeli Government. Most recently, my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean raised the matter with the Israeli Defence Minister, Shaul Mofaz, in London on 12 February.

  Radio Free Asia
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the value of Radio Free Asia in(a) communicating news and (b) stimulating political debate. [157536]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Secondments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what secondments(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst & Young and (d) KPMG have made to his Department since 2001; for what (i) periods and (ii) tasks the secondments were made; whether secondments of staff from his Department have been made to those firms; and for what (A) periods and (B) tasks. [156925]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to our records, the following secondments have been made into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  (i) One person from 1 April 2000 to 1 April 2001

  (ii) Based in Management Consultancy Services in the FCO.

  (iii) Deloitte & Touche

  (i) No inward secondments

  (ii) Ernst & Young

  (i) No inward secondments

  (ii) KPMG

  (i) One person from 1 June 2000–1 June 2001

  (ii) Based in the IT Strategy Unit (ITSU), FCO.

  998W
  Our records show that no officers have been seconded to these companies since 2001.

  Uganda
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to seek to end the conflict in Northern Uganda. [157667]

  Mr. Mullin
  We deplore the violence perpetrated against innocent civilians by the Lord's Resistance Army in the north of Uganda. We continue to encourage the Ugandan Government to seek a peaceful resolution to this conflict and to take steps to improve prospects for dialogue.

  UK support to date has focussed on humanitarian assistance (£8.4 million in the last twelve months); targeted support to reconciliation processes; promotion of human rights, international humanitarian law, and supporting the role of civil society and improving international donor coordination.

  We continue to keep in close contact with the Government of Uganda and the international community to see what more we can do to help.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to obtain the support of international organisations to address the conflict in Northern Uganda. [157669]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are working closely with the international community and organisations to improve donor coordination and support a resolution of the conflict in northern Uganda. The UK was instrumental in the founding of the Donor Technical Group on the North in Kampala and currently holds the position of Deputy Chair of the Group. This is widely seen as the most important co-ordinating forum on donor responses to the conflict and has contributed to the development of agreed approaches and programmes in support of conflict resolution.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings his Department has had with the Ugandan Government regarding the conflict in the north of the country. [157670]

  Mr. Mullin
  We continue to raise the conflict with the Lord's Resistance Army with the Government of Uganda at official and ministerial level. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I discussed the situation in northern Uganda with President Museveni during his visit to London on 29 January. We urged President Museveni to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict. We encouraged him to take steps to improve prospects for dialogue. Our High Commissioner in Kampala is in constant touch with the Ugandan President about this issue.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to prevent the abduction of children in Northern Uganda by the Lord's Resistance Army. [157672]

  Mr. Mullin
  The vast majority of Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) fighters are the innocent children of civilians, abducted and forced to fight against their will. The degree of violence and the practice of making
  999W
  children a main target of their war is deeply repellent. We are supporting efforts to seek a resolution to this conflict and providing support to rehabilitate children who escape their LRA captors. Over the last year the UK has given £1.3 million to UNICEF and Save the Children Fund for relief activities, and their work to protect children at risk of abduction and to reintegrate child ex-combatants into society.

  United Nations
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the establishment of a United Nations council for sustainable and human development. [157112]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK believes the UN has an important role to play in promoting sustainable and human development. We believe the key is to strengthen the effectiveness and co-ordination of existing organisations, rather than creating new ones.

  The Millennium Declaration in 2000 and the World Summit for Sustainable Development in 2002 established concrete measures for judging performance on sustainable development through the Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. The UK is now working at the national and international level to meet these commitments. The UK provides substantial support for those UN bodies dealing with sustainable and human development.

  The UK believes the UN must change to better reflect current demands, and is taking part in the continuing discussion on reform of the UN system. As part of this process we are looking at the work of those UN bodies dealing with sustainable and human development.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the launch of an international convention for the reform of the United Nations in 2005. [157110]

  Mr. Rammell
  We do not sec the need for new mechanisms to reform the United Nations, as we would prefer to work through existing processes. The UK is a strong advocate of reform at the United Nations. The effectiveness of the organisation must be enhanced to ensure that the UN is able to meet the challenges currently facing the international community. Our priorities are a Security Council that deals effectively with the full range of threats to international peace and security: we welcome the establishment by the Secretary-General of a High Level Panel to look at this issue. We are supporting efforts to revitalise the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, and moves to reform the development agencies. We have also strongly supported Kofi Annan's 2002 proposals to improve the UN Secretariat and its budgetary procedures. We believe that these existing processes will lead to an organisation better equipped to meet current challenges.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has 1000W
  made of the regulations on presidential powers issued this month by the Zimbabwe Government; and what representations he has made about them. [157535]

  Mr. Mullin
  The regulations provide for the automatic detention in custody for nine days for people charged with a wide range of political and economic crimes, including those charged with advocating and organising violence, boycotts or civil disobedience under the Public Order and Security Act. They could be used to harass members of civic society, the independent media and ZANU (PF)'s political opponents.

  At the General Affairs and Economic Relations Council on 23 February, EU Foreign Ministers issued a strong statement condemning the Government of Zimbabwe for its human rights abuses.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Basic Skills Training
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many adults he plans should participate in learning and skills training up to their first level 2 in each year from 2003 to 2006. [154976]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We expect around 475,000 adults to participate in learning up to their first full level 2 funded by the public sector between 2003 and 2006. In addition there will be a number of learners participating in privately funded learning. We expect this privately funded learning to deliver around 180,000 adults with a first full level 2 between 2003 and 2006.

  Taken together with the change in the levels of qualifications of people in the workforce through young people entering the labour market (as adults) and replacing poorer qualified retirees, we expect this level of participation to enable us to meet our commitment to increase the number of adults with a full level 2 qualification by 1 million between 2003 and 2006.

  Broadband
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools have a broadband connection. [157190]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at December 2003, 41 per cent. of primary schools and 98 per cent. of secondary schools (49 per cent. of all schools), in England, were connected to broadband compared to just one in eight two years ago. This data has been extracted from LEA connectivity statistics.

  Computer Access
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what successor schemes there are to the Computers in Reach scheme; and what support is in place to maintain equipment acquired under that scheme. [158151]

  Charles Clarke [holding answer 2 March 2004]
  The Computers Within Reach Scheme closed on 31 October 2001 having delivered over 24,000 recycled computers to people in 22 pilot areas, at a cost of
  1001W
  £7.1 million over two years. Those eligible were in receipt of certain working age benefits or a State Pension with minimum income guarantee.

  An evaluation was conducted, and copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library. The report highlighted a number of difficulties. In view of these difficulties, we considered carefully whether to repeat the scheme against alternatives that might provide more effective access to ICT and learning opportunities for those currently without access.

  At the time it was decided to channel the remaining £7.9 million into purchasing wireless technology equipment and laptops for Adult and Community Learning Centres serving deprived wards around the country.

  There are no current plans to initiate any similar projects.

  Each individual who received a refurbished computer from one of the contracted suppliers would as part of the agreement receive a one year warranty with the machine. All costs for maintenance and upgrades would then fall to the owner when the years warranty expired.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the running costs of his Department were for each year since 2000–01; what his estimate is of annual expenditure up to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [156587]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of the Department's gross administrative expenditure for 2000–01 to 2005–06 are contained in Table 5.1 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2003 (Cm 5901). The figures are on a resource basis. Figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 were published in Table 5.5 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2000–01 (Cm 4601) but these are on a cash basis.

  Disabled Children
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to improve the statistics he collects on(a) the number of disabled children, (b) the type of disability affecting each child, (c) the severity and combination of their disabilities, (d) the levels of service provided for disabled children and (e) the adequacy of these services. [154741]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) took place last month. For the first time the Department collected the Special Educational Needs (SEN) type, for those pupils with statements or who are classified as "school action plus". This will enable us to examine the background factors associated with particular SEN types and the attainment patterns at various Key Stages of particular groups of pupils. Since many pupils with SEN have multiple needs the data collected records their primary and secondary need.

  As for levels and adequacy of services, OfSTED will be reporting to the Secretary of State in 2005 on how well schools in general are carrying out the duties which were brought in by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. These duties focus on inclusion, providing protection from discrimination for disabled
  1002W
  pupils and strategic planning to improve access to schools for disabled pupils. There is a clear expectation that these duties will lead to improvements in the services provided to disabled children at school.

  We have improved the information we collect about the number of disabled children supported by social services through the Children in Need (CIN) Census, which shows the number of disabled children reported in the survey week who received a service during that week. The last survey was carried out in February 2003, with the local authority results from this due to be published on 26 February. (The previous survey was carried out in September/October 2001.) The results are published and shown by local authority, although not collected by type of disability nor what type of service they received.

  Further information on data collection by type of SEN can be found at http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/sen/datatypes.

  Education and Youth Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outcome was of the Education and Youth Council held on 26 February; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [157915]

  Alan Johnson
  The Education, Youth and Culture Council on 26 February adopted the joint Commission/Council interim report on the detailed work programme on the follow-up to the Lisbon Objectives on education and training systems in Europe for transmission to the 2004 Spring European Council.

  The proposal for a Decision to establish "Europass", a single transparency tool for qualifications and competences was discussed. This part of the discussion was held in public and televised. The Irish Presidency are aiming to reach a Common Position on this by May 2004.

  The Council adopted a number of items without discussion. These included the Decision establishing new rules for the Advisory Committee on Vocational Training (ACVT), lo take account of EU enlargement.

  The Commission announced that it would be adopting a Communication next month on the next generation of education spending programmes. This Communication will set out the Commission's proposals for the next phase of Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Tempus, (2007–2013).

  The Commission presented its Report on the follow-up to the Recommendation of the European Parliament and Council on mobility within the Community of students, persons undergoing training, volunteers and teachers and trainers.

  Over lunch, progress on the 2004 European Year of Education through Sport was discussed. This is intended to showcase and promote the role of physical education and school sport, in particular its contribution to whole school standards and developing citizenship.
  1003W

  Educational Maintenance Allowances
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the(a) cost and (b) likely effect on participation rates of extending educational maintenance allowances to those engaged in part-time study. [156635]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The minimum attendance requirement for EMA is only 12 guided learning hours per week, so the main evaluation of the pilot scheme has assessed impact on part-time as well as full-time study. We do not plan to extend EMA to those studying for less than 12 hours. The evidence from the evaluation also indicates that with EMA, young people are able to establish a better balance between part-time work and their studies.

  Examinations
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of pupils in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough achieved three grade As or above at A Level in each of the last five years. [158456]

  Mr. Miliband:
  The information requested is as follows:

  Part (a):

  The percentage of 16–18 year old A level candidates achieving at least three grade As at A level in Greater London in 1999 to 2003:

  Year

  Percentage

  1999

  3.8

  2000

  4.4

  2001

  4.5

  2002

  4.8

  2003

  5.1

  Part (b):

  The percentage of 16–18 year old A level candidates achieving at least three grade As at A level in each Local Education Authority in London in 1999 to 2003:

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Inner London

  2.7

  3.0

  3.0

  2.7

  2.9

  Camden

  4.4

  5.7

  5.7

  5.4

  5.1

  Hackney

  0.5

  0.6

  1.1

  0.7

  0.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3.6

  7.0

  4.3

  3.6

  5.0

  Haringey

  2.5

  4.2

  2.9

  3.2

  4.6

  Islington

  1.9

  1.8

  1.3

  1.1

  0.5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5.9

  2.0

  2.6

  4.5

  6.9

  Lambeth

  1.0

  0.0

  1.1

  0.0

  3.8

  Lewisham

  2.2

  2.5

  3.7

  2.4

  2.4

  Newham

  1.3

  1.9

  1.5

  2.8

  1.3

  Southwark

  0.0

  2.4

  1.1

  1.0

  0.4

  Tower Hamlets

  0.5

  0.3

  0.6

  1.0

  0.1

  Wandsworth

  3.1

  2.7

  3.3

  1.8

  3.2

  Westminster, City of

  2.2

  1.8

  3.3

  3.5

  2.9

  Outer London

  4.1

  4.9

  5.0

  5.5

  5.9

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.0

  1.5

  1.1

  2.6

  1.6

  Barnet

  7.5

  8.3

  8.1

  9.3

  10.8

  Bexley

  2.8

  3.9

  5.0

  5.6

  5.4

  Brent

  3.4

  3.8

  3.7

  5.2

  4.3

  Bromley

  3.9

  5.4

  5.9

  5.7

  6.3

  Croydon

  2.2

  2.3

  2.0

  2.4

  3.0

  Ealing

  1.7

  3.8

  4.5

  2.8

  5.9

  Enfield

  5.3

  5.7

  4.8

  5.7

  5.2

  1004W

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Greenwich

  1.7

  3.0

  1.3

  1.4

  2.3

  Harrow

  2.6

  3.7

  2.8

  3.6

  4.7

  Havering

  4.6

  4.3

  4.1

  5.9

  4.6

  Hillingdon

  3.3

  5.3

  4.5

  3.0

  4.5

  Hounslow

  2.0

  2.7

  2.3

  3.4

  2.6

  Kingston upon Thames

  5.0

  8.0

  10.7

  7.8

  8.7

  Merton

  3.7

  4.4

  1.0

  4.6

  4.7

  Redbridge

  6.1

  5.9

  6.0

  6.1

  8.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  3.6

  4.2

  3.9

  4.6

  5.6

  Sutton

  8.0

  8.8

  9.7

  13.7

  11.2

  Waltham Forest

  1.6

  1.1

  2.3

  2.1

  1.8

  Mr. Evans:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the value added between Key Stage 3 and GCSE/GNVQ for schools in (a) Ribble Valley and Fulwood and (b) Lancashire was excluding the results of specialist schools. [156495]

  Mr. Miliband:
  The following table shows the 2003 Key Stage 3 to GCSE/GNVQ Value Added measures for (a) Ribble Valley parliamentary constituency and (b) Lancashire local education authority when (1) Specialist schools are included and (2) Specialist schools are excluded. Figures are based on maintained schools only:

  (a) Ribble Valley

  (b) Lancashire LEA

  (1) Specialist schools included

  KS3-GCSE/GNVQ VA measure

  99.0

  98.8

  (Number of schools)

  (10)

  (118)

  (2) Specialist schools excluded

  KS3-GCSE/GNVQ VA measure

  99.0

  98.5

  (Number of schools)

  (6)

  (85)

  These figures represent the results of one particular cohort of pupils, showing their value-added over the two years leading up to GCSE. School and LEA figures are also available in the school performance tables covering pupil value-added over the three years leading up to KS3. Similar information for each of these key stages was also published for the 2002 cohorts. Any assessment of whether particular schools or types of school are more effective than others should take into account this wider picture, as well as recognising that small differences in VA scores may not indicate significant differences in effectiveness.

  School Fire Alarms
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who is responsible for ensuring that fire alarms in schools comply with legislation and regulations. [157946]

  Mr. Miliband:
  Under health and safety legislation responsibility for fire safety, including the maintenance of fire alarm systems, rests with the employer. With community schools, community special schools, voluntary controlled schools, maintained nursery schools and pupil referral units, the employer is the local education authority. For foundation schools, foundation special schools and voluntary aided schools, the employer is usually the governing body. With independent schools, the employer is usually the governing body or proprietor.
  1005W

  Kurdish
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to allow students in UK schools to take Kurdish at GCSE level. [158303]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The decision whether or not to offer particular subjects at GCSE is one for the awarding bodies which are independent commercial enterprises. They do not currently offer a GCSE in Kurdish. The Department has no power to prescribe that subjects outside of the statutory national curriculum should be available at GCSE. For some areas of study, such as Kurdish, which are likely to have a relatively low number of candidates, the cost of providing an examination would be an important consideration for the awarding bodies.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether level 2 entitlements for adults are available to individuals who are economically inactive. [156069]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As we said in our Skills Strategy White Paper, "21st Century Skills", we will create a new guarantee of free tuition for any adult without a good foundation of employability skills to get the training they need to achieve such a qualification at level 2. We intend that it will apply to those in the workforce or of working age—including the economically inactive who are seeking those employability skills—who do not already have a full level 2 qualification, and who commit to trying to achieve one. The Government already waive tuition fees for certain categories of adults receiving income-based benefits such as income support, housing and council tax benefits and those undertaking basic skills learning. Many colleges also offer free or discounted learning for other groups of people including those not on state benefits.

  Medical Students
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students entered universities to study medicine in(a) 1992, (b) 1997, (c) 2001 and (d) 2003. [148408]

  Alan Johnson
  The available figures are given in the table and cover accepted applicants through the Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS).

  Accepted applicants through UCAS to pre-medicine study at UK institutions.

  Year of entry

  Number

  1992

  4,425

  1997

  5,029

  2001

  6,240

  2002

  6,959

  Source:

  The Universities Central Council on Admissions (1992) and Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.

  1006W

  Postgraduate Education
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the proposals for higher education on the number of students choosing to continue in postgraduate education. [157496]

  Alan Johnson
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills stated in the Second Reading debate on 27 January, there will be a review by an independent commission, reporting to Parliament directly on the impact of the new fee regime three years after implementation. Evaluation of the impact on postgraduate education will be considered as part of that review.

  My right hon. Friend has also commissioned a report to examine the Gateways into the Professions which will be led by Sir Alan Langlands. The report will examine how the public sector and the professions can sustain and improve recruitment opportunities for graduates, especially those who do not qualify for the full £3000 support. Sir Alan will be reporting to us by mid 2005.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were on the roll in each secondary school in Newcastle upon Tyne in each year since April 2000; and what percentage of those students(a) were eligible for and (b) took up free school meals. [157053]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available data are shown in the table.

  Maintained secondary schools1: School meal arrangements Newcastle upon Tyne local education authority area—Position in January each year

  Number on roll2,3

  Number known to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free meals

  Public taking free school meals

  Percentage taking free school meals

  2000

  17,874

  4,572

  25.6

  3,123

  17.5

  2001

  18,071

  4,573

  25.3

  2,988

  16.5

  2002

  17,805

  4,190

  23.5

  2,783

  15.6

  2003

  17,808

  4,213

  23.7

  2,890

  16.2

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2Includes dually registered pupils.

  3For 2000–02 excludes boarding pupils.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  It is the Department's current policy not to publish school level information unless the schools concerned have had the opportunity to confirm the information available through processes such as the performance tables. Information on free school meals has not been confirmed in this way.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were being educated at each key stage in the Romsey constituency in each school year since 1997–98. [157077]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  1007W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools: number of pupils by key stage1,2—Position in January each year 1997 to 2003 Romsey parliamentary constituency

  Primary

  Secondary

  Key stage 13

  Key stage 24

  Key stage 35

  Key stage 46

  1997

  2,020

  3,960

  4,140

  2,730

  1998

  2,010

  4,010

  4,140

  2,710

  1999

  2,010

  4,020

  4,260

  2,700

  2000

  1,930

  4,120

  4,350

  2,720

  2001

  1,850

  4,090

  4,470

  2,810

  2002

  1,750

  4,020

  4,490

  2,860

  2003

  1,850

  4,070

  4,470

  2,910

  1Key stage based on pupils' age.

  2Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  3Pupils aged 5 and 6 at the start of the academic year.

  4Pupils aged 7, 8, 9 and 10 at the start of the academic year.

  5Pupils aged 11, 12 and 13 at the start of the academic year.

  6Pupils aged 14 and 15 at the start of the
  academic year.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Recruitment Advertising
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Department's expenditure on recruitment advertising was in each of the last three years, broken down by publication; and what proportion of such expenditure was(a) to advertise vacant posts and (b) in the form of other general recruitment advertising. [155517]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department uses the most appropriate national, regional, trade magazine publication or website for recruitment advertising, depending on the nature of the vacancy to be filled. The media used most regularly included the Guardian/Observer, Times/Sunday Times, TES, Economist, Ethnic Media Group and Personnel Publications.

  The following table gives the advertising costs for Civil Servants recruited to work within my Department for the years 2001/02 and 2002/03. The figures represent a significant investment in bringing into the Department, at a senior level, people with delivery skills and experience in the wider education and skills sector and beyond.

  The Department for Education and Skills was established in June 2001 and therefore the figures quoted for 2001/02 are from June 2001—March 2002. The figures for 2002/03 are for a complete financial year.

  £

  2001/02

  2002/03

  Central Recruitment relating to Grades AA—Grade 6

  187,890.24

  134,016.11

  Senior Civil Service Recruitment

  111,266.54

  256,669.66

  Totals

  299,156.78

  390,685.77

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much his Department has spent on recruitment advertising in each year since 1997. [156452]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following table gives the advertising costs for civil servants recruited to work within my Department for the years 2001/02 and 2002/03. The figures represent a significant investment in 1008W
  bringing into the Department, at a senior level, people with delivery skills and experience in the wider education and skills sector and beyond.

  The Department for Education and Skills was established in June 2001 and therefore the figures quoted for 2001/02 are from June 2001-March 2002. The figures for 2002/03 are for a complete financial year.

  £

  2001/02

  2002/03

  Central recruitment relating to Grades AA—Grade 6

  187,890.24

  134,016.11

  Senior civil service recruitment

  111,266.54

  256,669.66

  Total

  299,156.78

  390,685.77

  School Buildings (Cleethorpes)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list(a) new schools, (b) major building projects and (c) major refurbishments to schools in Cleethorpes constituency since 1997. [158118]

  Mr. Miliband
  The majority of capital support is allocated to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about all the new schools, major building projects and major refurbishments in Cleethorpes. This information should be held locally. However, the following table shows the total capital support provided by this Government for school buildings in North East Lincolnshire LEA and North Lincolnshire LEA since 1997–98.£ million

  North East Lincolnshire

  North Lincolnshire

  1997–98

  0.858

  0.950

  1998–99

  2.987

  2.635

  1999–2000

  3.137

  2.241

  2000–01

  5.550

  5.856

  2001–02

  3.599

  10.019

  2002–03

  7.993

  9.945

  2003–04

  7.718

  align="right"6.113

  We have to date, also allocated indicative funding for future years worth approximately £7.248 million in 2004–05 and £3.366 million in 2005–06 for North East Lincolnshire, and £10.051 million in 2004–05 and £2.542 in 2005–06 for North Lincolnshire.

  School Funding (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) schools funding spending share, (b) school pupil numbers and (c) schools funding spending share per pupil was in (i) Greater London and (ii) each London borough in each year since 1997. [158453]

  Mr. Miliband
  Education Formula Spending Share (EFSS) replaced the former Education SSA in 2003–04. There is no equivalent to Schools Formula Spending Share (SFSS) in years prior to 2003–04 so information is given in tables
  showing EFSS and SSA, pupil number
  1009W
  and EFSS/SSA per pupil in Greater London and for each London borough since 1997. A copy of the tables has been placed in the Library.

  School Sports Facilities
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions he has had with universities on the opening of their sports facilities for out-of-hours community use. [157767]

  Alan Johnson
  There have been no discussions with universities on the opening of their sports facilities for out-of-hours community use. Higher education institutions (HEIs) are autonomous organisations and it is up to individual institutions to decide on the degree of public use of their sports facilities. This will vary depending on the type of facilities, the requirements of the local community and the needs of the institutions. However, I am aware that universities are already increasingly engaged in this type of activity.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the age profile of teachers in special schools is; and how many newly qualified teachers were recruited by these schools in the last year for which figures are available. [157605]

  Mr. Miliband [holding answer 1 March 2004]
  There were 100 newly qualified1 entrants to full or part-time service in maintained special schools in England between March 2001 and March 2002.

  The following table shows regular qualified teachers in full-time service in maintained special schools in England by age, at March 2002:
  1Includes conventional and employment based training routes.

  Special schools

  Age

  Number

  Under 25

  80

  25–29

  690

  30–34

  950

  35–39

  1,190

  40–44

  1,830

  45–49

  3,380

  50–54

  3,260

  55–59

  1,370

  60 and over

  160

  All ages

  12,910

  Provisional data:

  Database of Teacher Records

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of bids for specialist school status made by(a) faith schools, (b) non-faith schools, (c) faith schools with a comprehensive intake, (d) non-faith schools with a comprehensive intake, (e) Church of England schools, (f) Roman Catholic schools, (g) grammar schools and (h) Roman Catholic grammar schools have been successful. [157751]

  Mr. Miliband [holding answer 1 March 2004]
  The following table shows specialist school applications over the last two years.
  1010W

  Specialist school applications

  Type of school

  Number of applications1

  Percentage of applications successful

  Faith schools

  249

  58.2

  Non-faith schools

  1,179

  60.4

  Faith schools with a comprehensive intake

  217

  66.8

  Non-faith schools with a comprehensive intake

  1,036

  59.9

  Church of England schools

  71

  56.3

  Roman Catholic schools

  172

  58.7

  Grammar schools

  87

  70.1

  Roman Catholic grammar schools

  27

  14.3

  1These figures include some schools which have applied on more than one occasion.

  2Given the small sample size, this data should be interpreted with caution.

  The selection process for the Specialist Schools Programme is robust and transparent.

  It is open to all maintained secondary schools and our aim is that all schools that are ready should become specialist.

  All unsuccessful applicant schools receive detailed written feedback based on independent assessments. The Specialist Schools Trust and Youth Sport Trust provide a range of support to these and other aspiring specialist schools.

  Student Drop-out Rates
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has commissioned into(a) student drop-out rates in the poorest communities and (b) the impact of benefit rules on students dropping out of access courses. [156308]

  Alan Johnson
  We are not aware of research into student drop-out rates in the poorest communities. However, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has found that levels of non-completion are correlated only very weakly, if at all, with social class after taking into account prior academic record (see HEFCE submission to the Education and Employment Committee, Sixth Report, 13 March 2001, HC 124, page 121). Other research has reached similar conclusions. Examples include:"Right Choice? A follow-up to 'Making the Right Choice'", Connor H., Pearson R., Pollard E., Tyers C., Willison R. Universities UK 2001 http://www.emplovment-studies.co.uk/pubs/report.php?id = 1427uuk
  "Dropping Out: A study of early leavers from Higher Education" Rhys Davies and Peter Elias, DfES Research Report 386 "http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/

  Research shows that non-completion is a complex process that cannot normally be explained by any single factor. The reasons (many of which are inter-related) why people leave higher education include:

  incompatibility between the student and their course or institution;

  lack of preparation for higher education;

  lack of commitment to the course;

  financial hardship;

  poor academic progress; and

  health or other personal reasons.

  1011W
  The Department is not aware of research into the impact of benefit rules on students dropping out of access courses.

  The UK non-completion rate has stayed broadly the same at around 17–18 per cent. since 1991–92 and this fell to just over 16 per cent. in the figures published in December 2003 by HEFCE. This represents one of the highest completion rates in the OECD and we are determined to maintain this level of performance.

  HEFCE has allocated £225 million to institutions in 2003–04 for widening access and improving retention and recognises some of the additional costs of supporting students from non-traditional backgrounds and those who are less well prepared for higher education.

  Teachers (Retirement)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to raise the normal retirement age for teachers to 65; what estimate he has made of the cost savings from raising the pension age to 65; and if he will make a statement. [156575]

  Mr. Miliband
  The retirement age of teachers is covered in the contract of employment between the teacher and their employer. Issues relating to contractual retirement ages are still under consideration in the light of the policy on encouraging longer working lifetimes in the Green Paper (GM 5865) "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement. Action on occupational pensions"; and considerations on how legislation on age discrimination under the EU Employment Directive EC78/2000 will be implemented in the UK.

  The provisions of the Teachers' Pension Scheme are currently under review in consultation with representatives of teacher and employer associations. This review is being conducted in the context of proposals to increase the normal pension age (ie the age at which

  All undergraduate students enrolled at UK institutions, 2002/03

  Pre-1992

  Of which: Russell group1

  Post-1992

  Age

  1st degree

  Other UG

  1st degree

  Other UG

  1st degree

  Other UG

  Up to 20 years

  332,673

  18,565

  164,300

  6,165

  201,829

  33,816

  21–24 years

  125,991

  31,785

  59,305

  9,118

  131,420

  31,147

  25 years plus

  51,845

  257,405

  15,934

  44,109

  102,069

  105,671

  Total

  510,509

  307,755

  239,539

  59,392

  435,318

  170,634

  1The Russell Group includes the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Oxford, Sheffield, Southampton, Warwick, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Cardiff, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, King's College London, University College London and the London School of Economics and Political Science.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and Learning Skills Council (LSC)

  Other HEIs

  FEIs1

  Total

  Age

  11 degree

  Other UG

  1st degree

  Other UG

  1st degree

  Other UG

  Up to 20 years

  65,342

  11,389

  5,621

  49,810

  605,465

  113,580

  21–24 years

  35,934

  8,599

  4,238

  30,626

  297,583

  102,157

  25 years plus

  27,967

  32,483

  7,428

  107,536

  189,309

  503,095

  Total

  129,243

  52,471

  17,287

  187,972

  1,092,357

  718,832

  1Figures for HE study in FE institutions have been carried over from 2001/02 until figures for 2002/03 are available.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and Learning Skills Council (LSC)

  1012W
  scheme members can access an unreduced pension) to 65. It is proposed that the higher pension age would apply to new teachers from 2006 and to the future service of existing teachers from 2013. The impact on scheme costs of the increase in the normal pension age and any improvements that may be made to the existing provisions of the TPS will be assessed by the Government Actuary as options are worked up in consultation with teacher and employer representatives.

  Training Boards
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual cost to public funds is of the(a) Construction Industry Training Board and (b) Engineering Construction Industry Training Board; and if he will make a statement. [156586]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The operating costs of the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) are funded from a levy on the employers in the industries they cover.

  They may receive public funding from government departments or agencies to support employer training through the delivery of particular projects or initiatives. In the financial year ended December 2003 the CITB received a total of £41,685,000 and the ECITB received £1,494,000. The vast majority of this was Learning and Skills Council funding to support the delivery of Modern Apprenticeships.

  Undergraduates
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many undergraduate students there were in the United Kingdom on the latest date for which figures are available broken down by(a) age, (b) nature of course and (c) type of institution. [145106]

  Alan Johnson
  The available figures are given in the table.
  1013W

  Transitional Funding
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) which local education authorities have submitted bids for additional transitional funding to assist schools and local education authorities with financial problems; [158117]

  (2) what criteria has been set down for allocating the transitional relief which has been awarded to local education authorities to help schools with budget difficulties. [158120]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of likely reasons for the increase in Income Support and Jobseekers's Allowance overpayments to non-pensioners owing to official error; and if he will make a statement. [155892]

  Mr. Pond [holding answer 25 February 2004]
  The loss from fraud and error in Income Support (IS) and Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) reduced to 7.3 per cent. in March 2003, compared to the 10.4 per cent. September 1998 baseline figure. This is the lowest ever level of loss recorded and builds on our previous achievements. We have now reduced by 30 per cent. the loss for people of working age receiving IS or JSA.

  The Department estimates that the rate of overpayment in IS and JSA due to official error was 1.9 per cent. of expenditure for the period April 2002 March 2003. The equivalent figure in the previous year, for the period April 2001 to March 2002, was 1.8 per cent.

  The increase of 0.1 per cent. is very small compared to the margins of sampling error around the two estimates. Furthermore, a change in the methodology between 2001–02 and 2002–03 increased the estimate of official error by 0.1 per cent. In these circumstances we cannot conclude that there has been a real increase in the underlying rate of official error. Further details on the methodology change will be provided in the next National Statistics report which is due to be published in March 2004.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures are available to the Child Support Agency to enforce payment; and in how many cases these have been invoked in each of the last five years. [153034]

  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.
  1014W
  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Peter Viggers, dated 3 March 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked what measures are available to the Child Support Agency to enforce payment; and in how many cases these have been invoked in each of he last five years.

  Where a non-resident parent chooses not to pay child maintenance we will seek to discuss this by telephone when we will remind them of their legal responsibility. If there is still no adequate response and the non-resident parent is employed we will usually seek to implement, through the employer, a deduction from earnings. If the non-resident parent is self-employed, or has other forms of income, we can take action through the courts. This firstly involves establishing a liability order—normally through the Magistrates Court. When that is established we can then deploy a range of alternative enforcement mechanisms, including:
  Levying of distress involving the use of Bailiffs;
  Establishing a third party debt order—allowing money owed to the debtor to be frozen and sent to us to cover the outstanding debt;
  Establishing a charging order—registering the debt against certain assets owned by the debtor;
  Registering a County Court judgement, which may affect the debtors credit rating;
  Applying for a warrant to commit the debtor to prison or for an order preventing them from holding or obtaining a driving licence.
  The process and subsequent actions vary slightly in Scotland.

  In the last four years we have applied a deduction from earnings in the following number of cases. We do not hold reliable data prior to 1999/2000.

  Number

  1999/2000

  121,074

  2000/2001

  51,673

  2001/2002

  64,584

  2002/2003

  113,120

  The table below shows the number of cases that were referred by caseworkers for further specialist enforcement action.

  Number

  1999/2000

  7,663

  2000/2001

  3,561

  2001/2002

  3,546

  2002/2003

  8,054

  I hope this is helpful.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take steps to amend Child Support Agency regulations to disregard from maintenance calculations the service overseas allowances paid to members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. [157558]

  Mr. Pond
  No. Child Support regulations already provide that allowances which are exempt from tax, such as the Local Overseas Allowance, are disregarded for the purposes of maintenance calculations.

  Funeral Payments
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether funeral payments have been made to help with costs incurred of funerals arranged overseas since 1997. [157822]
  1015W
  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available.

  Since 1997, people with the right to reside in the UK, under European Economic Community directives, may receive help for the cost of a funeral that takes place in the European economic area or Switzerland.

  As long as the other conditions of entitlement are satisfied a funeral payment may be made equivalent to that which would have been paid if the funeral had taken

  New Deal costs1

  £ million

  2001–02 Outturn

  2002–032 Forecast outturn

  2003–04 Plans

  2004–05 Plans

  2005–06 Plans

  New Deal for Young People

  308

  339

  340

  320

  320

  New Deal 25 plus

  213

  254

  255

  259

  261

  New Deal 50 plus

  87

  106

  56

  16

  10

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  46

  80

  82

  109

  116

  New Deal for Disabled People

  10

  27

  27

  27

  27

  New Deal for partners

  8

  6

  11

  26

  39

  1Includes programme and administrative spend.

  2Figures are rounded to the nearest million.

  Source:

  Department for Work and Pensions Departmental Report 2003

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when elements of the Regulated Social Fund have been increased and by how much in(a) cash and (b) real terms; what research he has conducted on the cost of a simple, respectful and low cost funeral in each of the last six years; how man people have received funeral payments since 1997; and what the average award was in each year. [157821]

  Mr. Pond
  Funeral payments from the Social Fund cover, in full, the cost of certain necessary charges; these include fees levied by burial authorities and crematoria. An additional sum is allowed for other funeral expenses, which give the person arranging the funeral the freedom to select items or services they consider appropriate. This additional sum was increased to a maximum of £700 from 7 April 2003.

  The total average funeral payment in 2002–03 was £929. The amount awarded in many cases can be much higher but this is often offset by money available from the deceased's assets, which may be taken into account.

  The available information is in the table.

  Number and average amount of Social Fund funeral payments since 1997

  £

  Number of funeral payments

  Average amount paid

  1997–98

  48,000

  792

  1998–99

  46,000

  839

  1999–2000

  44,000

  866

  2000–01

  40,000

  892

  2001–02

  42,000

  909

  2002–03

  45,000

  929

  Note:

  Number of funeral payments is rounded to the nearest thousand

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System

  1016W
  place in the UK. The Department does not collect centrally information regarding the number of funeral payments made for funerals held outside the UK.

  New Deal
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of the New Deal for Employment was in each year from 2001–02 to 2005–06 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [156702]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the table.

  The Department does not collect information on the cost of funeral services, however the amount of a funeral payment is kept under review and we continue to consult with representatives from funeral directors' associations, church groups and other interested organisations.

  The available information regarding increases in elements of the regulated Social Fund is in the table.

  Regulated Social Fund prescribed elements in cash and real terms since 1997

  £

  Cash terms

  Real terms 2003–04 prices

  Sure Start Maternity Grant

  1997–98

  100

  116

  1998–99

  100

  113

  1999–2000

  100

  110

  2000–01

  200

  218

  2000–01

  300

  327

  2001–02

  300

  318

  2002–03

  500

  514

  2003–04

  500

  500

  Funeral Payment

  1997–98

  600

  696

  1998–99

  600

  676

  1999–2000

  600

  662

  2000–01

  600

  653

  2001–02

  600

  637

  2002–03

  600

  616

  2003–04

  700

  700

  Cold Weather Payment

  1997–98

  8.50

  9.86

  1998–99

  8.50

  9.58

  1999–2000

  8.50

  9.38

  2000–01

  8.50

  9.26

  2001–02

  8.50

  9.02

  2002–03

  8.50

  8.73

  2003–04

  8.50

  8.50

  1017W

  Regulated Social Fund prescribed elements in cash and real terms since 1997 £

  Cash terms

  Real terms 2003–04 prices

  Winter fuel payment (IS/JSA(IB) with pensioner premium)

  1997–98

  50

  58

  1998–99

  50

  56

  1999–2000

  100

  110

  2000–01

  200

  218

  2001–02

  200

  212

  2002–03

  200

  205

  2003–04

  200

  200

  Winter fuel payment (other eligible)

  1997–98

  20

  23

  1998–99

  20

  23

  1999–2000

  100

  110

  2000–01

  200

  218

  2001–02

  200

  212

  2002–03

  200

  205

  2003–04

  200

  200

  80 plus annual payment

  2003–04

  100

  100

  Note:

  Real terms prices have been calculated using the GDP deflator issued by HMT on 23 Dec 2003

  Source:

  DWP Figures

  Student Loans
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whether student loans can be taken into account in calculating other benefits for(a) the student and (b) the student's spouse or partner; [152468]

  (2) whether Jobseeker's Allowance eligibility is affected by the claimant's partner's student loan. [152471]

  Mr. Pond [holding answer 3 February 2004]
  Income related benefits are intended to help people whose resources are insufficient to meet their day to day living expenses; any income available to meet those expenses is normally taken into account when working out how much benefit can be paid.

  A person in receipt of an income related benefit, including JSA (income based), Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit will therefore have their or their partner's student loan taken into account when calculating the amount of benefit payable. Up to £605 of a student loan may be disregarded to take into account costs of travel, books and equipment.

  Benefits that are not income related, including contribution based benefits, will not be affected by a student loan.

  Migrant Workers
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many jobcentre plus vacancies were filled during 2002–03 by(a) skilled and (b) unskilled migrants. [157585]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available.
  1018W

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Data Protection
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the
  Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) if he will require the Information Commissioner to bring legal proceedings against individuals or organisations identified as purporting to be acting as a collector in relation to data protection but acting without the authority of the information Commissioner; [157599]

  (2) what action the Information Commissioner is taking to prevent organisations passing themselves off as the Data Protection Registrar; and if he will make a statement. [157589]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Commissioner carries out his statutory duties independently of government. He has no powers under the Data Protection Act to take legal action against "collectors", but he has been working closely with the Office of Fair Trading, local trading standards services across the country and various police forces to tackle the problem. The coordinated efforts of these bodies have resulted in a number of successful legal actions and continuing investigations.

  The Commissioner has been able to take action in the case of one firm, which has been using his registered trademarks. The matter is currently in the hands of his lawyers.

  In addition to these measures, the Commissioner has strengthened his notification administrative procedures and his staff continue to work very hard to offer appropriate advice to the public and to help raise awareness of the activities of these "collectors".

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) what estimate he has made of the number of(a) individuals and (b) organisations which have fallen victim to bogus collectors in relation to data protection in each of the last three years; [157600]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the income received by the Information Commissioner from data protection registration fees under the Data Protection Act 1998 which emanated from bogus agencies in each of the last two years; [157591]

  (3) on how many occasions fees forwarded to the Information Commissioner by bogus collectors on behalf of data protection were from organisations which do not need to be registered; and what happens to such fees; [157588]

  (4) if he will estimate the cost to the Information Commissioner of telephone calls, correspondence and administration arising from the activities of bogus organisations posing as collectors in relation to data protection. [157587]

  Mr. Lammy
  I understand from the Information Commissioner that in total approximately 27,000 notifications have been received via these bogus agencies. There were some 2,500 in 2001–02; 12,000 in 2002–03; and 12,500 in 2003–04. The figures available do not distinguish between individuals and organisations.

  The income received amounted to £420,000 in 2002–03 and £437,500 in 2003–04.
  1019W
  The Data Protection Act allows organisations whose processing is exempt from the notification requirement to notify voluntarily. From the documentation submitted through the bogus agencies, it is not possible for the Commissioner to assess whether a notification is mandatory or voluntary. Refunds are given where the registration is a duplicate or where organisations contact the Commissioner and qualify for an exemption. Figures for the total number of refunds made prior to August 2003 are not available. Since that date, there have been approximately 400.

  The Commissioner estimates that the costs to his office of the bogus agencies in the year 2003–04 have been in the region of £100,000.

  Legal Aid
  David Davis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what legal aid entitlement is available to(a) UK citizens and (b) non-UK citizens when charged with (i) civil and (ii) criminal offences. [156228]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are no nationality or residency requirements for using the courts in the United Kingdom. The availability of civil and criminal legal aid follows the same basic principle. Any individual, whether they are a UK citizen or not, may make an application for civil or criminal legal aid in any of the three jurisdictions within the United Kingdom (England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland). The applicant, however, must pass the relevant merits and means criteria for the civil or criminal schemes within the jurisdiction where the application is made, and, in addition. the legal proceedings for which legal aid is sought must have originated within that jurisdiction.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his response is to the Country Landowners and Business Association report on affordable housing in rural areas. [157531]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister welcomes the Association's report and the contribution it is making to the debate about the balance between the need for more affordable housing in many rural areas and protection of the countryside. The report's recommendations mainly relate to the planning system and will be taken into account in finalising the proposed changes to Planning Policy Guidance on Housing (PPG3) which were consulted on last summer.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on affordable housing in rural areas. [157533]

  Keith Hill
  The Government are acutely aware of the difficulties caused in rural, and other, areas as a result of shortages of good quality affordable housing. A comprehensive programme of action to address this, and the problems associated with poor housing conditions and low demand and abandonment, was launched by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in 1020W
  "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" on 5 February 2003. This specifically recognises the importance of balancing provision of additional housing in rural areas with protection of the countryside.

  The action to increase affordable housing focuses on improving the effectiveness of the planning system and the establishment of four growth areas to alleviate the overall housing pressures in London and surrounding areas. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also increased the target for new affordable housing provided in settlements of less than 3;000 people.

  Kate Barker, a member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, is carrying out a review of issues underlying the lack of supply and responsiveness of housing in the UK. Her interim report published on 10 December set out the major analysis of these issues and the constraints that must be overcome to meet the housing need for this and future generations. The Government look forward to her final report, which is due later in the month.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the level of affordable housing stock in the Vale of York was on(a) 1 January 1997 and (b) 1 January 2004. [157534]

  Keith Hill
  The available information in respect of housing provided by local authorities and registered social landlords is presented as follows for the districts surrounding and including the Vale of York constituency:

  Social Dwelling stock for surrounding districts of the Vale of York constituency, as at 1 April

  Local authority1

  Registered Social Landlord1

  Total

  1997

  2003

  1997

  2003

  1997

  2003

  Hambleton

  0

  0

  4,648

  4,601

  4,648

  4,601

  Harrogate

  4,806

  4,074

  1,375

  2,151

  6,181

  6,225

  York

  9,497

  8,406

  3,064

  3,819

  12,561

  12,225

  1Figures for the number of dwellings in 1997 include self-contained units only, while figures for 2003 include bed spaces and self-contained units.

  Source:

  ODPM's Housing Investment Programme return and Housing Corporation's Regulatory Statistical Return.

  Mr, Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the percentage of affordable housing stock is in the Chorley constituency. [158126]

  Keith Hill
  The available information in respect of housing provided by local authorities and registered social landlords is presented as follows for the district of Chorley:

  Social dwelling stock for Chorley district as at 1 April 2003

  Number

  As percentage Number of total stock

  Local Authority

  3,271

  7.6

  Registered Social Landlord

  3,011

  7.0

  Total

  6,282

  14.6

  Source:

  ODPM's Housing Investment Programme returns and Housing Corporation's Regulatory and Statistical Return.

  1021W
  John Cryer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average waiting time was in each of the last four years for a person to be rehoused in the London borough of Havering. [157322]

  Keith Hill
  Information provided by the London borough of Havering showing the average waiting time for rehousing a person in the borough for the last four years is as follows:

  Average waiting time

  1999–2000

  2 years 5 months

  2000–01

  2 years 5 months

  2001–02

  2 years 5 months

  2002–03

  2 years 10 months

  John Cryer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the waiting list figures in the London borough of Havering for old age pensioner housing were in each of the last four years. [157323]

  Keith Hill
  The London borough of Havering have advised the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that in 2001–02 the average waiting time for old age pensioner housing in the borough was one year and two months; in 2002–03 it was one year and four months. The boroughs' records for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are held manually and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2004,Official Report, columns 1650–51W, on housing stock transfer, what proportion of the (a) interest on and (b) capital of the £8 billion private investment he has planned will be repaid directly from public funds. [157291]

  Keith Hill
  The new landlord is responsible for servicing the interest and capital of any private finance taken out as part of the housing transfer. No assistance is given directly from public funds.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2004,Official Report, columns 1650–51W, on housing stock transfer, what proportion of the extra £8 billion private investment has been invested in arm's length management organisation stock (a) directly and (b) indirectly. [157292]

  Keith Hill
  To date £12 billion of private funding is being used for the purchase and improvement of housing stock that has been transferred into the ownership of Registered Social Landlords. None of it is available for investment in stock owned by local authorities and managed by Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs). My answer of 12 February indicated that £900 million of public funding has so far been allocated for this latter purpose.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2004,Official Report, columns 1650–51W, on housing stock transfer, what proportion of the nearly £900 million of public funding to bring homes up to the Decent Homes
  1022W
  standard is additional to what would have been available had the he using stock remained under local authority management control. [157293]

  Keith Hill
  All of the £900 million so far allocated under the Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) programme is additional to the public funding available to all local authorities which own housing stock, irrespective of whether it is managed directly or by an ALMO.

  Leasehold (Bogus Charges)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made towards the implementation of the provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that will protect leaseholders from bogus ground rent charges. [157490]

  Keith Hill
  The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 includes provisions that will make it mandatory for landlords to give leaseholders a notice specifying how much ground rent is required, when the rent is payable and what the consequences are of non-payment. The leaseholder will also be given a grace period for paying the ground rent, which will be not be less than 30 days or more than 60 days after the day of the notice.

  The measures will form part of the third Commencement Order which will deal with the outstanding accounting, insurance, forfeiture, ground rent and right to enfranchise provisions in the 2002 Act. The Order and associated regulations are expected to be laid in July this year, coining into force in most cases, three months later.

  Liveability Fund
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the sums available through the Liveability Fund. [156818]

  Keith Hill
  The Liveability Fund is providing £89 million over three years (2003–06) to assist local authorities in identifying new and innovative ways of delivering improved 'liveability' services.

  The fund will support 27 pilot areas to improve parks and public spaces with grants of between £2.1 million and £3.8 million.

  Local Authority Procurement
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities now have a procurement champion in place; and how many local authorities have completed a procurement plan to ensure best practice as recommended in the Byatt Report. [158084]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The National Procurement Strategy for Local Government, launched in October 2003, includes milestones for 2004 for each authority to appoint a procurement champion and to develop a corporate procurement strategy, owned by chief executives, members and senior officers.
  1023W
  On 25 February, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Local Government Association (LGA) announced nine Centres of Procurement Excellence to support authorities in implementing the National Procurement Strategy. The centres will collect information about the implementation of the Strategy in each region, including progress in appointing champions and developing corporate procurement strategies.

  Millennium Dome
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the(a) maintenance and (b) management costs for the Millennium Dome (i) up to the date when it passes to the private sector and (ii) for the next financial year. [157829]

  Keith Hill
  English Partnerships (EP) has budgeted in accordance with the contracts signed between EP, Meridian Delta Ltd. and Anschutz Entertainment Group in May 2002, to continue to pay core Dome management and maintenance costs until construction of the new arena starts. Similarly, while the arena is under construction, EP has budgeted for a reduced level of costs. Those costs will cease on practical completion of the arena. We are not in a position to give estimates of costs at this stage, as there are negotiations proceeding which are commercially confidential. However, once the transaction with Meridian Delta Ltd. and Anschutz Entertainment Group has gone unconditional, which is expected in June this year, I will update the House further and provide more information on the expected future level of costs.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has regularly updated the House on costs incurred by EP in relation to the Dome, including its management and maintenance. The average monthly cost for management and maintenance of the Dome from January 2003 to December 2003 was £221,000, including rates, utilities, security and EP staff costs.

  All costs incurred by EP since it took over responsibility for the Dome in July 2001 and including the costs of the sale process will be recovered from the sale proceeds.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Gordon, on Departmental Advertising, tabled on 22 January 2004, reference 149916. [158399]

  Yvette Cooper
  A reply was given to the hon. Member for Gordon on 2 March 2004,Official Report, column 820W.

  Red Ash
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's guidelines are for the removal of red ash from beneath residential properties; and if he will make a statement. [158101]

  Phil Hope
  Removal of the red ash material is only required where unacceptable excessive movement has occurred to a dwelling's ground floor. It will result in 1024W
  considerable disruption and expense for the property owner. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) has undertaken research and produced guidance for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. This guide is the Special Digest 1, "Concrete in aggressive ground" which may be purchased from BRE, Watford. It deals with problems of aggressive fill beneath floor slabs.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost of securing the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 and enabling referendums in the three northern regions has been to date. [157027]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is not possible to disaggregate relevant staff and overhead costs.

  To date £4,000 has been incurred on the soundings exercise, and the three consultations on the arrangements for the referendums.

  Expenditure has also been incurred by the Electoral Commission, which receives resources from the Speakers Committee to cover its costs.

  On 17 June 2003, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister directed the Boundary Committee for England to conduct reviews of local government structure in the three Northern Regions. It is anticipated that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will provide £4.5 million to the Boundary Committee for England during 2003–04 for this work.

  Standards Board for England
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what budget has been allocated for the running costs of the Standards Board for England in 2004–05; what its terms of reference are; how many and what percentage of complaints have been investigated since referral; and if he will make a statement on how the Board contributes to the functions of the Local Government Ombudsman. [158398]

  Phil Hope
  The current budget provisionally allocated for the Standards Board for England in 2004–05 is £8 million, subject to approval by Parliament to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's main estimates. The Board's principal roles, as provided for by Part III of the Local Government Act 2000, are to appoint ethical standards officers who investigate misconduct allegations against local government members, to decide whether allegations should be referred for investigation and to issue guidance to local authorities on matters relating to the conduct of members.

  Of the 5,188 allegations received by the Board up to November last year, the total referred for investigation was 1,955 (38 per cent. of the total allegations received). Of these, the total number of investigations completed was 1,014.

  The remit of the Standards Board is separate from that of the Commission for Local Administration in England, and the Board has no role with regard to the Commission's functions.
  1025W

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirements are placed on local authorities and the police to liaise on and co-ordinate(a) their response to and (b) regulation of anti-social behaviour orders. [156449]

  Ms Blears
  Before applying for an anti-social behaviour order the police and local authority have a statutory duty to consult with each other. Where the applicant is a Registered Social Landlord, British Transport Police, a Housing Action Trust or a County Council, they must consult with both the local police and local authority. It is a matter of good practice that all agencies should be involved in monitoring the order once it has been granted.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders were granted in each local authority in each of the last two years in(a) England and (b) Wales. [156538]

  Ms Blears
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has carried out into the propensity of individuals who have been served with anti-social behaviour orders to re-offend. [156545]

  Ms Blears
  Siobhan Campbell, in 'A Review of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders', Home Office Research Study 236, January 2002, found that just over one third of a sample of 20 individuals given ASBOs were known to have breached their order. Fewer (30 per cent.) had committed further offences during that time. In only four cases had the individual been taken to court for both breach and a further offence.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been made in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley in each of the last three years. [157115]

  Ms Blears
  Data on the number of notifications, reported to the Home Office, of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders issued in Lancashire and Chorley in the last three years are given in the table.

  The number of ASBOs issued in Lancashire and Chorley, as notified to the Home Office by all courts, from 1 January 2001 to 30 September 2003 (latest available)

  Area

  Period

  Lancashire

  Of which: Chorley

  1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  7

  2

  1 January 2002 to 30 November 20021

  11

  —

  1 December 2002 to 30 September 2003

  30

  1

  Total issued

  48

  3

  1Following introduction of the Police Reform Act (2002) data for December 2002 are included in the first quarter data for 2003.

  CCTV (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the benefits of CCTV in Chorley. [157116]
  1026W
  Ms Blears:
  Police operational experience and general research studies show that CCTV has considerable crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.

  A detailed statistical evaluation of the impact of CCTV in Chorley is currently under way. The results of this should be available later this year.

  Crime levels for local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, including Chorley, have been collected and published for six types of crime: violence against the person, sexual offences, robbery, burglary dwelling, theft of motor vehicles and theft from motor vehicles.

  The latest figures are contained in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 07/03 "Recorded Crime England and Wales 2002/03".

  Credit Card Fraud
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the quantity of credit card fraud on the internet in 2003; [157094]

  (2) what measures he is undertaking to counter credit card fraud on the internet; [157098]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the Association for Payment Clearing Services regarding credit card fraud on the internet; [157099]

  (4) for what reason he has withdrawn funding from the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit; [157118]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the amount of credit card fraud on the internet following the rolling out of chip and PIN across the United Kingdom; [157119]

  (6) what his assessment is of the effect of internet credit card fraud on the (a) funding of terrorism and (b) proliferation of illegal drugs. [157120]

  Ms Blears
  The Government do not routinely collect figures on the cost of credit card fraud, but the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS) estimates the cost of internet fraud in 2002 (the most recent figures available) to be £28 million accounting for 7 per cent. of all card fraud losses.

  The measures taken by Home Office to counter this include a recently launched website to combat fraud over the internet. The 'e-tailing mini site' forms part of the Crime Reduction Website and provides information to help both consumers and businesses protect themselves when using the internet.

  The Home Office also participates in an APACS led Steering Group to tackle 'Card Not Present' (CNP) fraud. This includes fraud over the internet. We support practical measures being introduced by the industry to increase levels of security for internet transactions. These include Address Verification Services (AVS), Card Security Code (CSC), Mastercard Secure Code and Verified by Visa which are already making a significant impact on CNP Fraud. A manual ("Spot and Stop Card Fraud Retailer Pack") resulting from the CNP Steering Group's Work provides advice to merchants on the dangers of CNP fraud and the steps which can be taken to prevent it.
  1027W
  The Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit (DCPCU) was set up as a two-year pilot in April 2002. The future of the Unit is currently under consideration. A decision about the future of the unit when the pilot ends in April will be made shortly.

  It is not yet possible to make a realistic assessment of any likely increase in internet fraud following the introduction of Chip and PIN but the industry is taking measures, as outlined above, to minimise the risk.

  As with other types of crime some of the proceeds of internet credit card fraud may be used to finance other forms of criminal activity. The extent is not known.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated regarding altered levels of ATM fraud where the chip and PIN credit card system is used exclusively. [157380]

  Ms Blears
  I understand from the Association of Payment Clearing Services that the chip and PIN system is not used exclusively anywhere in the world. We cannot therefore draw on experience to say what may happen in terms of possible fraud migration to ATMs once Chip and PIN is fully implemented in the United Kingdom.

  The upgrading of cash machines to chip and PIN technology is more secure because the user needs both the genuine card and the PIN. This is a major improvement on the magnetic stripe and PIN system where a fraudster could have used the PIN with a counterfeit card.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made in the Romford area of the London borough of Havering during(a) 1995, (b) 1997, (c) 1999, (d) 2001 and (e) 2003. [157014]

  Ms Blears
  Information on arrests collected centrally is based on persons arrested for 'notifiable' offences at police force area level only, in England and Wales. The information does not identify individual local authority areas.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many criminal offences involving broken bottles or broken glasses were committed in(a) Wrexham, (b) Rhyl, (c) Prestatyn, (d) Mold, (e) Flint, (f) Deeside, (g) Shotton, (h) Abergele, (i) Denbigh, (j) Holyhead, (k) Amlwch, (l) Bangor, (m) Caernarfon, (n) Dolgellau, (o) Bala, (p) Machynlleth, (q) Colwyn Bay, (r) Llandudno, (s)
  Conwy, (t) Ruthin and (u) Llangollen. in each of the past 15 years, listed in descending order; [156036]

  (2) how many criminal offences involving broken bottles or broken glasses were committed in each police authority area in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available; [156037]

  (3) how many crime and disorder incidents there were at, and between, each railway station in North Wales in each of the past 10 years, listed in descending order. [156244]

  Ms Blears
  The requested information is not available centrally.
  1028W
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests were made, (b) people were charged, (c) cautions were issued and (d) convictions there were in the North West, broken down by (i) police force, (ii) constituency and (iii) local authority area in each year since 1997. [156497]

  Ms Blears
  The available information, relating to persons arrested in the North West Region, by police force area, is contained in Table A. It is limited to arrests for notifiable offences and relates
  to the financial years, 1999–2000 to 2002–03.

  The number of persons cautioned, proceeded against at the magistrates courts (numbers of persons charged are not held centrally) and found guilty at all courts for all offences, in the North West Region, by police force area, 1997 to 2002 is contained in Table B.

  Statistics on cautions and court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Table A. Persons arrested for notifiable offences recorded by the police, by police force area, North West Region, 1999–2000 to 2002–03

  Police force area

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cheshire

  18,202

  16,959

  16,525

  18,121

  Cumbria

  15,568

  13,226

  14,106

  13,584

  Greater Manchester

  73,366

  68,803

  68,408

  70,424

  Lancashire

  37,535

  36,998

  41,715

  40,241

  Merseyside

  44,315

  45,598

  41,072

  47,182

  North West Region

  188,986

  181,584

  181,826

  189,552

  Table B. Number of persons cautioned, proceeded against at the magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for all offences, by police force area, North West Region 1997 to 20021

  Year/Police force area

  Cautioned

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  1997

  Cheshire

  4,048

  28,929

  23,363

  Cumbria

  2,901

  20,882

  16,991

  Greater Manchester

  16,297

  122,793

  93,889

  Lancashire

  9,333

  70,472

  49,219

  Merseyside

  13,763

  54,632

  41,661

  Total

  46,342

  297,708

  225,123

  1998

  Cheshire

  4,587

  30,342

  24,642

  Cumbria

  3,015

  20,113

  16,367

  Greater Manchester

  19,716

  132,912

  102,403

  Lancashire

  8,906

  70,745

  50,177

  Merseyside

  14,205

  55,424

  42,070

  Total

  50,429

  309,536

  235,659

  1999

  Cheshire

  3,592

  30,424

  24,205

  Cumbria

  3,031

  19,640

  15,799

  Greater Manchester

  16,142

  136,152

  103,768

  Lancashire

  7,355

  64,839

  46,540

  Merseyside

  12,159

  47,443

  36,025

  Total

  42,279

  298,498

  226,337

  2000

  Cheshire

  3,111

  33,545

  26,898

  Cumbria

  2,336

  16,903

  13,610

  Greater Manchester

  12,389

  145,894

  111,841

  Lancashire

  6,777

  69,137

  49,384

  Merseyside

  8,216

  55,047

  40,197

  Total

  32,829

  320,526

  241,930

  2001

  Cheshire

  2,780

  31,296

  25,338

  Cumbria

  2,505

  14,515

  11,519

  Greater Manchester

  11,181

  133,992

  96,604

  1029W

  Table B. Number of persons cautioned, proceeded against at the magistrates courts and found guilty at all courts for all offences, by police force area, North West Region 1997 to 20021

  Year/Police force area

  Cautioned

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  Lancashire

  7,189

  67,546

  47,807

  Merseyside

  6,142

  56,556

  41,146

  Total

  29,797

  303,905

  222,414

  2002

  Cheshire

  2,084

  35,196

  28,369

  Cumbria

  2,392

  14,318

  11,376

  Greater Manchester

  9,774

  133,654

  97,063

  Lancashire

  6,515

  67,525

  47,961

  Merseyside

  6,331

  56,713

  43,928

  Total

  27,096

  307,406

  228,697

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what methods counter-signatories will be required to use(a) to obtain fingerprints from applicants and (b) to authenticate documents provided by applicants as set out in his consultation on new draft regulations for the Criminal Records Bureau. [156059]

  Ms Blears
  The draft regulations, issued for consultation on 1 December 2003, would require Registered Bodies, or their agents, to authenticate the identity of a Disclosure applicant by examining a combination of official or other documents (for example passports, driving licences and utility bills) which will help confirm the applicant's name, date of birth and current address. Counter signatories, or those carrying out identity checking on their behalf, should he alert for signs of tampering. The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) has issued guidelines which identify suspicious signs to be on the lookout for when examining the documents commonly presented by applicants.

  The draft regulations would not require counter signatories to obtain fingerprints from applicants. We have separately consulted on the Independent Review Team's proposal that applicants for the most sensitive positions should be required to submit their fingerprints with their Disclosure application. We are currently analysing over 2,000 responses to this consultation.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the Criminal Records Bureau(a) check and (b) authenticate with the issuing bodies identity documents submitted with applications. [156060]

  Ms Blears
  Since the inception of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Registered Bodies have checked the identity of applicants for Disclosures. Being closer to direct contact with applicants than the CRB they are best placed to do so. We have proposed, in the consultation paper we issued in December, that Registered Bodies be made explicitly responsible for validating the identity of those for whom they seek Disclosures. The CRB has issued guidance to Registered Bodies to help them identify common official documents that may have been forged or tampered with.

  The CRB continues to check that Registered Bodies, or their agents, have undertaken the necessary checks to verify the identity of applicants. Where evidence of such
  1030W
  checks is not recorded on the Disclosure application form they are rejected by the Bureau. In addition, as part of the proposed periodic audit of Registered Bodies, CRB staff will he checking to see that Registered Bodies properly discharge their responsibilities in this area. Furthermore, as part of their anti-fraud measures the CRB checks a sample of applications against lists maintained by the UK Passport Services and DVLA of fraudulently obtained passports and driving licences.

  Domestic Violence
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many domestic violence incidents were reported in the last 12 months, broken down by(a) police authority area, (b) local authority area and (c) basic command unit; and how many and what percentage of these incidents resulted in prosecution. [156243]

  Ms Blears
  Domestic violence is not separately identified in the recorded crime statistics collected by the Home Office nor in the statistics of court proceedings, because the circumstances of the offences are not collected. While the number of incidents of domestic violence in England and Wales are measured by the British Crime Survey (BCS), figures are not available by police force area or at more local levels.

  In the 2002–03 BCS there were an estimated 501,000 incidents of domestic violence in England and Wales as a whole, 35 per cent. of which were reported to the police. This is from the main face-to-face part of the survey and shows a decrease of 38 per cent. since 1997.

  Football Supporters
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether legislation to prevent football supporters from leaving the UK to attend matches abroad applies to(a) players and (b) officials. [157608]

  Ms Blears [holding answer 1 March 2004]
  The provisions of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (as amended by the Football (Disorder Act 2000) apply to all residents of England and Wales. No senior player or official is currently subject to a football banning order.

  Gun Crime
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the performance of Government-funded community groups working to combat gun crime. [149786]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government are, in this financial year, providing £1.5 million specifically to support community action to help tackle gun crime. This is in addition to other funding, including through the Street Crime Initiative, to support community-based programmes that will help to tackle gun crime.

  This work is on-going, but we will take stock, at an appropriate time, of the outcomes of the projects supported in order to inform future community-based action in this area. We will be developing a dedicated website to support those working to tackle gun crime, where we can provide information about existing programmes and spread examples of good practice.
  1031W

  Katharine Gun
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had in the last 12 months with the(a) Secretary of State for Defence, (b) Department for Constitutional Affairs,(c) Prime Minister and (d) Attorney General over the Katharine Gun case. [158096]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I had no discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence, or the Department for Constitutional Affairs, or the Prime Minister on this matter.

  I had no discussions with the Attorney-General. However, I was copied in on the "Shawcross Exercise", the process of which the Solicitor-General has already outlined to the House on 26 February 2004, Official Report, column 428.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the full independent review into the National Asylum Support Service; and for what reason it has not yet been published. [152425]

  Beverley Hughes
  Because of the level of public interest in the review and the recommendation from the Home Affairs Committee Ministers are currently considering the matter.

  Offender Assessments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders have undergone an OASys assessment in the last 12 months; and what the average cost per assessment was. [155961]

  Paul Goggins
  On 9 January 2004, the latest date for which figures from both services are available, the Prison Service OASys IT system held assessments on some 1,400 offenders while the National Probation Service OASys IT system held assessments on some 63,800 offenders. Figures are nor held centrally on use of the paper-based OASys system that pre-dated the computerised system in the National Probation Service.

  Reliable unit costs are not yet available. The Prison Service and National Probation Service expect to have figures towards the end of this year when implementation of OASys IT in the two Services is further advanced.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the oral Question of the hon. Member for the Vale of York (ref 155764), not reached on 23 February, on the number of acceptable behaviour contracts issued. [156873]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 222W.

  Police
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police were allocated to front line duties in Hampshire in each year since 1997. [157096]
  1032W
  Ms Blears
  Information on front line policing is not available. We are, as part of the Police Performance Assessment Framework, collecting data from forces so that we can publish a baseline estimate of front line policing for all forces. This will be a valuable tool to drive up the amount of time spent on front line duties.

  Published data are in the form of total police strength by police force area.

  Number of police officers1 in Hampshire, 1997–2003

  As at 31 March

  Police officers2

  1997

  3,452

  1998

  3,490

  1999

  3,473

  2000

  3,419

  2001

  3,438

  2002

  3,480

  2003

  33,668

  1Full time equivalents.

  2Excludes officers seconded to NCS, NCIS and Central Services.

  3Comparable strength.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the police retirement age is; what plans he has to increase this; what estimate he has made of the cost savings that would accrue if the retirement age was lifted to 65; and if he will make a statement. [156593]

  Ms Blears
  There is no fixed retirement age for the police. Under the Police Pensions Regulations officers with at least 25 years' service may retire with an immediate pension from age 50. Officers may also retire with an immediate pension, irrespective of age, after 30 years' service, when they will have accrued maximum benefits. This means that an officer who joined at age 18½—the earliest age at which it is possible to start as a police officer—is entitled to retire at age 48½ a with a full pension. Otherwise officers become eligible to retire with an immediate pension on reaching their compulsory retirement age, which ranges from 55 to 60 depending on the rank and force of the officer concerned. Officers with less than 25 years' service who leave the police with deferred benefits will receive their pension at age 60.

  The Government are currently considering options for the modernisation of police pensions to make them more flexible and affordable for future entrants. We have launched a UK-wide consultation exercise on proposals for a new police pension scheme, to be introduced by April 2006. One of the key features of our proposals is the introduction of a minimum pension age of 55 for new entrants and the raising of the deferred pension age from 60 to 65 in line with the proposed rise in the normal pension age in other public service schemes.

  Information is not available on the level of savings that would be involved if the police retirement age were to be raised to 65 for all officers. If such a calculation were carried out it is arguable that the cost implications

  1033W
  for operational effectiveness should also be taken into account. The Department of Work and Pensions Green Paper of December 2002, in proposing a normal public service pension age of 65, recognised that services like the police and the armed forces had specific needs which made a lower pension age appropriate for their members.

  Police Funding
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet inflationary costs in employment costs, pensions, and supplies and services as part of the 2004–05 funding settlement for police authorities. [151874]

  Ms Blears
  All police authorities in England and Wales will receive a 3.25 per cent. increase in general grants, above the police pay award increase of 3 per cent. and general inflation projections of 2.6 per cent.

  Prospective police pensions' costs are taken into account when overall grant provision is determined.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long(a) community support officers and (b) rural policy officers will be funded centrally; and who will pay for the officers when central funding lapses. [156872]

  Ms Blears
  All Home Office Community Support Officer (CSO) funding continues until March 2006. The potential for central funding of CSOs after March 2006 is being considered as part of the Spending Review 2004, although 21 police forces are currently employing 964 CSOs whose costs have not been funded by the Home Office.

  The Rural Policing Fund is reviewed annually and there are no plans to abolish it. I am satisfied that the fund meets a genuine need to improve the policing of the most sparsely populated areas in England and Wales.

  Mr Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the cost of policing Havering is paid for by(a) central Government and (b) the local council; and what the total cost is in 2003–04. [157041]

  Ms Blears
  The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) set a final budget of £2.2 billion in 2003–04. £443 million was raised through the police precept on council tax and £1764 million from general grants. The internal distribution of resources is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the MPA.

  I understand that Havering's police budget for 2003–04 is £17.3 million. In addition to this, Havering benefits from services provided by specialist crime and operations directorates as well as support from other pan-London operational units.

  Police/Prison Officers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what surveys his Department has conducted into the views of(a) police officers and (b) prison officers in the last two years. [155063]

  Ms Blears
  The information is as follows:1034W
  Police Officers
  The Home Office has conducted the following formal surveys of police officers views over the last two years:

  Qualitative research to inform police service communications—June 2003

  Survey on reasons for leaving the Police Service—2002

  Two surveys on police leadership issues—late 2002/early 2003

  Attitudes and perceptions relating to the impact of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry on the police—commenced 2002 and work ongoing

  Views and experiences of recording police stops—commenced 2003 and work ongoing

  Police effectiveness in handling racist incidents—commenced in 2002 and work ongoing

  A monitoring and evaluation project into community and race relations training—commenced late 2002 and work ongoing

  Quality assurance research into community and race relations training—commenced late 2002 and work ongoing

  Review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984–2002

  Evaluation of the new Police Misconduct Procedures—published 2003.

  The Home Office is, of course, continually in dialogue with police officers at all levels, seeking their views and options on a wide range of policing issues in a less formal context.
  Prison Officers
  A National Staff Attitude Survey has been administered in-house to Prison Service staff annually between 2000–2003.

  June 2002—Survey of Prison Service staff attitudes representing 36 per cent. of staff in post.

  November 2003—Full-census staff attitude survey of all Prison Service staff.

  Copies of reports between 2000–2002 are available in the Library. The final report for 2003 will be available in the late spring/early summer 2004.

  Police Vehicles (Accidents)
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) killed and (b) injured in road traffic accidents involving police vehicles in each of the past five years. [157779]

  Caroline Flint
  The number of police arid civilian fatalities and injuries arising from police responses to immediate/emergency calls and pursuits will be placed in the Library.

  Northern Ireland (On-the-run Terrorists)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many on the run terrorists have been apprehended and released back into the community in the last five years. [155647]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have been asked to reply.

  25 people, who had left Northern Ireland without completing their sentences, have been informed that they can return to Northern Ireland without serving more time in custody. The Government's proposals for dealing with on-the-run terrorists were set out in the

  1035W
  paper published on 1 May 2003 alongside the Joint Declaration. These proposals would only be taken forward within the context of acts of completion.

  Vandalism (Buses)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted for vandalism on buses in London in the last two years; in how many cases on board CCTV footage was used in the prosecution; and how many convictions resulted. [156570]

  Ms Blears
  It is not possible to distinguish offences of vandalism on London buses from other types of criminal damage in the Home Office figures for court proceedings, as the circumstances of individual offences are not collected centrally.

HEALTH

  Health Service Reforms
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been allocated to support the national roll-out of "Agenda for Change"; and how this funding has been allocated. [156279]

  Mr. Hutton
  Additional funding worth 0.8 per cent. of main allocations has been allocated to primary care trusts (PCTs) in 2004–05 and a further 0.8 per cent. in 2005–06 to cover the costs of implementing "Agenda for Change" in acute and specialist hospital trusts, mental health trusts, ambulance trusts and PCTs themselves. Funding for implementation costs in strategic health authorities is currently being assessed but has not yet been allocated.

  Additional funding equivalent to 0.1 per cent. of total PCT allocations in 2004–05 and a further 0.1 per cent. in 2005–06 has been allocated to PCTs in areas in and around London to meet the cost of the new high cost area supplements.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of administration of the foundation hospital governance system. [157593]

  Mr. Hutton
  The cost of administration of the governance system for each National Health Service foundation trust will depend on a number of factors, including the size of the membership. Experience of other membership organisations suggests that the cost of establishing and maintaining a membership base of 5,000 people is likely to be around £2.25 per member per annum. For NHS foundation trusts, these costs will not be entirely additional as they will replicate some current activity that trusts are already doing around informing the public, patients and staff about issues affecting each trust.

  Consultant Contract
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects that the consultant's contract will be implemented. [157139]
  1036W
  Mr. Hutton
  Following the agreement reached last year with the British Medical Association and the NHS Confederation, National Health Service trusts and other employing organisations were asked to use the new NHS consultants' contract for all new appointments advertised after 31 October 2003 and give all existing consultants the opportunity to indicate by 31 October 2003 whether they wished to give a commitment to the new contract.

  We expect that the great majority of consultants who have given a commitment to the new contract will have agreed job plans by 31 March 2004. Where, exceptionally, there are any consultants whose job plans have taken longer to complete than other consultants, NHS trusts and other employing organisations have been asked to agree arrangements with their strategic health authority to complete the process as early as possible in the new financial year.

  Dentistry
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of people used the internet to access information on NHS dentists in their area in(a) England and (b) Adur, Arun and Worthing in the last year for which figures are available. [156049]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department does not collect information about the number of people who use the internet to access information on national health service dentists.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patient treatments were undertaken by dentists(a) in England, M(b) in each NHS region and (c) in each strategic health authority area in each year since 1997. [156062]

  Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 27 February 2004]
  The information available for the number of courses of treatment carried out by the General Dental Service (CDS) by national health service region and strategic health authority in england for the years ending March 1998 to 2003, has been placed in the Library.

  A course of treatment may involve one or more visits to the dentist. A patient may have several courses in a single year.

  Courses of treatment for children exclude courses where a payment claim is not required, which are mainly courses where only an examination takes place.

  Domiciliary Care Agencies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which conditions have been relaxed for domiciliary care agencies registered with conditions by the National Care Standards Commission; and for what length of time they have been relaxed. [156296]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Domiciliary care agencies must comply with the Domiciliary Care Agencies Regulations 2002 in order to be registered by the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC). These requirements have not been relaxed. Conditions are set by the NCSC at them
  1037W
  point of registration after an assessment has been made of the fitness of the service against regulations and taking into account National Minimum Standards.

  The NCSC published guidance on 12 December 2003, setting out circumstances in which conditions could be attached to registration.

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in meeting the target of reducing the number of drug-related deaths since 1999. [156291]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of drug related deaths since 1999 is shown in the table.

  England and Wales

  England only

  1999

  1,571

  1.484

  2000

  1,666

  1,565

  2001

  1,628

  1,528

  2002

  1,565

  1,456

  Notes:

  1. Since the publication of drug related deaths in 2001 in February 2003, additional substances have become controlled. Earlier years' data have been updated to reflect these drugs. This means that the new data are comparable across the time period, despite the fact that some of the drugs were not controlled in the earlier years.

  2. The 2002 figures, published by the Office for National Statistics on 26 February 2004, show a fall in the number of drug related deaths for the second consecutive year and the figure is now below the 1999 baseline.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Equine Slaughter
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many slaughterhouses are licensed for the slaughter of equines. [156565]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been advised by the Food Standards Agency that in the United Kingdom twelve slaughterhouses are licensed to slaughter equines; 11 in England and one in Northern Ireland.

  Medical Training (EU Accession States)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether medical training in the accession states conforms to the minimum EU requirements. [156297]

  Mr. Hutton
  All accession states are committed to ensuring that the qualifications they award to doctors who began their training on or after the date of accession meet specified minimum European Community requirements. Their holders can then benefit from automatic recognition throughout the EC. Practitioners from these states who are already qualified or are currently in training must show that they either meet these requirements in full or have recent and substantial practice experience.
  1038W
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate has been made of the number of(a) nurses and (b) midwives from accession countries who will seek to work in the United Kingdom following accession. [156861]

  Mr. Hutton [holding answer 27 February 2004]
  No estimate has been made.

  The Nursing and Midwifery Council will, in due course, will have statistics about the numbers of nurses and midwives from accession countries who join its register.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether(a) nurses and (b) midwives from EU accession countries would currently be able to work in the United Kingdom using qualifications from their home country if they were given permission to seek work in the UK. [156863]

  Mr. Hutton [holding answer 27 February 2004]
  Relevantly qualified practitioners from the accession states will be able to work in the United Kingdom after accession.

  All nationals from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia who find work in the United Kingdom will be required to register with the Home Office under the new Worker Registration Scheme as soon as they find work.

  Flu Vaccine
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the take-up rates for influenza vaccine were at 1 January(a) in England and (b) broken down by (i) primary care trust and (ii) strategic health authority. [154353]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the uptake rates for flu vaccine in those aged 65 and over for 2003–04 by primary care trust and strategic health authority has been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will change the guidelines on free influenza vaccinations to include carers. [156687]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Policy for those receiving free flu vaccination is currently under review. Carers are one of the groups under consideration.

  Food Supplements Directive
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reasons his Department opposed the application to the High Court in London brought by the Health Food Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Health Stores and Consumers for Health Choice for leave to appeal to the European Court of Justice against the provisions of the Food Supplements Directive; upon what date the case was heard; what the outcome of the case was; and if he will make a statement; [155194]

  (2) if he will make funds available to the Health Food Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Health Stores, and Consumers for Health Choice to

  1039W
  enable them to proceed to the European Court of Justice with their case relating to the Food Supplements Directive; [155195]

  (3) on what date in 2003 the Minister for Public Health met industry representatives to discuss their concerns about the Food Supplements Directive; on what date the Minister subsequently approached the office of Commissioner Byrne to seek a meeting to discuss those issues; on what dates the approach was subsequently pursued; and if he will make a statement on the reasons for the failure so far to arrange such a meeting. [155196]

  (4) when the Minister for Public Health next expects to meet representatives of the Health Food Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Health Stores, and Consumers for Health Choice to discuss their concerns about the Food Supplements Directive; and what progress the Minister will report at that meeting; [155197]

  (5) what information he has received about the timing of the case being taken to the European Court of Justice in relation to the Food Supplements Regulations; what assistance he intends to give the Health Food Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Health Stores in preparing that case; and if he will make a statement. [155198]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Association of Health Stores (NAHS) and The Health Food Manufacturers' Association (HFMA) have challenged The Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 and The Food Supplements (Wales) Regulations 2003 on grounds that the underlying Directive is in part invalid because of incompatibility with Community law. They sought a reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding the validity of the relevant parts of the Directive and then the quashing of the relevant part of the England and Wales Regulations.

  At a hearing on 30 January 2004 the judge gave permission for judicial review of the Regulations and ordered that there be a reference to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling in respect of the validity of the Directive. Formal reference to the ECJ is likely to take place around the end of February. I understand that the ECJ takes approximately 24 months to give a preliminary ruling; however the national court will request expedition by the ECJ.

  Article 10 of the European Community Treaty imposes a duty on member states to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by institutions of the Community. The Government had a responsibility to ensure that the full arguments concerning the validity of the Directive were put before the court, so that it could see the reasoning on both sides before deciding whether to grant permission for the case to proceed and whether to order that a reference be made to the ECJ.

  The Government have no plans to make funds available to the claimants. At the appropriate point the United Kingdom like other member states will decide on what if any observations it will make to the ECJ.
  1040W
  I met with industry representatives to discuss their concerns about the Food Supplements Directive on 7 October 2003.

  Since then I have been seeking to arrange a discussion about the setting of EC maximum permitted levels for vitamins and minerals in food supplements with Commissioner Byrne at the earliest practical opportunity. As to the timing of this meeting, it should be noted that we do not expect the Commission's proposal on maximum levels for another two to three years and there are currently no formal EC discussions on maximum levels under way.

  I have no current plans to meet representatives of the Health Food Manufacturer's Association, the NAHS and Consumers for Health Choice again. However, I will consider a further meeting when I have discussed maximum levels with Commissioner Byrne and the industry has experience of submitting safety dossiers to the European Food Safety Authority so that discussions can also cover how that process is working.

  School Fruit Scheme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which schools in the Chorley constituency benefit from the free fruit scheme. [157255]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The following 50 schools in the Chorley District of Lancashire local education authority receive fruit under the National School Fruit Scheme:

  Chorley All Saints Church of England Primary School and Nursery Unit

  Duke Street Primary School

  Highfield Primary School

  Chorley, the Parish of St. Laurence Church of England Primary School

  Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School, Chorley

  St. George's Church of England Primary School, Chorley

  Chorley St. James' Church of England PrimarySchool

  St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School, Chorley

  Gillibrand Primary School

  Chorley St. Mary's Catholic Primary

  Chorley St. Peter's Church of England Primary School

  St. Gregory's Catholic Primary School, Chorley

  Buckshaw Primary School

  Rivington Voluntary Aided Primary School

  Adlington St. Paul's Church of England Primary School

  Adlington Primary School

  St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School, Brinscall

  Lancaster Lane Community Primary School

  Clayton-le-Woods Manor Road Primary School

  Clayton-le-Woods Westwood Primary School

  Anderton St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School

  Bretherton Endowed Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School

  Brindle St. James' Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School

  Brindle Gregson Lane Primary School

  St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School, Brindle

  Christ Church Charnock Richard Church of England Primary School

  St. Bede's Roman Catholic Primary School, Clayton Green

  1041W

  Clayton-le-Woods Church of England Primary School

  Coppull Parish Church of England Primary School

  Coppull St. John's Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School

  St. Oswald's Catholic Primary School, Coppull

  Coppull Primary School

  Croston Trinity & St. Michael's Church of England Methodist Primary School

  Eccleston St. Mary's Church of England Primary School

  Euxton Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School

  Euxton St. Mary's Catholic Primary School

  Euxton Primrose Hill Primary School

  Heskin Pemberton's Church of England Primary School

  Mawdesley St. Peter's Church of England Primary School

  SS Peter and Paul Catholic Primary School, Mawdesley

  Balshaw Lane Community Primary School

  Eccleston Primary School

  Clayton Brook Primary School

  St. Chad's Catholic Primary School

  Whittle-le-Woods Church of England Primary School

  Brinscall St. John's Church of England and Methodist Primary School

  Abbey Village Primary School

  Withnell Fold Primary School

  Chorley Astley Park

  Mayfield School

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the NHS will offer genetic testing of the complete BRCA2 gene instead of the current test. [156897]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is preparing guidance for the national health service in England and Wales on the identification and management of genetic risk of familial breast cancer, with which the BRCA 2 gene is associated. This is due to be published shortly and is expected to include guidance on when it is appropriate to refer individuals for genetic testing, and the type of test which should be offered.

  Hepatitis C
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new cases of hepatitis C have been diagnosed among drug users in(a) London and (b) England in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [156561]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Laboratory reports of antibody to hepatitis C in London and England from 1999 to 2003, where injecting drug use is given as a risk factor, are shown in the table. The majority of cases of acute hepatitis C infection do not result in symptoms and therefore new infections are not usually identified. These laboratory reports do not distinguish between new and previous infections.
  1042W

  Laboratory reports of hepatitis C infection in London and England 1999–2003, where injecting drug use is given as a risk factor

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  London

  338

  283

  399

  366

  377

  England

  5,297

  4,893

  4,665

  6,129

  1Provisional data.

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new HIV positive cases were recorded in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; how many deaths from HIV/AIDS there were in each year; how many HIV positive cases have been reported in total; and if he will make an assessment of likely future trends of the disease. [157485]

  Miss Melanie .Johnson
  The numbers of new diagnoses of HIV infection and deaths in HIV-infected individuals, with or without reported AIDS, recorded in England in each of the last 10 years are shown in the table. By the end of December 2003, a total of 56,286 individuals had been reported as diagnosed with HIV infection in England since the start of the epidemic.

  The latest estimates for future trends in numbers of diagnosed individuals, living with HIV were published by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) at the end of 2002. They are available on the HPA website at http://www.hpa.org uk/infections/topics az/hiv and sti/publications/hiv annual 2002.pdf.

  Year1

  Newly diagnosed HIV infections

  Deaths

  1993

  2,404

  1,422

  1994

  2,362

  1,527

  1995

  2,449

  1,528

  1996

  2,477

  1,308

  1997

  2,512

  652

  1998

  2,618

  446

  1999

  2,878

  417

  2000

  3,618

  424

  2001

  4,716

  422

  2002

  5,531

  336

  Note:

  Numbers for recent years will rise as delayed reports are received.

  Source:

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Health Protection Agency (data to the end of December 2003).

  Hospital Regulators
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) organisations and (b) regulators are entitled to (i) inspect and (ii) regulate NHS hospital trusts in England. [154009]

  Mr. Hutton
  Using the definition in The Better Regulation Task Force's report, "Independent Regulators", there are 31 bodies with the right to inspect or regulate national health service hospital trusts in England. However, 18 of these are regulators of the professions, or professional bodies, whose inspection roles apply only to training which a hospital might provide.
  1043W
  From 1 April 2004, the Commission for Health Improvement, the Social Services Inspectorate and the National Care Standards Commission will cease to exist. At the same time, three new bodies will be introduced: the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, the Commission for Social Care inspection and the Foundation Trusts Regulator, but in most cases they will replace or rationalise a number of the functions of existing bodies.

  Long-term Care
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target he has set for intensive home care as a percentage of intensive home and residential care. [158053]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department's Public Service Agreement includes a target to increase the number of those supported to live intensively at home to 30 per cent. of all those being supported at home or in residential care by March 2006. The percentage has risen by nearly two points, from 27.2 per cent. in 2001–02 to 29 per cent. in 2002–03.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Answer of 30 January 2004,Official Report, column 559W, on long-term care, how the estimates for (a) income from user charges for personal care at home, (b) savings of disability benefits and (c) publicly funded residents with incomes high enough to meet some care costs were derived. [156350]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In 2001–02, councils received around £320 million in income from user charges for domiciliary services. This information can be found on the Department's website. This is assumed to rise to around £350 million in 2003–04.

  Savings from disability benefits were estimated in the manner described in the reply of 25 February 2004, Official Report, columns 466–67W.

  The costs in respect of publicly funded residents with incomes high enough to meet care costs are an estimate, in the absence of data. A comparison of local authority data on the numbers of older supported residents in independent sector care homes and Department for Work and Pensions data on the numbers of older recipients of the residential allowance suggests that around 20 per cent. of older supported residents did not receive the residential allowance. This suggests that around 20 per cent. of supported residents have incomes above £168 per week, which is both the cut-off for receipt of residential allowance by older residents and the assumed level of hotel costs. This would amount to some 57,000 supported residents. If the average income of this subgroup—for which data are not available—was around £200 per week, the annual cost of free personal care for this group would be around £100 million.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 30 January 2004,Official Report, column 559W, on long-term care, whether there would be offsetting savings to the Department for Work
  1044W
  and Pensions' expenditure on disability benefits for older people receiving care at home, if the personal care were to be provided free. [156466]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Free personal care would not result in any savings to the Department for Work and Pensions' expenditure on disability benefits for older people receiving care at home. This is because receipt of local authority funded home care, unlike receipt of local authority supported residential care, does not trigger loss of disability benefits.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people over 75 were admitted to long-term care following a fall in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [156644]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the number of people over 75 admitted to long-term care following a fall is not centrally available.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long on average patients suffering from Lupus (SLE) waited to obtain a hospital out-patient appointment following referral to a specialist unit by their general practitioner in(a) London and (b) England in the last period for which figures are available. [156161]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Data on waiting times for lupus patients are not collected centrally.

  Lymphoedema
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are in place to ensure that non-cancer related lymphoedema patients receive appropriate compression garments as part of their treatment for the condition. [156533]

  Dr. Ladyman [holding answer 2 March 2004]
  We have issued no specific guidance to hospital trusts and primary care trusts for the provision of compression garments to non-cancer related lymphoedema patients. Decisions on what treatments to offer to patients with lymphoedema are a matter for the clinicians in charge of their care.

  Medical Staff (Terms and Conditions)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate conformity with(a) his advice Amendments to the terms and conditions of service for hospital medical and dental practitioners and (b) his Advance Letter, AL MD 1/01 paragraph 22, m & n, published by the Department of Health in 2001. [R] [153417]

  Mr. Hutton
  The implementation of the terms and conditions of service is the responsibility of national health service employing organisations.

  Monitoring of NHS employers' activities at this level of detail is not carried out centrally.

  Mental Health Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the assertive outreach teams are operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week. [154408]
  1045W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As set out in the Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide (2001), assertive outreach teams do not need to be operational 24 hours per day, seven days per week, but provide evening and weekend cover.

  According to the Durham adult mental health services mapping database, approximately 29 per cent. of assertive outreach teams provide access to a 24 hours per day, seven days per week on-call service. A further 41 per cent. provide evening and weekend cover.

  This means that 30 per cent. of assertive outreach teams in operation do not fully comply with the service specification set out in the Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide as yet. We expect full compliance with NHS Plan targets for new teams and services by December 2004.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to increase the number of beds for mental health trusts. [154742]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government set out priorities for local services for the reform and modernisation of mental health services in the "NHS Plan and the Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–06", supported by over £300 million extra investment announced in the NHS
  Plan.

  In line with the "NHS Plan" and the "Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–06", 500 secure beds and 320 24-hour staffed beds have been created. A further 200 long-term secure beds and 140 secure personality disorder places will be in place by the end of the year.

  The Government expect that the establishment of new teams and services, including a wider range of residential and secure provision for people with severe mental ill health, designed to ensure care and treatment tailored to individual needs, will ease pressure on the existing psychiatric beds provided by mental health trusts.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many speeches he made between 9 June 2003 and 1 February 2004; and where a copy of each speech can be obtained. [156150]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows:

  Between Monday 9 June 2003 and Sunday 1 February 2004:

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health delivered 12 speeches.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr. Hutton) delivered nine speeches.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Johnson) delivered 19 speeches.

  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Ladyman) delivered 27 speeches.

  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Lord Warner) delivered seven speeches.

  I have delivered 19 speeches.

  These speeches were made outside of Parliament, in connection with official duties and copies of the speeches can be obtained from the Department of Health website at HYPERLINK "http://www.dh.gov.uk
  1046W

  Nursing
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional nurses have been employed in the Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals Trust since(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [157328]

  Mr. Hutton
  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals National Health Service Trust was established in 2001. Figures for qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff are shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in the Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount and Percentage headcount

  2001

  1,761

  2002

  1,814

  Increase

  53

  Percentage increase

  3.0

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government are taking to ensure that the NHS does net employ nurses and other medical staff from developing countries with whom they do not have a bilateral agreement or memorandum of understanding. [157142]

  Mr. Hutton
  All national health service employers involved in international recruitment are strongly commended to adhere to the code of practice published by the Department in 2001. One of the guiding principles of this code is that developing countries should not be targeted for recruitment. We have issued a list of developing countries that the NHS should not actively recruit from. A copy of this code is available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HumanResourcesAndTraining/MoreStaff/fs/en.

  We publish a list of recruitment agencies who have agreed to comply with the code. NHS bodies are strongly commended to use recruitment agencies on that list. We monitor compliance to the code of practice through information supplied by strategic health authorities.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing students qualified but did not join the Nursing Register in each year since 1996. [156280]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally but can be obtained from the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is an independent statutory body.

  Pharmacies (Security)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures he has taken in the context of the NHS contract with pharmacists to support security measures on their premises; [155583]

  (2) how many pharmacists on contract to the NHS were victims of crime on their premises in 2003. [155584]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain's code of ethics and standards requires pharmacy premises to be safe for the public and staff working there. Currently, pharmacists can contact
  1047W
  their local pharmaceutical committee, primary care trust or police to find out what additional support and advice is available locally on security measures that they can employ.

  The Counter Fraud and Security Management Service (CFSMS) was launched in April 2003 with a remit encompassing policy and operational responsibility for the management of security in the national health service. The remit can be defined as protecting people and property so that the highest standards of clinical care can be achieved. This includes tackling violence against staff and professionals working in the NHS.

  From April 2004, all health bodies will be required to nominate a suitable person to perform the role of local security management specialists ( LSMS). These LSMS will be trained by the CFSMS, so that they can take the lead for security management work within the NHS, including primary care.

  While security has not been raised in recent contractual discussions, the CFSMS will shortly be meeting the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee to discuss what support on security management the CFSMS and the LSMS can give to community pharmacies.

  Information on the number of community pharmacists owning, or employed by companies, with NHS contracts who were victims of crime on their premises is not collected or held centrally.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to raise the normal retirement age for NHS staff; what estimate he has made of the cost savings from raising the pension age to 65; and if he will make a statement. [156576]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no nationally determined retirement age for nurses and other non medical staff.

  Hospital, public health and community doctors employed under the existing terms and conditions of service are required to retire at age 65, although there is provision for an employing authority to extend employment in a locum capacity beyond 65. Consultants are free to transfer to the
  2003 consultant contract under which there is no age restriction to practice.

  There is no age restriction on doctors in the personal medical services (PMS). The requirement that existing general medical services doctors cannot act as principals after age 70 is removed from 1 April 2004. Fitness to practice will be assessed by rigorous and objective tests which will replace the existing arbitrary age limit.

  The national health service pension scheme is currently subject to review. It is too early to provide an estimate of the cost implications of any changes that may be considered as a part of that review.

  Rural Health Care
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress made towards primary care targets set out in the Rural White Paper. [154904]
  1048W
  Mr. Hutton
  Progress made towards the primary care commitments set out in the Rural White Paper was included in the Rural White Paper Review, published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Wednesday 14 January 2004.

  Schizophrenia
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the financial cost of schizophrenia to the NHS in 2003. [154574]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information relating to the financial cost of treating schizophrenia is not collected centrally and no estimate can be made.

  Care Workers (Statutory Requirements)
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the average cost of complying with statutory requirements for each individial care worker in respect of(a) criminal records checks, (b) NVQ training, (c) health and safety training, (d) manual handling training, (e) food hygiene training, (f) first aid training and (g) other statutory requirements. [158236]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The cost to an employer for a Criminal Records Bureau check is £29 for an enhanced check and £24 for a standard check. This will increase to £33 and £28 respectively as of 1 April 2004.

  National Vocational Qualification training is not a statutory requirement on all individual social care workers. However the Department's National Minimum Standards set out the proportions of staff that should have achieved NVQ qualification in each type of service provision in order for that provision to be registered by the National Care Services Commission.

  For strategic planning purposes, the Department accepts the cost estimate from Topss England, the national training organisation for social care, which is £1,000 per NVQ qualification. This is very approximate because NVQ qualifications differ substantially across the levels, and every worker brings different experience and learning capacity to their assessments.

  In respect of other training, it is for the employer of social care workers to ensure that their staff training meets statutory requirements, which vary between different care settings, and no data collection is made centrally of the costs.

  To assist employers in this, in addition to the substantial general finance settlement increases to local councils, and the existing Department's Training Support Programme Grant (£56 million), the Department introduced a new National Training Strategy Specific Grant to councils for 2003–04 of £25 million, rising to £31 million next year, and a provisional £95 million the year after. For 2003–04, this grant has a condition attached that councils must spend 50 per cent, of their allocation on workers in the private and voluntary sectors. For 2004–05 and 2005–06 this grant will become a Specific Formula Grant, and cease to be ring fenced, therefore without any conditions. Also the Department funds Topss England £15 million per annum to support the implementation of their National

  1049W
  Traininmg Strategy. In addition to the Department's grants, funding is being drawn into the system from many other sources, most notably the Learning and Skill Councils.

  Sunbeds
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the risk to health of sunbed use; what steps he has taken to ensure sunbed users are made aware of the health risks arising from sunbed use; and if he will make a statement. [156948]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Reports on the effects of ultra-violet radiation (UVR) from the National Radiological Protection Board, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection and the British Medical Association conclude that there is no direct evidence that sunbed exposure causes skin cancer. By far the greatest source of UVR exposure is the sun. That is why we have taken measures to encourage the public to protect themselves and their children from the risks of unsafe exposure to the sun. We have, with key stakeholders, developed the SunSmart campaign, run by Cancer Research UK. The campaign was launched in March 2003 and funded by the United Kingdom Health Departments. Campaign leaflets and posters were sent to all general practitioner surgeries, secondary schools and health promotion units. Subject to further funding, the forthcoming campaign for summer 2004 will build on the success of last year's campaign.

  The potential dangers involved in the use of sunbeds will be the subject of a meeting of experts and industry hosted by SunSmart on 29 March. The campaign will review the latest scientific evidence and develop practical recommendations for better self-regulation.
  1050W
  The Government acknowledge the risks to young people of exposure to UVR in all of its forms. On sunbeds specifically, the Health and Safety Executive has published guidance for operators and customers of solaria. Included in the advice was that people under 16-years-old should not use sunbeds and that a limit of 20 sessions per year should be observed. This advice was developed after consultation with leading experts and is accepted as good advice.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons are for the increase in tuberculosis in London; and if he will make a statement on the remedial action he proposes. [153363]

  Mr. Hutton
  Homelessness, living conditions, ethnic distribution as well as improved reporting and surveillance have led to the increase of reported cases of tuberculosis in London.

  Wanless Report
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which conclusions arid recommendations in the report "Securing our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View", by Mr. Derek Wanless, his Department does not accept. [153113]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced in the 2002 Budget that the Government accepted the conclusions of the Wanless Review. In order to deliver reform, my right hon. Friend also announced in his 2002 Budget historic sustained levels of increase in national health service funding, an average annual increase of 7.3 per cent., in real terms for the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  S4C
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  Following a request from the S4C Authority, I have commissioned an independent review of S4C, to be carried out by Roger Laughton, Head of Bournemouth university media school. Mr. Laughton will be assisted by Meurig Royles as Welsh language assessor to the review.

  The terms of reference for the review are: 1) to assess, in light of the Communication Act's reaffirmation of S4C's status and remit, (a) the efficiency with which S4C utilises the resources made available to deliver its statutory responsibilities, (b) the extent to which other sources of funding, including efficiency savings, could make a greater contribution alongside that which S4C receives as grant-in-aid, and (c) the extent to which S4C's latest strategic plan provides an effective basis on which to plan for the future; 2) to examine the particular implications for S4C of the Government's proposal on the future of digital broadcasting.

  The review will include: (a) consultation with a wide range of interests, including organisations representative of those sectors where the role of S4C is of particular significance; and (b) consideration, to the extent that the reviewer judges appropriate, of the outcome of and evidence generated by S4C's recent internal review process.

  In addition to the consultation outlined above, there will be an opportunity for members of the public to make representations to the review team, via a website set up by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  The Government remain committed to the provision by S4C of a high-quality, diverse Welsh language television service forming a key part of the public service broadcasting landscape. I was, therefore, pleased to agree to the S4C Authority's request for a review which could address some of the important challenges S4C faces as it approaches analogue switch off. The Authority has already completed its own internal review and Mr. Laughton will be able to take its conclusions into account.

  Ofcom's, statutory review of the fulfillment of the public service broadcasting remit will also provide an opportunity to consider S4C's contribution to that wider remit. The relationship between S4C and the BBC will in addition be considered in detail as part of BBC charter review.

  I have asked Mr. Laughton to report back to me at the beginning of May.

TREASURY

  Main Estimates and Spring Reports
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  Following the announcement that the Budget will take place on 17 March, HM Treasury plans to publish the 2004–05 main estimates, the supplementary budgetary information publication that accompanies the main estimates, and the public expenditure statistical analyses 2004 on Monday 19 April 2004.

  Cash Ratio Deposits
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  Cash ratio deposits are non-interest bearing assets deposited with the Bank of England by banks and building societies. They are used by the bank to finance its unremunerated activities, in particular its sterling liquidity operations and its efforts to secure price stability and the stability of the financial system in general, from which these institutions are key beneficiaries. The cash ratio deposit scheme was placed on a statutory basis when the Bank of England Act became law in 1998. In February 2003, the Paymaster General announced by written statement a review of the operation of the statutory scheme in its first five years.

  My written statement of 18 September 2003 set out the review's conclusions, one of which was that the minimum threshold for making deposits should be raised from £400 million to £500 million, freeing 18 institutions from the scheme and benefiting all remaining contributing institutions by reducing the level of their deposits by £150,000 each. This proposal would require a change to secondary legislation under the Bank of England Act 1998. HM Treasury has therefore consulted publicly about this change and invited views on the review's other recommendations.

  The Government's response to this consultation exercise was published yesterday. Given the general support among respondents for the proposal set out above, I am today laying before Parliament a draft statutory instrument designed to increase the threshold for making deposits under the CRD scheme from £400 million to £500 million, scheduled to come into force on 1 June 2004.

  Tax Avoidance
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  Legislation to prevent tax avoidance by individuals through the creation of deficiency relief on life insurance policies is to be included in the 2004 Finance Bill. The legislation will restrict the deficiency relief available to an individual to amounts of earlier gains which formed part of that same individual's income. The change will have effect from today. It will apply to all new policies. It will also apply to all existing policies which are assigned, or become used as security for a debt, or into which policyholders choose to pay further premiums, on or after today.

  A copy of today's Inland Revenue news release giving the relevant background to this measure is being deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and is also accessible on the Inland Revenue website: http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan (Election Registration Funding)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas)
  Ensuring the legitimacy of the Afghan Government within the timescale set down by the Bonn agreement is an important part of the Government's strategy for Afghanistan.

  Elections are due to take place later this year and the Government has already provided £1 million from the Department for International Development (DFID)
  82WS
  and £2 million from the joint DFID/FCO/MOD global conflict prevention pool towards the UN's programme of voter registration in Afghanistan. So far just over 1.2 million of an estimated 10.5 million electorate has been registered.

  DFID will now be providing an additional £6 million to the UN to support the registration process. Combined with a US pledge of US$12 million this takes the total funding from US$48 million to US$71 million out of a total budget of around US$98 million. This will allow registration to continue while we work with other donors to fill the remainder of the shortfall, and help to ensure the success of Afghanistan's first free and fair elections.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

Diabetes: Blood Glucose Monitoring
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether blood glucose monitoring guidelines for people with diabetes are applied throughout the United Kingdom; and whether they intend to enforce new guidelines issued by the National Prescribing Centre to primary care trusts which make reductions in the level of home-based blood glucose monitoring.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, both the National Prescribing Centre and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence made it clear in the advisory information and guidelines which they issued respectively in 2002 that self-monitoring of blood glucose can play a positive role in enabling people with diabetes to manage their conditions effectively and constantly. That approach has been reinforced by the Diabetes National Service Framework, which places a strong emphasis on education, information and integrated care.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, given that testing blood sugar levels leads to good diabetic control and, hence, saves money for the NHS in the long run, will the Government issue new guidance to GPs and primary care trusts confirming their unambiguous support for home-based training? Will my noble friend also tackle the problem of postcode prescribing of test strips, as reported by Diabetes UK, of which I am a member?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I shall deal with the last point first. We understand that the guidance issued by the National Prescribing Centre raised some questions about the overall usefulness of self-monitoring through blood testing outside a programme of self-management and self-care. However, we want to emphasise that, when it is combined with educational support for patients, self-monitoring plays a very important—indeed, critical—role. That point was brought out strongly in the NICE guidelines. Any PCT which tries to discourage doctors from recommending the use of blood-test strips is, in fact, acting contrary to NICE's own guidance on this matter and, indeed, contrary to the most recent statements of the National Clinical Director for Diabetes.
I turn to my noble friend's first point concerning whether we would ask NICE to issue new guidelines. NICE reviews its guidelines on a three-yearly basis as
646
a matter of course. It will be doing so in 2005 and will certainly take into consideration any new evidence.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister's remarks about self-monitoring warmed up as she answered the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. However, has she had time to consider Mr Wanless's significant report, which emphasises the importance of self-monitoring and the benefits that can be obtained from it? Does the noble Baroness agree that the Department of Health needs to warm up somewhat unless it wants to pick a fight with the Treasury?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I should tell the noble Lord that I do not need any warming up; I am quite hyperactive enough as it is. But he is right to draw attention to the emphasis that the Wanless report places on diabetes. It made it a case study in chronic self-management, and rightly so because 1.3 million people are affected by the condition and it is possible that another 1 million have not even been diagnosed. The report emphasised the importance of self-management and self-care as part of the Diabetes National Service Framework. As my right honourable friend in the other place emphasised, it is important to give people the information to make the right choices.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I ask this question as an insulin-dependent diabetes sufferer. Can the noble Baroness say whether the Government recognise the devastating impact that diabetes can have on every aspect and every facet of one's life? Is there continued awareness of the benefits of education, early diagnosis and strict ongoing monitoring from the perspective of both the patient and the cost to the National Health Service?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I know that there are many experts in this House on the condition of diabetes. The noble Lord was absolutely right in everything that he said. It is a devastating condition which brings many different complications, although it is hoped that many of them can be avoided with preventive measures. The Diabetes National Service Framework placed a huge emphasis on the need for patient education. Indeed, the clinical director recently told us that self-monitoring and learning how to act on the results must go hand in hand if people with diabetes are to live healthy lives. Essentially, we are trying to put that preventive strategy in place.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister clarify the position with regard to any guidelines issued by the National Prescribing Centre to primary care trusts, which are referred to in this Question? What enforcement exists and what mandatory element do the guidelines have or can the primary care trusts simply ignore them?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the guidance is basically information guidance; it is not mandatory.

647
The National Prescribing Centre does what its title suggests: it offers advice on prescribing. It is separate from, but partly funded by, NICE and therefore it often provides guidance which backfills the advice provided by NICE. However, it does not give mandatory advice to doctors which they must follow in terms of prescribing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I declare an interest as a diabetic. I am someone in the Westminster village who has the condition just like many people outside. Is the Minister aware that injecting and using the strips at home is not only medically sound but also psychologically reassuring to those who do so? Will she take this opportunity to say to the House that, if there is any obstacle at any level inhibiting the free availability of the strips, she will see that that obstacle is removed?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords; the benefits that flow from self-management are specific. Patients are able to react to and correct for the information that they obtain and so manage their conditions. They can then live their lives, whether in work or in retirement, with a great deal more confidence. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said.
On availability, anyone who is treated with medication will receive the blood testing strips free and anyone who qualifies for a free prescription will also receive them free. We certainly want obstacles to be removed, which is why we are anxious to ensure that the message about self-care goes out.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I too declare an interest as my husband is diabetic and I often have to test him. Is the Minister aware that often an error occurs when using the strips, as blood comes off the new ones, which are plastic and shiny? Is she aware that it is no luxury to have the strips; it is absolutely essential, as has been said? Is she aware that diabetes is increasing? With so many obese people it will increase and it must be taken very seriously.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I understand, having spoken to Members of your Lordships' House, that it is quite difficult to use the strips. Interestingly, the new technologies and the new machines that are being made available make the situation slightly easier. It is up to each doctor and each patient to negotiate what is best for them.
On the second point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about obesity, there is a clear link with diabetes. That is why our policies to reduce obesity are indirectly also policies to help to prevent diabetes. Over the last year for which we have full information, the number of prescriptions for blood testing strips has increased by 10 per cent, which suggests that they are increasingly in use.

Minister for Men
2.45 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to appoint a Minister for men.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government have no plans to appoint a Minister for men.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that succinct reply. Does he accept that in my Question there is no intention to suggest that there are not significant categories of women who suffer severe disadvantage in our society in a variety of ways? Does he agree that there are also significant categories of men and boys who suffer disadvantage for one reason or another? Examples that come to mind are in education, in employment and even in the legitimate wish of men to see their children under certain circumstances. Can the Minister explain how the Government reconcile with their equal opportunities policy the fact that the Government have appointed a powerful Minister to support the problems of disadvantaged women, but are not giving the same advantage to men?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government, as the noble Lord has indicated, take the issue of unfair discrimination, wherever and to whoever it occurs, very seriously indeed. That is why we are very keen to promote the effectiveness of our equality institutions and why we have the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, which applies to men as much as it does to women in areas where there has been discrimination against them.
One instance of that is that while maternity rights have been recognised for some considerable time, it is only recently that it has been recognised that fathers play a very important part in the early days of a child's life and that fathers are entitled to paternity leave and some support. I hope I have given the noble Lord a positive response to his Question.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, given that on Monday the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, told the House that 50 per cent of the population in this country are men and 50 per cent are women, would the noble Lord care to reconsider his answer and refer to his noble friend the Lord Privy Seal?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not sure that that is necessary. The Lord Privy Seal is all too well aware of the facts of the position. The reason that legislation is often needed to advance the position of women is because, historically, women have received lower pay than men for the same kind of work and they have received less support than men from the wider society. We make no bones about the fact that there were historical injustices that needed to be put right through our equality legislation.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those last words. Surely, the interesting

649
fact about the Minister for Women is that she is the Minister for Women and Equality. On the equality side, or the lack of equality for women in access to senior positions, in pay, in promotion and in a whole range of issues, we still need positive help from Government to assist women. Perhaps the Minister will join me in looking forward to the day when the level of institutional disadvantage to women has been abolished and we no longer need ministries for men or women, or for other people who suffer from unequal status in our society.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in looking forward eagerly to that day. It will be a day on which there will almost certainly be equal numbers of men and women in our elected House.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, while agreeing with the Minister that there will not be a Minister for men, which I am pleased to hear—not that I do not like men; I just do not think that it is necessary to have a Minister for men—I have some sympathy with the noble Lord who asked the Question. Men are definitely discriminated against in cases of divorce, where it seems that mothers are automatically given custody of children, and it is sometimes difficult for fathers to get access. I speak with some personal knowledge of this. I wonder whether that could be borne in mind in the general feel of the Question.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness raised some important points. It is not the case that the law automatically discriminates in favour of women; it is a fact that judgments are often in favour of the mother, for reasons that we all recognise. The point that is becoming clear is that the issue of fathers' access rights needs to be approached by the courts more actively than in the past.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, going back to Monday, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, said to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, that positive action was a good thing where there was not equality of gender. Does the Minister believe that that should be extended to the teaching profession—where men are very much in the minority, particularly in primary schools where they represent only 15 per cent—the nursing profession, the legal profession, and, coming up, the medical profession? Do the Government believe in positive action in those cases? Would the Minister reconsider his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about a Minister for men? It is about time that we had a Minister for men, because they are being hard done by these days.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course there will be some professions, and sections of some professions, that may be more attractive to one sex than the other. More women apply for teaching roles in junior schools than is the case for secondary schools. That is, rightly, often lamented by educationists,
650
because we see the advantage of having significant numbers of men and women in each school as regards providing a balanced educational experience for children. It is not an area on which direct action is possible. We need men to come forward for those roles in greater numbers. That is often the case with other professions in the other direction. We need more women to come forward, and we certainly need to remove barriers where actual discrimination takes place, as it does in some cases.

Prison Farms and Gardens
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy with regard to the future of prison farms and gardens on which prisoners work.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the policy of the Prison Service is to expand its horticultural activities, providing an additional 355 work places where certificated training will be provided in grounds maintenance and landscaping, which will better prepare prisoners for jobs on release. To fund this expansion, prison farms comprising field-scale cropping and livestock where few or no prisoners are employed will be phased out. Some land will be sold, with the returns reinvested in increased and modernised horticultural activities.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for clarifying the position. Does he agree that although not many prisoners are directly employed on the farms, the farm prison service has been an exemplar of exactly what Defra and the Department of Health are trying to do; that is, it produces fresh food, grown in this country, and makes it available for this country's institutions? It seems that the Home Office is flying in the face of the aim of those two departments, which is the procurement of fresh produce. I also refer to the beneficial effects on prisoners that the preparation and distribution of such fresh food may have.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on this occasion, the noble Baroness has got it wrong. We are providing increased employment opportunities in this field of activity. By focusing more on horticulture, where there are expanded market opportunities" we will ensure that many of the prisoners are directly involved in providing fresh food and produce for the Prison Service as a whole. Of course, the Prison Service will benefit from that, and prisoners will benefit by producing fresh food.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, could the Minister tell the House whether the reports in the weekend press are accurate that both prison farms and prison institutions are to have the Royal Arms removed from them and henceforth not be known as Her Majesty's Prison Service? If so, why, and how

651
much will it cost? Is it linked to yesterday's announcement by the Home Secretary that he wishes to remove the Crown from the Crown Prosecution Service?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked questions that are well wide of the Question on the Order Paper. As I understand it, there is to be a Statement on the Crown Prosecution Service and its future naming—or not—after Question Time.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the stud for Suffolk Punch horses is on the farm at Hollesley Bay prison in Suffolk. Those horses are becoming an endangered breed. Could the Minister tell me what will happen to the stud and whether there is a future for it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware of the stud at Hollesley Bay prison. There was detailed consultation on the future of the stud and the Suffolk Punch horses. My understanding is that the farm will be sold, along with the land and buildings, to a trust, which will become known as the Suffolk Punch Trust, enabling the horses to remain in their home county. The trust will provide employment and training for prisoners, so the activity that is currently going on there will continue under another guise.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, given the welcome extra attention that the Prison Service is now putting on rehabilitation, and against the background of the low educational achievement of many young offenders, can my noble friend say whether now that there is a bit more stability in the governance at Feltham prison, the massive opportunities there for horticulture and landscaping experience for prisoners have been restarted?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I hoped that I had indicated clearly at the outset, there will be expanded opportunities in the Prison Service for horticultural activities. Young prisoners in particular may well benefit from this and, given that young offenders in general tend to come from urban areas, activities such as landscaping and parks maintenance are skills that will be acquired and developed by participating in the new and expanded service.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that prisoners won a high award—I think that it was a gold medal—at the Chelsea Flower Show last year? Such a pursuit is not only good for them in the future, but is an excellent way of spending time in prison. I speak as an ex-member of the board of visitors at Pentonville prison, where the meat provided by the prison farms was of excellent quality and was a reasonable price. It would be a pity if the meat produced by prisoners disappeared from prison fare.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that meat will not disappear from prison fare, but changes are being made. As the noble Baroness will know, in 1996 the pig farm enterprises at Littlehey, The Verne and Everthorpe prisons were closed. Some livestock farms will be retained as part of the changes. The noble Baroness is right that the farm service, and in particular the garden service that takes place in the prison estate, is of the highest quality. On many occasions, prison farms have produced winning entries at important flower shows such as those at Chelsea and Southport.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that working with animals helps to rehabilitate very difficult people, including prisoners? If he looks at the farm at New Hall women's prison, near Doncaster, he will see that prisoners work there with horses and find jobs afterwards.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we certainly recognise the importance of rehabilitation. We recognise the importance and value of that offered by the prison farms. I shall look carefully at the points made by the noble Baroness. I am sure that they will be taken into account as the review process continues.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that slightly more than 20 years ago, I visited Strangeways prison as a Minister—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McNally: My Lords, that is wishful thinking! I visited the prison as a Member of another place. I found most of the training facilities there in mothballs because of overcrowding. Six months later, Strangeways was being dismantled from the roof downwards by prison rioting. Do the hopeful statistics that the Minister provided about gardening and horticulture extend to other aspects of prisoner training, or do we still face the problem of prisoners being in cells for 23 hours a day while training facilities go unused?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government have laid great stress on rehabilitation within the prison estate. We have invested in it and we have expanded educational opportunities. The education budget in the Prison Service is now in the region of £150 million per annum. That has been increased year on year since the Government came to office. We do understand the value of rehabilitation. As I explained to your Lordships today, the initiative is one small part of that. We are seeking to expand opportunities for prisoners, because we want to ensure that the training they receive inside prisons enables them to gain full and useful employment outside prison.

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Recruitment of Non-executive Chairman
3.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost of recruiting a non-executive chairman designate of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority; and by what authority this expenditure has been committed.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the cost of recruiting a senior policy adviser, who will advise the Department of Trade and Industry on the preparations required for the establishment of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is £45,000 plus VAT in respect of fees to the research consultants, Whitehead Mann, and £20,400 in respect of advertising the post. As the recruitment literature makes clear, the successful person is expected to become the chair of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in due course, but that further appointment is subject to the successful passage of the Energy Bill. The DTI sought the agreement of Her Majesty's Treasury to incur that recruitment expenditure in order for it to meet its current responsibilities effectively and efficiently prior to the completion of the Energy Bill, and in order to manage the transition of those responsibilities to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority so that that body can start operating as effectively as possible after Royal Assent.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that anybody who reads the advertisement that appeared in the Sunday Times on 8 February will see that the DTI is in fact advertising for candidates to fill the post of a non-executive chairman of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority? Is he not also aware that the Treasury rulebook makes it perfectly clear that such an appointment may be made only after the Bill has received a Second Reading in another place? Does the Minister expect this House to accept that the dressing-up of the advertisement to make it look like one for a policy adviser in the DTI is anything other than a transparent device to get round the Treasury rules and, as such, is wholly improper?
Lord Triesman: No, My Lords, I am not aware that that is the conclusion that should be drawn, although I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said in Grand Committee on the Energy Bill on 15 January—which I think reflected comments that he made at Second Reading in your Lordships' House on 11 December—that that is his view. In brief, the job advertisement—I have it in front of me—makes it absolutely clear that a special adviser is required, who will not become the non-executive chairman unless the Bill passes through both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister explain what that person would be doing during the period before the Bill is enacted, bearing in mind that we have just
654
completed a lengthy Committee stage in this House? The Bill has still to go through its remaining stages here before being referred to another place. That would be very long period for an advisory function to be exercised.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the individual who is appointed will have a number of responsibilities. The policy adviser will consider the structure of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which is subject to the Energy Bill receiving Royal Assent. Such consideration will cover the skills mix of the board of the NDA; appropriate non-executive director posts; senior appointments; the corporate governance arrangements of the NDA; and preparations for the transition to the new contractual arrangements for nuclear site management. That is a fairly extensive job remit and the advice of an individual of some capability will plainly be needed in the department for those tasks.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, will the Minister confirm whether the accounting officer of the DTI approved the advertisement being made at this time?
Lord Triesman: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the post will be filled by a Nolan-type process? I am sure that he will. Will be also assure us that there will be a Nolan-type outcome?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, there will be a Nolan-type process. Having been involved in one or two Nolan-type processes, I have yet to see one that did not have a Nolan-type outcome.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, what will happen if that part of the Energy Bill is not passed by Parliament?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I can only repeat the point that I made a few moments ago. The post within the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority depends on the passing of the legislation. If the legislation is not passed, the authority will not exist. The role of a non-executive chairman of that authority will not exist either.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in that case, the person who is appointed to the post will have finished the work that he was appointed to do. What are the arrangements for his retirement?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not sure that it is a good precedent to retire people so far in advance of their appointment. There is a serious job to be done. I have tried to set out for your Lordships what that job comprises. I hope that noble Lords will agree with me that it is an important job and that a person of

655
exceptional ability is needed just for those tasks, let alone the tasks that will flow from the passing of the Bill. I do not envisage, and I hope that the House does not envisage, that the person will be retired so prematurely.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, is the Minister aware—as he must be—that there is a good deal of doubt about whether the process complies with the standing conventions and Treasury rules for appointments in that it will take place before the Bill's Second Reading in the House of Commons? Once again, standards in public life are being called into question. May I suggest to the Minister that the matter be referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I do not accept that suggestion. I was asked if the Treasury approved the advertisement. I have confirmed that. I was asked if the accounting officer in the DTI approved it. We are talking about independent, senior civil servants and their judgment should not be called into question.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I played a relatively small part in the deliberations of the Grand Committee. I was under the impression from those meetings that all parties are in favour of the establishment of the NDA. A body to begin decommissioning nuclear facilities is long awaited and is welcomed by all people. Therefore, does it not make sense to take all the steps that we can, in advance, to get the process under way?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the question. The fact is, everybody has welcomed the serious approach that has been taken to nuclear safety and making sure that we can dispose of nuclear waste in a serious and safe way. The sooner these processes are under way, with all due regard for the precedence of parliamentary process, the better. It would be ludicrous were we to delay it on these grounds, which have arisen only because of the Bill being introduced in this House before it was introduced in the other place.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, be that as it may, will the Minister explain—
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we need to move to the next Question.

Government Advertising: National Press
3.10 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins asked Her Majesty's Government:
What analyses they make of the cost-effectiveness of taking full-page advertisements in the national press; and whether decisions on advertising are made by individual departments or centrally.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the cost-effectiveness of full-page national press advertisements is measured by cost per response—that is, the cost of the advertising space divided by the number of responses that can be attributed to the particular advertisement.
Decisions on the size of advertisement to be used are made in consultation between the government department concerned, the Central Office of Information and the specialist advertising and media planning agencies appointed to the campaign. Key factors considered include the nature of the message and the audience being targeted by the advertising.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. The Government's pensions credit is so complicated that barely half the people entitled to it are actually claiming it. So I can certainly agree that there is a strong case for advertising the Government's pensions credit. But the full-page advertisements that are being used are both wasteful and misleading. The whole of the top page contains absolutely no information whatever. The bottom half of the page says that a certain group of pensioners will get extra cash, when in fact they will simply be allowed to keep a little more of their own money. Can the Minister tell us the cost of this campaign, and whether the content has been approved by the Advertising Standards Authority?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware whether the content has been approved by the Advertising Standards Authority. I should have thought it was more appropriate for it to receive responses from the public over criticisms of advertisements placed.
I think that the noble Lord misses the point. That campaign has been extremely effective; it is a very eye-catching advertisement. It is likely that 75 per cent of pensioners every month who get an award will benefit in the sum of at least £43.50—that is the average award—on top of their basic state pension. That is a very large sum of money in my view. Two-thirds of those receiving the benefit will be the poorest women in our society. Its aim is to reach some 3 million households in all, and some 2.5 million are already in receipt of it.
I think this is an excellent campaign and I am surprised that the noble Lord seeks, perhaps by undermining the effect of the advertising campaign, to deprive millions of pensioner families of money to which they are rightly entitled. As to the cost of the campaign, at £12 million I think it is extremely good value.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when Mr Alastair Campbell had overall control of government advertising, the "Panorama" programme accused the Government of jiggery-pokery in terms of government advertising prior to the last general election? When Mr Alastair Campbell left his job, it was split, very correctly: Mr David Hill took over his position immediately, and we were promised a senior

657
and independent civil servant who would keep an eye on government advertising to prevent any more jiggery-pokery. When will we get this civil servant?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has asked a question along those lines in the not-too-distant past. I explained to him on that occasion that the recruitment of the Permanent Secretary, not for advertising but for communications across government, was in process.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, who paid for the full-page advertisements for changing the system of getting numbers from the GPO? Was it the GPO or was it the Government? Two rather ridiculous young men came galloping through the pages of our national papers frequently.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know for sure, but I suspect it was the commercial organisation that was changing the numbers.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, what is the Government's total expenditure on advertising and how does that sum compare with the amounts spent before they came to office?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, prices in real terms, adjusted for inflation, from 1986–87 to 2002–03, are available. The spend in 2002–03 in real terms was £160 million, which is somewhat short of the £190 million recorded for 1986–87. For 1996–97, the sum was some £81,700,000.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have stressed constantly in debates that I am strongly in favour of people taking up the Government's pensions credit, but wasting paper in this way is not an ideal way to do it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord is in favour of take-up campaigns for benefits. I am hoping that he will add his enthusiastic voice to that end. I am sure that the company which has advised the Government on providing advertising support for that campaign will be more than happy to advise the noble Lord further, should he so wish, of the success of that campaign.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a Children's Commissioner; to make provision about services provided to and for children and young people by local authorities and other persons; to make provision in relation to Wales about advisory and support services relating to family proceedings; to make provision
658
about private fostering, childminding and day care, adoption review panels, the making of grants as respects children and families and about child safety orders. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill

  Business of the House: Debates this Day
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Massey of Darwen set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Haskel to two hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Committee of Selection
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of the Lord Trefgarne.—(The chairman of Committees.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of 25 February be now considered; and that, notwithstanding anything in the Private Business Standing Orders or practice of the House, the promoters of the Bill, which originated in this House in Session 2001–02 and which has passed all its stages in this House but not in the Commons, may proceed with the Bill in the present Session;
That the petition for the Bill be deemed to have been deposited;
That all Standing Orders applicable be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on Thursday 4 March with a declaration annexed, signed by the

659
agent, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill passed by this House;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the present Session be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill had passed in the last Session and that no new fees be charged.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Crown Prosecution Service
3.18 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given in another place by my right honourable friend the Solicitor-General to an Urgent Question. The Answer is as follows:
"As Minister responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, the Attorney-General has initiated and is leading a substantial programme of development reform of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Home Secretary fully supports this programme, particularly the closer working between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. The Attorney-General first raised, some months ago, whether, to reflect this programme of change and reform, the name of the CPS should itself be changed. Further discussions are under way. The Attorney-General is making a Statement on this in another place this afternoon".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I think that this Statement has been provoked by a question asked this morning by my honourable friend the shadow Attorney-General in another place for answer by the Home Office. The question related to a statement made by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary yesterday. He said, accordingly to an article in today's Daily Mail by the deputy political editor, Mr Paul Eastham:
"We have agreed now that, right across the country, the CPS will become the Public Prosecution Service and will become much closer to being understandable by the public".
On the statement by the Home Secretary, I should like to make two observations. First, it appears that a decision has been taken to rename the Crown Prosecution Service the "Public Prosecution Service". Secondly, it seems that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs has participated in taking that decision.
Arising from that, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General two questions. First, does he regard himself as the Minister responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service? If he does, can he tell the House when the decision to change the name was taken, and whether the Queen was informed before it was taken?
660
My second question concerns the exclusiveness of his responsibility. It is trite constitutional law to say that it is wholly undesirable for any political interference to have taken place in a decision to prosecute. That is true, not only as a matter of substance, but as a matter of perception. It is vital that there is a clear separation between the political arm of the constitution and that arm of the constitution that has to be wholly impartial in relation to the liberty of the subject— that is, the Attorney-General. In those circumstances, how can he explain why the Home Secretary had to agree with this decision?
I should like to make two further observations before I sit down. The first is that, irrespective of the matters to which I have just referred, would it be wise to change the name? In my submission, it would not. If you change the name to "state", you clearly implicate the Government, and therefore the political arm of the constitution. If you change the name to "public", you do the same thing, because the Government—as the democratically elected government—regard themselves as the incarnation of the public interest.
The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary went on to explain the decision that he is supposed to have made by saying that it would be quite wrong for the Crown Prosecution Service—or the "Public Prosecution Service" as it now appears to be — to be impartial in relation to prosecutions. The public should know that it is on their side. But, with great respect, the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary has misunderstood the whole point about describing the Crown Prosecution Service as the "Crown" Prosecution Service. It is described in that way in order to make it absolutely clear that it is independent from party politics.
My second observation concerns a phrase that the right honourable and learned lady the Solicitor-General used repeatedly in another place when she responded to some apposite questions posed by the shadow Attorney-General. She talked about the principle of partnership in relation to those agencies that are involved in the prosecutorial process. I was surprised to hear this, as I understood that the principle that was animating the Government's vision of the constitution was the principle of the separation of powers.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the Government are not only keen to see the principle of the independence of judges respected, but also the perception that they are entirely separate from the legislature or the executive arm. That is why—despite the fact that they accept that there has been no evidence of political interference with respect to Her Majesty's judges whatsoever—they are determined to set up an independent Supreme Court. Yet here we have the Home Secretary blatantly breaching the principle of separation of powers by engaging himself in a decision that should be none of his constitutional business whatsoever.
3.24 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, can the Attorney-General confirm the report in today's Daily Telegraph, that he took a sharp intake of breath when he heard of the Home Secretary's latest lollipop from his bran tub?
As the Attorney-General is aware, we on these Benches broadly support many of the Government's proposals for legal and constitutional reform. But would be not agree that they seem to be making an awful mess of this with various initiatives that seem to be popping out without due notice and consultation, and which undermine public confidence in a process of reform which should be winning public approval?
Can the noble and learned Lord indicate how the Government are going to get their act together—between his office, the Home Secretary and the noble and learned lord the Lord Chancellor—so that we get some indication that Ministers are singing from the same hymn sheet as they bring forward these complex and important measures?
As a layman, I am aware that we have a Director of Public Prosecutions. On the other hand, Her Majesty's judges and Crown Courts have a great deal of public respect and confidence. People want a system of prosecution that is credible, consistent and trusted. In order to have that, we need coherence such as I have urged over the whole matter of constitutional reform. The Home Secretary should not be responsible for some of those matters; they should properly be dealt with by a ministry of justice. As I have said, there should be some sense that Ministers are talking to each other and working to a coherent programme, instead of indulging in high-profile gimmicks that damage public confidence.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I want to start by making one thing clear. I want to leave the House and the people of this country in no doubt. I stand for the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service. No one will challenge that while I am Her Majesty's Attorney-General.
It is crucial to confidence in the criminal justice system that everyone knows that each decision to prosecute—or not to prosecute—is made independently, in the public interest and without political interference.
Everything that I am going to say in answer to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord McNally, must be understood behind that clear and unequivocal statement.
When an Urgent Question was asked of the Home Secretary in another place this morning—as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said—it seemed important that, as the Minister responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, the Attorney-General and my deputy, the right honourable lady the Solicitor-General, should respond. I hope that noble Lords who are concerned at yesterday's events would think that it was right for the Ministers responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service to come and deal with this question.
662
Before I go on to some of the wider questions, let me deal with the position of the issue that was raised yesterday. It is not the first time that a suggestion has been made about a change to the name of the Crown Prosecution Service. I floated it myself at the beginning of last year. It has been mentioned in the press several times since. The Director of Public Prosecutions has himself mentioned it in the press. I am bound to say that it would do a lot of good if we could bring the temperature down in relation to this matter. I am surprised that some people have found renewed outrage in something that had already been floated. But I recognise that there are strong interests.
Let me make this clear: the name change remains under active consideration. The Director of Public Prosecutions and I have made it clear that we are in favour of the name change, but we are still considering it. He is discussing it with his staff but no final conclusion has yet been reached.
Let me deal with why it may make sense. I want to make it clear that it is only a part—and some, including me, would say that it is only a small part—of a much more important and much bigger programme of reform, to which my right honourable friend referred in the Statement. However, the reason why it might make sense to make the change, and the reason why the Director of Public Prosecutions and I believe that it does, is that it would clarify that the Prosecution Service in this country serves the public, not the Government—absolutely not the Government. It serves the public of this country in the public interest at all times. No prosecution can proceed unless the prosecutor in charge of the case is satisfied, not only that the evidence indicates that there is a realistic prospect of conviction but also that it is in the public interest to proceed.
As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, there is nothing surprising or unusual about referring to the concept of public prosecutions. We have had since the late Victorian age a Director of Public Prosecutions. He has never been a director of Crown prosecutions. This House approved, the creation of a Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland—and it is a public prosecution service in Northern Ireland. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made the point that he did, but I reject any suggestion that calling something the public prosecution service carries with it any implication at all that it is for the government, or that it is anything other than a prosecution service for the benefit of the public in this country. That is all.
I turn to the other questions that have been raised. It is plain from what I have said about the process that no final conclusion has been reached. Whatever may have been said in any newspapers or elsewhere in relation to the matter, no final conclusions have been reached. Questions do not therefore arise in relation to the particular involvement of particular persons. I have made it clear that there can be no political interference and therefore no interference by anybody—other perhaps than the Attorney-General—in any decision to prosecute. There certainly cannot be interference by any other Minister.

663
Notwithstanding that fact, there will be questions in relation to the organisation of the public prosecution service—the Crown Prosecution Service—in which others will have a legitimate interest. After all, the service works on a budget that comes from the taxpayer. We are not at the point at which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been involved in a decision in relation to that. However, even if that were the case, I would not regard it as interfering in the slightest with the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service or with any prosecuting decision. With respect, it seems to be going far too far to suggest that for Ministers to have a view and even to take part in decisions in relation to a name change can conceivably affect the independence of the prosecuting decisions, on which we all agree.
I turn to the question of partnership. We have recognised and realised that in order to have an effective, efficient and fair prosecution and justice system in this country, it makes sense for the different parts of the justice system to work together. They must do that always in accordance with their own particular missions and principles. Noble Lords passed, in the Criminal Justice Act, a very important measure, which gives the Crown Prosecution Service the responsibility for deciding what charge should be given in any case, or whether a charge should be made at all. That necessarily involves a close co-operation, or partnership, between the police and the prosecutor. It does not subvert in any way the independent decision of the prosecutor on whether the case should go ahead, but it involves working in partnership.
So, too, we have demonstrated that by working in partnership with court management, we can enable victims and witnesses to be better served, so that courts are ready to take their cases when they arrive, are protected from defendants who intimidate them, and all that sort of thing. I am very strongly of the view that with that sort of partnership, which we have in the National Criminal Justice Board and the local criminal justice boards across the country, we are really helping to serve the people of our communities—the public—and enabling us to have a better justice system. I very much hope that your Lordships will enthusiastically support many or all of the changes that are being proposed, which we shall bring before noble Lords when we are ready to show them the full agenda. All those changes are towards the same objective, of a prosecution system which, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, put it, is credible, trusted and effective. Ultimately, we are involved in reducing crime and the fear of crime.
I do not in fact agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the concept of a ministry of justice, but that no doubt is for others on another day. I conclude by thanking both noble Lords for the questions that they asked and the comments that they made. I hope that I have covered them all; if not, I am sure that they will be put again. The fundamental point about independence—that it is for the Attorney-General to support that independence—is absolutely my view.
664
What is up for discussion may be the name change; what is not up for discussion is the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service. That is non-negotiable.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, having had the privilege on three occasions of serving as one of Her Majesty's ambassadors abroad, and having for five years been the head of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service, can I have an assurance from the noble and learned Lord that no thought whatever is being given to either removing or diluting that important and much valued connection between the Diplomatic Service and the Crown?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am aware of absolutely no suggestion of that. The reason why I identified my own title as Her Majesty's Attorney-General was to indicate that the proposal has nothing to do with discourtesy to the Queen or any lack of pride in the long historical connection that we have to Her Majesty.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, has the Attorney-General just said that there is no intention that Her Majesty's judges will cease to be Her Majesty's judges?
Lord Goldsmith: None whatever, my Lords.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, following on that answer, would the Attorney-General like to take the opportunity to deny the newspaper reports that appeared over the weekend, suggesting that the Home Secretary wished to change the name of Her Majesty's Prison Service to remove the references to "Her Majesty", much to the consternation of the Prison Officers' Union? If that is the case, are we not entitled to expect that Parliament is told these things in advance of the newspapers? Are we not entitled to conclude that there seems to be a link between the Home Secretary's view of the name of the prosecution authority and of the Prison Service? That suggests that an attempt is being made to marginalise the role of the Crown in our constitution.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, not at all. With regard to the Prison Service, the Home Office is not planning to drop all references to the Crown. That is untrue.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Any?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I said "all references". I will finish the question, if noble Lords will allow me to continue. This is important. The noble Lord made an observation from a sedentary position, as they would say in another place.
Every individual prison and young offender institution, whether public or private sector, will continue to be known as Her Majesty's prison X, or Her Majesty's prison Y. Every prison officer working in public sector prisons will continue to wear the crown on their uniform and will continue to be a civil servant working to the Crown. That seems a strong endorsement of the present position,

665
whatever may be the name of the organisation in which prison officers and others involved in the correctional services are employed.
It is apparent from what I have seen that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary may have been responding to a question that was put to him. There was no announcement of a change yesterday; final decisions or conclusions have not been reached.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, could my noble and learned friend confirm that a public prosecution service—which would be rightly named because it is after all in the interests of the citizen that the rule of law is maintained, not in the interests of the state—could prosecute the Crown, for instance, as employer?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I need to think carefully about the substance of that question.
The Public Prosecution Service will continue to be the service that prosecutes on behalf of the public. At present the Crown embodies the public. The difference is in relation to the name. It will continue to prosecute all persons who can be prosecuted.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that justice was originally administered by the monarch and, since then, by those in the name of the monarch? Has there been consultation with the monarchy about the proposals? Do the Government observe the conventions of consultation with the monarchy?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I wish to make two points in response to the noble Lord. First, I emphasise that the proposed change is part of a wider and more important programme of reform and strengthening of the prosecution service in the interests of the public. It will help to reinforce the message that that is what the prosecution service is for. We are confident that many people do not understand the meaning of "Crown" in Crown Prosecution Service as opposed to what is meant by public prosecution service.
Secondly, in response to the noble Lord, I want to reinforce the importance of the independence of the prosecution service. None of that will change.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I welcome the clear statement of the Attorney-General that there is no question whatever of diluting the independence of the prosecution service. As he is head of the prosecuting service in this country, why did the Home Secretary trail the matter yesterday? Was the noble and learned Lord comfortable with that? Will there be changes with regard to the form of indictments, which are currently Regina v Defendant? Will the change need legislation?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am the Minister responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service, which I have made clear today. The Home Secretary would be the first to agree that when announcements need to be made it will be for me with the consent of the director of public prosecutions to make them.
666
It is not proposed to change the form of indictment. That is no part of what is being considered. As we take the discussion forward, the need for legislation will be considered and determined before any change is implemented.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, following from the previous question, will the noble and learned Lord assure the House that there is no intention to change the name of the Crown Court?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, none at all, but following on from the comments made by other noble Lords, it would not be for me to talk about it if there were.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that one of the reasons for changing the title was because people would understand more readily that a Public Prosecution Service was more independent. Is he suggesting that the term "Crown Prosecution Service" had some mysterious meaning that indicated to the public that it was not independent?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I did not intend to suggest that the present name indicated to members of the public a lack of independence. I was reinforcing the message about independence. My point was that some members of the public do not really understand who the Crown Prosecution Service is for. One frequently hears people in court talking about, "my barrister", but they do not fully understand what the public prosecution service—to use the term generically—is for. They do not realise that it is to prosecute on behalf of the public in the interests of the public. It is not about prosecuting on behalf of a particular victim, and it is certainly not about prosecuting on behalf of a particular individual or the Government.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, if defendants are to appear in Crown Courts before Her Majesty's judges and, if convicted, are sent to Her Majesty's prisons, why is a change of name from Crown Prosecution Service to Public Prosecution Service even being considered?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, that is exactly what happens in other places, including Northern Ireland. Defendants are tried by public prosecutors on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions before Her Majesty's judges and sent to Her Majesty's prisons. What surely matters most of all is that, first, we should reinforce and stand behind, as I do, the independence of the prosecuting system. Secondly, we should have a prosecuting service that responds to the needs of the people whom we are there to serve. That includes recognising that we are there on behalf of the public. At a time of substantial reform, that should properly be reflected in a change of name to bring it into line with the name that its head—the Director of Public Prosecutions—has.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has skilfully reduced the temperature, as he set out to

667
do in his first—and for that reason, I suspect—very lengthy response to interventions. That will enable him and those who take a different view to look dispassionately at the discussion that we are having. He cannot fail to notice the extreme sensitivity of the proposal and the great weight of not only sentiment but also logic that attaches to the use of the Crown as a symbol of national authority and independence. That is why the Crown prosecutor is engaged in preserving the Queen's peace.
Before any decision is made, it is important to have thorough and wide consultation, including those in the Crown Prosecution Service itself, and not merely the director. Although the Statement is about the Crown Prosecution Service, as the noble and learned Lord has already acknowledged it is in the context of a highly controversial news story over the weekend that was raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. He was choked off during Question Time, but was allowed off the leash in the Statement to ask about the future name of Her Majesty's Prison Service.
Does the noble and learned Lord see that although the juxtaposition of those two stories may be fortuitous, to those outside they each appear to sustain the same suspicion that there is an intention to erode the apparent involvement of the Crown in the constitution.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Elton: My Lords, shaking the head may show that one does not agree with a point, but it is a matter of fact that that is how the issue affects all those who have just loudly said, "Hear, hear". Will the noble and learned Lord please tread gently, and following on from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will he try to remember what joined-up government is?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as he often does, brings the temperature down. I am grateful to him for that and for his comments.
On an historical point, we were prosecuting to preserve the Queen's peace long before the Crown Prosecution Service was introduced in 1986. On that small point, I beg to take issue with the noble Lord.
There have been discussions within the Crown Prosecution Service and its staff. I hope that I have made that clear. Certainly a press statement issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions made that clear yesterday. That is precisely what he is engaged in at the moment. It is very important. Thousands of staff are engaged in the service and it is absolutely right to discuss the matter with them.
I also understand the point of sensitivity. But I would say again that I have indicated clearly to noble Lords— and it is in the press records—that I was the one who first raised the issue at the beginning of last year. It had nothing to do with eroding the position of the Crown in relation to any other area or indeed in this area. I recognise that it may be an unfortunate juxtaposition of matters, and it may be precisely
668
because of that—as I understand it—that the Home Secretary responded to a question which has led to our debate today.
I should have added that—and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that I did not answer his question properly in relation to the palace—the palace is aware of the change. There will be further discussions as the decision takes place. I have spoken to the palace, but only very recently, in relation to this matter. But I have made it very clear that there has not been a final decision or a conclusion to this issue and that certainly there will be consultation with the palace before we reach that point.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, what work is being done on the provisional costings involved in this name change? Surely that work should be done before we proceed further down this very sensitive route.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. One has to balance—as indeed the former Director of Public Prosecutions said in a radio interview today—the benefits, which I believe will be significant, against the costs. We have absolutely no wish to do something if the cost of it will be disproportionate to the benefit that will be received. That point must be looked at.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord speaks of Northern Ireland, but he knows well that there is a particular reason and sensitivity why for the 1.25 million people in Northern Ireland it has been decided to call the service the Public Prosecution Service. That is not a good argument to pray in aid for the 55 million or 60 million people who exist under the Crown Prosecution Service.
I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord has made clear to the House. I think that he has made some very helpful announcements to clear up some of the confusion that his colleague has left behind: and he has made clear statements which obviously will be honoured. While the noble and learned Lord has discussed this matter in a rather smaller forum, I hope that he has found this exercise today not unhelpful in guiding him to what the conclusion might be if he were ever to consider the matter further.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, absolutely, and I genuinely always do find hearing what your Lordships have to say on these issues important and things that need very carefully to be considered.
I take issue with the noble Lord in relation to the position in Northern Ireland. I am responsible also for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland. It makes enormous sense, to my mind, that it is clear to the people of Northern Ireland—as it would be clear to the people of England and Wales if we made the same change—that a prosecution service is there to serve them and to serve in their interests.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord in a position to say yes or no to this

669
question? Did the Home Secretary say what the papers say he said? Surely his officials have been in touch with the Home Office and the noble and learned Lord is in a position to answer that simple question. If the answer is that the Home Secretary did say what the papers say he said, was he not saying quite plainly that a decision about this matter has been made?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not know whether the reports that the press have put forward are correct records of what the Home Secretary said. But they cannot in fact be right for this reason; that, as I have made clear and as the Director of Public Prosecutions has made clear, a decision has not finally been reached.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it would generally be very helpful to the process of government if, before we had a debate on a report from a Minister in the Government flying a kite that apparently does not yet have wind behind it, we first had the full development of a proper hypothesis?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I repeat to my noble friend Lord Tomlinson that it is not the first time that this proposal has been discussed in the press. It arose for the first time when I suggested the idea at the beginning of 2003 and it was reported in the press at that stage. It was reported subsequently and was referred to when the Director of Public Prosecutions referred to this issue only two or three weeks ago. It seems to be because of the context and the reference to the Home Secretary that it has attracted this degree of attention.
But what is important—and I hope noble Lords will be as enthusiastic about debating this with me at a future date as they have been about debating the name change—is the overall future of the prosecution service and how it is going to prosecute and protect the people of this country. There have been important changes already. The charging initiative has increased guilty pleas and has produced conviction rates which are 30 per cent up in the pilots that we have carried out. The prosecution service is achieving conviction rates above 90 per cent in magistrates' courts and Crown Courts. It is taking charge in areas concerning antisocial behaviour, domestic violence, homophobic crime and many other areas which are important to the people of this country.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say what surveys he undertook before he came to the conclusion that the public did not understand what the Crown Prosecution Service was and that it therefore needed a change of name? Do the Government and the noble and learned Lord not understand that, taken together with the proposals which will come before us on Monday to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor and to expel the judges from this Chamber and, indeed, the proposals to change the name of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, there
670
may very well be a suspicion among many people that the Government intend to abolish the monarchy by stealth?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, when I first suggested this change at the beginning of 2003, it had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the suspicions referred to by the noble Lord. We have information —not from formal national opinion poll surveys, but from what prosecutors on the ground know—that some people have difficulty in understanding what the prosecution service does.
I conclude with this final comment. I have made it clear throughout that I am the Minister responsible. It is my job to protect the independence of the prosecution service. That is what I shall continue to do.

Special Educational Needs
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen rose to call attention to the implications of the Department for Education and Skills' document Removing Barriers to Achievement: the Government's Strategy for Special Educational Needs; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am delighted to have secured this debate on the report Removing Barriers to Achievement: the Government's Strategy for Special Educational Needs. I am indeed honoured that it has attracted such a distinguished group of speakers, all of whom have a long-standing interest in children and education, and who will, I know, offer different perspectives to the debate. Several noble Lords from all sides of the House are elsewhere engaged in discussing the draft Disability Discrimination Bill and are very sorry that they cannot be here today.
I shall first give a little background to the report we are discussing and a brief overview. I shall then look at issues which schools are currently dealing with and ask the Minister to respond to specific areas of concern, which have arisen in my discussions with teachers. In speaking about children's issues, I should declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children and as a school governor.
The report is, I know, generally welcomed by parents and teachers. Removing barriers implies that we need to look at the systems a child is in as well as the child herself or himself. Special needs mean that special intervention needs to be set up to benefit the child and that inclusion in the education system, not just integration, is important.
The issues are changing. There are more children with special educational needs in our schools as neo-natal and medical services have improved their chances of survival. Their disabilities vary, so their needs vary. Others may go into the issue of how we diagnose children with learning disabilities and what factors go into that diagnosis. Mistakes are, no doubt, made. Statementing of children is not a precise science. I shall refer to statementing later.
In my experience, teachers of children with SEN are among the most inventive and dedicated in the teaching force, whether they are in special schools or

671
in mainstream education. They sometimes work under enormous pressure. They deserve the support and recognition that the current emphasis on getting it right for children with SEN gives them. Increasingly all teachers will have some role in this kind of teaching.
Education for children who have special needs has come a long way since I was a teacher in schools in the 1980s. The report that we are considering is a welcome culmination of previous policy. The strategy set out in this report was promised in the Green Paper, Every Child Matters. The 1997 Green Paper, Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs, and the 1998 programme of action sought to build on best practice and to improve the statutory framework for SEN. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and the special educational needs code of practice took matters forward. It will be interesting to see how a Disability and Discrimination Bill and the national service framework for children contribute to improving matters for children with special educational needs. The Children Bill, which received its First Reading in your Lordships' House today, will also contribute to an overall government strategy for children. It is good to see children feature so prominently in policy and legislation.
The 2002 Audit Commission Report, Special Educational Needs: a mainstream issue, highlighted challenges including children having to wait too long to have their needs met; children who should be educated in mainstream schools being turned away; staff feeling under-confident about dealing with pupils with a wide variety of needs; special schools feeling uncertain about their futures; and families experiencing varying levels of support in schools and other settings.
The key principles set out in the report that we are discussing are the rights of children with SEN to have a good education and the need to educate teachers to be able to deal with SEN. The report calls for an examination of the way schools are funded and of the way we judge achievement.
There are four key areas. The first is early intervention to ensure that children and their parents receive appropriate support as soon as possible; the implementation of a new strategy for childcare for children with SEN and disabilities; working with voluntary organisations, for example Mencap, on a feasibility study for a national early intervention centre of excellence; and the encouragement of information technology.
The second area is removing barriers to learning by embedding inclusive practice in schools and early years settings. This will involve improved access; practical tools for schools; collaboration with the Disability Rights Commission; improved local planning through SEN regional partnerships; minimum standards for SEN; and monitoring through self-evaluation and Ofsted.
The third area is raising expectations and achievement by developing the skills of teachers; working with the Teacher Training Agency; personalising learning for pupils; changing performance tables so that schools get
672
credit for the achievements of all pupils, including those with SEN; and working across agencies to improve transitions for pupils with SEN.
The fourth area is delivering improvements in partnerships by setting up a team of national advisers; developing the SEN national performance framework; encouraging best practice and support for parents; integrating children's services—an issue highlighted in Every Child Matters; collaborative work including a joint Department for Education and Skills and Department of Health implementation strategy for SEN; and the children's national service framework.
The report calls for greater consistency of high quality provision across services at a local level in order to make children who have special needs, and their parents, valued in the community. The report helpfully divides each concern into sections: where we are, where we want to be and action we will take. I am particularly encouraged to see sections on monitoring progress and supporting collaboration improvement in local authorities and schools. The Minister may want to comment further on this as monitoring is the key to success. It is not easy and it is time-consuming but, as the report says:
"Inclusion must be an integral part of whole school self-evaluation and improvement".
It can no longer be simply about a few dedicated individuals or direction from outside. As Ofsted pointed out, performance targets need to be set for pupils with SEN. Their achievements should be recognised and promoted. David Bell, the Chief Inspector of Schools, said:
"Setting challenging targets for pupils with SEN can help both pupils and schools focus their efforts and learning on achieving realistic goals".
Let me now turn to some of the issues that will need to be kept under review and given attention. The first is the statementing of children. A recent article in the Economist, which included an interview with my noble friend the Minister, pointed out that one child in six has some sort of special need but that two-thirds of the money spent on SEN goes to the 3 per cent who receive statements of their needs.
Statementing is stressful for parents and children. It is time-consuming so local authorities are trying to draw up fewer statements. Research commissioned by the DfES to investigate local authority practices and outcomes found great variations between authorities and suggests that in some LEAs pupils with learning, behavioural and social difficulties now have their needs met without statements; pupil attainment does not seem to suffer. Statements follow the child and are not discontinued. I have heard of some schools applying for statements to get the extra money that goes with a child who is statemented as all SEN money is spent in other ways, for example on extra staffing. The issue of statements needs to be looked at in some detail.
Not surprisingly, authorities with high levels of deprivation also have a high proportion of SEN pupils, with or without statements. It seems that anti-poverty strategies may reduce the number of pupils

673
diagnosed with SEN, pointing to the need for systems to work together at a local level. Local authorities with high levels of deprivation need to be vigilant to ensure that needs are met. In a Times Educational Supplement article, John Wright, a spokesman for the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice, said:
"Whether a child's needs are met depends upon their individual parent or carer being able to police their local authority. It is inevitable that children of less advantaged parents are less likely to receive the provision their needs call for".
This is unacceptable. It is something that the report is trying to avoid but it is a difficult problem. How can we make the implications of the report serve all children and all parents?
With money being delegated to schools, they have choices on how to spend it. Some schools are doing extraordinary jobs. A feature in the Times described the efforts of a state secondary school in Tring. It has educated children with a wide variety of disabilities. The head of learning support said:
"You can't drop a child in and expect everything to just happen. A huge amount of engineering needs to go on. It's amazing how you become inventive at getting over obstacles".
The team there has developed a system where a child who needs help at lunchtime can be accompanied by a classmate; computer games clubs occupy children with Asperger's syndrome; class material is translated into Braille; circles of friends provide volunteers to play with isolated children; and the staff meets fortnightly to discuss every child with special needs. In this kind of situation, it is not only children with special needs who benefit, but also the other children who are involved in befriending and social care. Of course, all schools will not provide such a service but many are. Is there an intention to share good practice? Even with good practice, how do we overcome the desperate shortage of SEN teachers in secondary schools?
Some pupils will continue to need special schools. In the Economist article, the Minister said that she sees the situation not as "either/or", but as "both/and". Presumably, we should be able to rely on specialist schools and teachers to advise and mentor others. How will this work in practice? She also said that, "We need to get very clever quite quickly". Can systems move as quickly as we want them to?
Yesterday, I had a discussion with the SEN co-ordinator in the school where I am a governor. In this school, 136 children out of 445 are designated as having special needs. As she pointed out, some of these special needs are due to deprivation, poor family relationships, a negative view of schooling in the family and recent immigration where trauma, speech difficulties and physical problems may be present. I asked whether SEN could be worked through and whether a child could become a high achiever. She said yes, but that there needs to be not only good organisation in the school, with committed staff time and sufficient adults in the classroom, but effective organisation surrounding the child and his or her family. Collaboration between educational, medical and social services has to be extremely good—a recurring theme for children's services everywhere. I think that this is apparent, and in some localities this
674
collaboration is happening well, but it is a challenge for people to come out of specialisms and see a whole child or a whole family. Those working in schools such as school doctors, nurses and dentists may find this less of an issue, but access and follow-through for agencies outside the school can be problematic. Is the Minister optimistic about getting that sorted out?
The co-ordinator and two head teachers to whom I spoke emphasised the problem for pupils with SEN transferring from primary to secondary school. This is known to be difficult for pupils who do not have special needs. It must be traumatic for those who do. Not only are they faced with change with a bigger environment, new teachers and a variety of new teachers, but also with new subjects and different learning support assistants in each new class. In some cases learning mentors can follow the child from primary to secondary school to help them to settle. In the school where I am a governor there are two learning mentors who act as key workers on transfer to secondary school. They are paid from the Excellence in Cities budget. In Wandsworth the NSPCC is running a pyramid club doing work looking at how to improve transfer systems. Is the Minister aware of that and will she look at the outcomes? Again, good practice will be important.
In conclusion to my introduction to what I am sure will be a fascinating debate, let me simply say how much I welcome any effort to improve education generally and, in this case, the education of children with special needs. I think that this report will give a boost to teachers, parents and children. It puts the focus clearly upon the needs of children and provides a strategy for carrying out reform. I know that the Minister, with her interest in this aspect of education, will follow progress carefully, as shall we all. I beg to move for Papers.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for giving us the chance to debate this document. I am also grateful to my Chief Whip because if he had not refused to have the Statement on this subject repeated in this House I would have had to fight for a share of 20 minutes and not even be certain of getting anything rather than being able to make a decent speech on the subject. The noble Baroness has done us a great favour in bringing this matter before us in a way that allows us a proper debate.
This debate is also a great illustration of the virtues of having Ministers in the House of Lords. You are able to choose people with experience and quality and set them at an unfashionable subject within the department which the more publicity-conscious Ministers do not want to have too much to do with. It is not a case of dealing with people who chop and change every year as they fight for promotion. An extremely well thought-out and effective document has been produced. When the Secretary of State sees it, puts his own name on it and leaves no trace of its

675
author, there is not a squeak of protest. Over the Peers' Entrance we should have the legend, "Abandon ambition all ye who enter here".
By and large I am full of praise for the document. I read it with an uplifted heart. I am an optimist about these matters. I agree with many of the things that are said in the document and support many of the directions that are taken within it. I certainly do not have it in my heart to be too carping about it. I think, though, that one ought to be realistic. There is a long way from where we are now to where we wish to be. We are not taking a stroll through the Elysium Fields; we are in something much closer to a briar patch.
Even the noble Baroness's own ministry has bits that are not up to the standard which she is hoping will be displayed by her special educational needs colleagues. She will know that I have fights and difficulties with another part which is not her responsibility. I was told at one remove by that department the other day with regard to a project which it had initiated and sponsored that it did not know how many schools had taken part or what the results were, and that it was not that department's responsibility to know. There had been an initiative and they had the publicity for that but now they were moving on to other things and they did not really care what had happened. However, that is not the message that shines through the document. I very much hope that the spirit that the noble Baroness has infused into the document will be allowed to come through in execution. If that means we have to have another six years of Labour government, that will be some compensation.
The thing that pleases me most is the emphasis on personalised learning and the involvement of children in developing the way in which their own particular needs are addressed. Where that happens in schools—and it does happen in some schools; as the House knows, I am editor of the Good Schools Guide so I get a fair view of what is going on, at least in some parts of the education sector—it makes an enormous difference to all children because everyone has needs of some kind. Everyone is different. The old-fashioned school in which the ethos is, "We have this way of doing things and you take it and make the best of it" is not the best way of doing things for anyone, or only for very few children. A school that is much more responsive to each individual child— that necessarily emerges in a really good inclusive school—is a great bonus to everyone who is involved in it. Some schools still like to hide the fact that they do well with special needs pupils because they think that it will frighten off the bright kids. I believe that that attitude is beginning to go and that parents understand these matters better than teachers fear.
However, some real backwaters exist in this area. I have had a fight with a university department which has its own particular way of doing things and has not made proper effort to compromise in favour of a student with multiple disabilities. Bits of the education world have just not caught up with the way in which the spirit of special needs education has changed and the way in which the requirements that we as a society place upon it have changed. An awful lot of schools
676
when faced with a child in a wheelchair are reluctant to make the necessary changes. Some are delighted to make those changes and love the challenge involved. One school I know created a physics laboratory on the ground floor where there was none before so that a particular child could take her A-level there. Such schools undertake those projects with real enthusiasm. The occasions on which one comes across that are a real delight.
However, there is an awful long way to go in educating schools generally on how to open their hearts to the gospel of inclusion which is being preached by the Minister. It will not be an easy road. The document refers to spreading best practice and giving encouragement in this way and that way. I just hope that it works because there is an awful lot to do to overcome the way we do things now.
I am also encouraged by what the document says about special schools. One of my doubts about the way the Government were going concerned whether they were being sufficiently supportive of special schools. I believe that the place that special schools have in the system is now recognised. I would take the matter a little further than the document. One of the great benefits that I see of special schools is that they offer time out for a lot of kids who have special needs not of the deepest forms but of the kind that can lead to emotional and behavioural problems at school. Spending a year or two catching up and consolidating their confidence in a place that really understands and can support their special needs can make an enormous difference to children. There are a number of schools that do that extremely well, and such schools need relationships which run a long way beyond just a one-to-one with one or two local secondary schools. Networks that are larger than just close relationships have to develop. It is like dealing with specialist departments in the National Health Service: those which are more specialist have to have a very wide reach, and sometimes some of the structures we think of for the health service cut off the supply of patients to the specialist centres because we have structured the payment system wrongly. We have to be very careful not to lose these great centres of excellence in dealing with individual kinds of special needs; we need to allow their networks to be wide enough.
I am delighted, too, with the move away from statements. The document is very optimistic about some of the effects that may come of it, in releasing educational psychologists back into schools, which has become a rarity in many areas. It had become a very overworked service, with little time to follow up the people who were diagnosed and provide the correct service. I do not know an individual case well enough to know yea or nay, but if that is the effect the document has, that would be extremely encouraging and absolutely the right direction in which to move.
My dream is to get back to a position—or perhaps it never existed, so perhaps to get to a position—where the local authority is the child's friend, where it is not a matter of the local authority battling desperately to keep within budget because it has no free money left within the education budget, and where—if another

677
two kids with autism turn up—it has to start raiding "care for the elderly" to keep within its capping limits. That is an immensely destructive position to have got into. It' we can start attacking the pressure put on local authorities by funding, and allow them—as I think most of them would wish—to become the advisers and friends of the parent and child with SEN, so that authorities can really help and point them in the right direction, that would be immensely constructive.
I would go further. If we run down this road, I would look at the end and say that for the serious cases we will centrally provide individual funding, that those with, for example, severe autism will be funded by the National Health Service. Local authorities should not have to worry; it should not be like being hit by a bomb every time one of these children appears within their area; they should be able to rely on central funding to deal with these cases. When it comes to the funding that authorities distribute to schools and on which they provide advice, that is indeed the responsibility of the authorities because that is within their purview. However, the more serious cases—the ones which verge on illnesses—are best dealt with by central and national funding. Then perhaps we can find ourselves in a position where local education authorities do not find themselves as pressured as they are now.
I am also extremely encouraged by what the document says on research. There are several mentions of research—doing projects, seeing what the results are, measuring, and trying to develop something along the line of evidence-based treatment. That is a new thing in education—my goodness it is! We have had this in the health service for a little while, but educational research is an absolute miasma of unfinished, unsupported, undocumented activities. Nothing ever seems to be carried through; nothing ever seems to be done with the quality one would hope for; and at the end of the day none of it seems to underpin what is provided in schools or by local education authorities. If we can take on the example of NICE and build on that as an example—and I am enormously encouraged by what the document says on this— then we will have the start of a real understanding of how best to deal with an extremely complex problem of special educational needs.
Would the noble Baroness be prepared to sit down with me and discuss a protocol for the many groups outside the mainstream that have methods that may help with special educational needs? These groups run from small outfits to DDAT. Such a protocol would clarify the evidence needed by the Department for Education and Skills in order for it to agree whether these methods are worth investigating and can be taken on by the department for a proper study to see if the methods work. At the moment it seems extremely difficult for anybody to get to that stage. I agree that these things have to be initiated outside the department, that they have to be carried out with the enthusiasm of one or two individuals and with the funding that they can obtain, but this situation cannot continue—there has to be a way in which the Department for Education and Skills can get involved, because the funding for a proper study is £500,000 or £ 1 million and then it has to be done in
678
exactly the way the DfES wants if it has to have any function. Thus there has to be an interface there, and I would love to clarify it.
Lastly, I just hope that the news we have had today is two more nails in the coffin of the misuse of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. Parents and children who look as if they have special educational needs or problems should be treated with enormous sympathy. The presumption should be that they have a problem and it is our responsibility to help them find out what that problem is and deal with it. Far too many people who have children with the more behaviourally accented forms of SEN have talked to me over the past few years about the brushes they have had with social services and about their fear of being tipped into this terrible diagnosis at which point their children and family are ripped away from them There are undoubtedly cases which deserve to go down that road but the initial interface should not be one of antagonism and danger; it should be one of friendship and support.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, perhaps I may say first how welcome the Government's strategy document is, if only because it is always good to see something after waiting for it for quite a long time. I welcome the chance to debate the document today and I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for making it possible to debate it so very soon after it was published, which is excellent.
There are many very good things, as I am sure all noble Lords would agree, about the document. For one thing, up to a point it is what it set out to be, which is a statement of strategy rather than a quick fix. The document takes notice of some of the adverse criticisms of present provision in the Audit Commission's most recent publication on special needs; and it recognises in particular the patchiness and variability of the provision currently available.
The document recognises the need for proper research, which I very much welcome, in a number of areas where it is necessary to know rather than to guess or theorise about what works and what does not work, and it acknowledges, as has long been acknowledged, the crucial importance of training for all teachers in identifying the needs of individual children and developing ways of meeting those needs with sensitivity.
However, in one respect at least the document is disappointing. I do not think I shall be the only person to be disappointed here. Though in some ways the strategy seems to be quite bold, it is basically the same strategy that has been in place for nearly 30 years. No fundamental questions are raised in this document. For example, though there are hints that there should be fewer statements for children, that is largely on the grounds that to issue fewer statements would lead to less bureaucracy and fewer delays in intervention. The question of whether there should be any statements is never raised and it seems that this bears on something the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about the adversarial position that parents and

679
children find themselves in with the local authority. Although the document shows no sign of an adversarial position, the question of how the issue has arisen and how it can be eliminated is not addressed. Therefore, the question whether statements ought to be issued should have been raised.
Statements are referred to in the document as a safeguard for some children, but the degree to which they work as a safeguard and the extent to which local authorities are committed by their contents to full provision to meet a child's needs is not raised. For example, it is widely believed that what now goes into a child's statement is dictated more by what an authority believes it can afford than by the actual needs of its subject.
In a truly strategic document, surely the foundations of old strategies should be critically examined. Certainly the Audit Commission raised the question whether statementing had had its day and had outlived its usefulness. The idea of special needs, which seemed so fruitful 30 years ago, now seems a little outworn. Again, that question is not raised in the document, although there are hints. Surely the question should be raised again and examined.
As I previously reminded your Lordships, in the 1970s a line was drawn between social deprivation and special educational needs, even though the number of free meals in a school was taken as a broad indication of the number of children who would have special needs. In the 1970s, it seemed helpful to avoid the vocabulary used for special education hitherto and instead to concentrate on what help a child would need in order to make progress at school, rather than on the nature of his disability. The old words such as deafness, blindness, mental retardation, maladjustment and autism were on the way out and the concept of special needs was introduced as an umbrella term. But now it seems to me that it is time to think again. We have perhaps fallen into the opposite trap of thinking of children with special needs as all of a kind—all needing one thing; namely, inclusion in mainstream schools wherever possible.
I realise that to some extent we are bound in the matter of inclusion by the Disability Discrimination Act 2002. We are committed to allowing parents to require almost as a right that their disabled children should attend mainstream schools. But that Act was based on the taken-for-granted assumption that inclusion must always be in a child's best interests. He should be denied it only if his parents eccentrically did not want it for him or that it would harm the interests of other children in the school if he were in the regular classroom.
The document contains plenty of hints that the Government recognise that that is not always the right assumption. Some of the examples of the imaginative use of special schools and special units contain many such hints. I believe that special schools or units may be the best option for, for example, autistic children who may suffer deeply in the relatively rackety environment, inevitably, of a mainstream school and flourish well with the comparative peace of a small school—and a special school at that.
680
However, we must avoid at all costs the danger, well recognised by the Government, that we pretend to inclusion when in fact it means exclusion from school of the most difficult and therefore the most needy children. I witnessed something of that kind long ago in the 1970s in Oslo. At that time, Norway was uniquely proud of its policy of what used to be called "integration". However, the most intractable children, and those who were most severely disabled, did not go to school at all. That danger is real if we persist in thinking that all special needs children, whatever their problems—whether they are sensory, intellectual or emotional—fall into one vast category of those who can best be helped to learn in mainstream schools, provided that the staffing is good enough.
Perhaps not only statements of special educational needs but the concept of special education needs are due for a rethink. A truly strategic document ought surely to have examined such fundamental issues as these. I am concerned in my suspicion that to concentrate too much on the blanket, catch-all concept of special educational needs is a mistake by the fact that there are two great grounds for optimism in this area of education. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I am an optimist in this field.
The great grounds for optimism at present are the result of government thinking which has nothing specifically to do with special educational needs. The first of these is the Government's admirable development of early years education. I must pay tribute to the work that has gone and is going into this field of endeavour, which is of enormous importance to all children. Early education, early intervention, enables children to develop their social and communication skills before the age of five, when it may be too late for many of them to overcome the disadvantages they started with.
The second ground for my optimism is the new flexibility to be introduced, as I sincerely hope, into the education of 14 to 19 year-olds. This will have huge benefits for many young people currently included among those with special educational needs. I urge the Government to bear this in mind, among other considerations, when they must finally decide what to do about the Tomlinson report.
Lastly, I return to the statement. The aspiration to use special schools as centres of excellence providing research or sharing their expertise with mainstream schools sadly made me smile. The words used were almost identical to those used 30 years ago with the same aspiration and hope. I believe in that hope but it seems to me that very little has changed in that field in 30 years. And still more, the brave goal for collaboration between different agencies all working together in perfect harmony with the common aim of the interests of the child made me sad.
So much work has gone into an attempt to bring that about that I almost despair of its ever happening. But, an optimist must not be cynical. Miracles can happen. Perhaps, as I hope, the new children's trusts may be exactly what is needed to bring off the miracle in this case.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, this is a subject dear to my heart. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for bringing it to our attention. I declare an interest both as a mother of a wonderful daughter, with special needs, and because, as a result of watching and sharing in her experience in mainstream schools until she was 16, she became the inspiration and template for a school which I founded 12 years ago called the New School, Butterstone. She was able to attend that school for just over two years and remembers them as the happiest experience—indeed, the only happy school experience—she ever had.
The school caters for "educationally fragile" children—children who do not have severe or complex difficulties but who have special needs ranging from specific learning difficulties such as dyspraxia or dyslexia to children with Asperger's syndrome or autistic spectrum disorders, children who are school refusers, elective mutes or those who have developed other responses to the stress of the experience of mainstream school such as developing whole body rashes or losing all their hair. Many of the children have mild to moderate learning difficulties, others are quite academically able and, within the range of difficulties they have, they are all significantly underachieving in relation to their potential and are finding the experience of mainstream overwhelming. At the same time, they have also experienced significant teasing and bullying at school as a consequence of their difficulties and are socially isolated both at home and at school. The school consists of 40 boys and girls aged 12 to 18 who come from all over Scotland. They board weekly and the vast majority of them are funded by the local education authority.
It is the twin experiences of watching my daughter's struggle and of the subsequent growth and development of the school—described by many parents as the most inclusive place they know—that underpin my remarks this afternoon.
I have read the Government's report with great interest and find that there is much to commend in it as a way forward in meeting the needs of children with SEN. Indeed, the past 12 years has already seen great strides in the understanding of and provision for such children in all their varied and often complex forms. I hope that the report will maintain the momentum and address seriously the deficiencies which it has so rightly identified. We are, after all, talking about nearly one in six of the school population, and it is a key area of concern.
I endorse entirely the aim to personalise learning for all children and to make education more responsive to the needs of individual children. I support in large part the four key areas which have been identified. Early intervention is key. Better interagency working, parent support, better childcare facilities and better resourcing have all been identified as areas urgently requiring improvement. Increased working with the voluntary sector is also a highly desirable way forward with all it offers for shared learning and better outcomes.
682
I have some concerns about the section called Removing barriers to learning. Rightly, the report says that inclusion is about much more than the types of school children attend. It is, crucially, about the quality of the school experience and how far children are helped to learn to achieve and participate fully in the life of the school. It also identifies, rightly, a concern about the lack of clarity over the future role of special schools within an inclusive education system. Their role seems to be reduced in the future to providing only for those with the severest difficulties and most complex needs.
The issue is what inclusion really means and I question the assumption of an automatic connection between inclusion and mainstream. The paradox is that in reality some children will feel and be more included in the real sense in a special school than if they were in a mainstream school— however good and well provided for—and go on to achieve more academically and find a place in society. Indeed, if the experience of my school is anything to go by, it has been precisely the experience of mainstream which has been deeply and damagingly excluding to some children. This is no reflection on the quality or the provision of the children's previous schools, which have been good, competent, caring schools. But inclusion is above all about that quality of experience, of feeling included, which in turn has everything to do with the total environment of the school in relation to the child's particular needs and the attitudes of young adolescents.
Professor Tomlinson's seminal report on inclusive learning in 1996 speaks of the different learning needs and learning styles we all have, from the most able to the most disabled, and the pivotal influence of the learning environment which we all have to have to be helped to learn. For some, such as the fragile child, a mainstream school is simply overwhelming both in its scale and nature. The hurly-burly of the big secondary—the noise in the dining room, the rush on the stairs, the bustle in the playground and the size of the classes—all coupled with the upheavals of adolescence leave the most robust uncertain, trying to find out who they are, coping with emotional, hormonal upheavals as well as the pressures of academic achievement, and so on.
I am never off my knees in thankfulness that I shall never again have to be an adolescent. It does not take much, therefore, to imagine that if you have Asperger's, or you are dyspraxic and always making a fool of yourself in gym or games, or if there is teasing and bullying because you are just that little bit different, slow and unable to cope with the complications of friendships—if you have any, and probably you do not—and all you know is that in any situation you are the person nobody wants as a partner, that it is a short step to school-refusing, or the kind of behaviour which may get you into trouble, or the physiological reactions I mentioned earlier. Self-confidence goes to rock bottom, self-esteem ceases to exist and learning cannot take place. Additional resources, auxiliary help, better trained teachers, a good learning support department—all of

683
which are priorities now—are not the answer for these children because it is the total learning environment which creates the barrier to learning.
For those, and many other children with SEN, the starting point is a much smaller learning environment where different needs can be acknowledged and celebrated and where with individualised educational programmes even a class of seven takes an experienced teacher all his or her time to be sure that all needs are being met.
The Government say that they want to see special schools providing education for children with
"the most severe and complex needs, and sharing their specialist skills and knowledge to support inclusion in mainstream schools".
I urge the Government to recognise that true inclusion comes in many forms, and simple mainstreaming is not the answer for many whose needs are not the most severe and complex but simply different. We talk about celebrating diversity in our society. Why cannot we celebrate a wider, more flexible range of provision, which is essentially needs-led, which recognises that even in the most perfect mainstream school the best may not be brought out of every child and cannot help them to grow into confident and independent citizens, valued for the contribution they make?
It has always seemed to me a most disturbing irony that as the Government have been developing "specialist" schools with enthusiasm, it is the "special" schools at the SEN end that are being phased out. My school is a place where, for the first time, the children feel truly included, valued for who they are, warts and all, where they experience friendships for the first time—including those with Asperger's or with autistic spectrum disorders. And as a direct result of being in an appropriate learning environment they discover that they have abilities they never dreamed of and achieve more than anyone believed possible.
The inclusion development programme is excellent in many ways in that it is predicated on partnership programmes with all the relevant agencies, drawing on shared knowledge and expertise, developing an evidence base of what works and building a consensus on how to implement good practice most effectively. That is precisely what we do at the New School where we are building partnerships with several local authorities and are recognised as part of a range of provision depending on need. For example, our work with school refusers is currently seen as a particularly helpful service, and children can be fed back into the system when and if they are ready. But one must be very careful of those transitions with fragile or vulnerable children. They are difficult to manage.
I urge the Government to apply their programme flexibly, using the criterion of meeting individual need, rather than some inexorable process of working towards the mainstreaming of all but those with the most severe and complex needs. To do so will be to negate all the best practice and the achievement of true inclusion.
Lastly, perhaps I may say a brief word on parents. We talk in my school about fragile children and fragile parents. I speak as a fragile parent. They do not seem to
684
have featured much in the report's consultations. The report speaks of a "culture of mistrust" which is right and springs from the very real anxiety that parents so often have that mainstreaming their children is just not right for them, coupled with the fear that their views are not heard or do not have much weight and thus their only protection comes through a statement.
In Scotland, the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill proposes to do away with the record of need—the equivalent to a statement in Scotland—and the requirement that that lays on local authorities to consider and take account of parental views. For many parents, it is a kind of crutch. They feel that it is the one way in which their views will be heard. It appears that the proposals in the support for learning Bill will be followed in England, and that is causing real anxiety for many. Parents must be part of the partnership programme, coupled with the acknowledgement that some of their children's needs may not be met in the mainstream setting. That would do so much to allay fear and suspicion, which springs from the feeling of not being heard.
Of course, many children with SEN will do more than just cope and will thrive in mainstream if the Government achieve all the objectives that they are laying out and if the right levels of support and adequate training and commitment are available from the teachers, whose task is already enormous. I applaud all those who can and do. But, in the interests of best practice, a differentiated range of provision must remain so that all children's needs can be met in the most appropriate way possible. If that is not the case, I fear that we condemn many who, like my daughter, drowned quietly at the back of the class because her needs were not so severe. I cannot believe that that is what the Government really want.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, first, I express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Massey for introducing this important debate on special educational needs. Secondly, I congratulate the Government on producing their report, Removing Barriers to Achievement, which I wholeheartedly welcome.
As many noble Lords will know from my previous statements in your Lordships' House, my concern for the interests and protection of children has been a major priority—so much so that I have found myself at odds with the Government whom I support. I refer, of course, to the issues of promoting homosexuality in schools, reducing the age of consent and the adoption of children by homosexuals. It has always seemed to me that, although perhaps the Government wished to extend freedom for the adult, in their haste in such matters they did so at the expense of the protection afforded to the child.
However, the Government's document that we are debating today goes a very long way in the right direction towards making greater educational provision for children who have special needs and towards ensuring that they receive the best education possible and are able to enjoy the best quality of life possible. For that, the Government must be applauded.

685
Of course, very many schools up and down the country will have pupils of all ages and at all levels of education to whom special educational needs are applicable. Indeed, my wife is a governor of Pownall Green Primary School at Bramhall near Stockport, where 12 per cent of the pupil population of 460 have special educational needs. For years, the school has had a special needs action policy, which it conscientiously applies and reviews every two years. However, in addition to those categorised as having special educational needs, the school also has, on a list of concern, a number of children who are slow learners and to whom extra help is provided. The school has received beacon school status and the headmistress, Mrs Helen Ashcroft, was invited to sit on an advisory committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, dealing with creativity in the curriculum.
However, in my contribution to this debate, I shall concentrate on those with the greatest need—those with the severest disabilities and those who need the maximum attention. I wish to concentrate on those in an educational establishment where the ratio of teachers and carers to one pupil can be 1:1, 2:1 or sometimes 3:1. I refer to the Royal School for the Deaf, Manchester, which is a charity established in 1823 before, I believe, Manchester was afforded parliamentary representation.
For more than 180 years, that school has been catering for children with deafness and other disabilities—often a multiplicity of disabilities, both physical and mental. So much so has that been the case that very shortly the school, of which Her Majesty the Queen is patron, will change its name to "The Royal School for the Deaf and Communication Disorders". As the school is non-maintained, a large amount of the funding comes from the voluntary sector. As I have recently become a little involved in that work, I should declare my interest.
The Royal School for the Deaf, Manchester, costs in the region of £5 million a year to run. Currently, it has 78 pupils. About one-third of those are from Greater Manchester; approximately one-third are from elsewhere in the north-west; and a further one-third are from all over the United Kingdom. Half the pupils are residential and a number of those are in the school's care 365 days a year. At present, there is a short waiting list for places.
All the children at the school have exceptionally complex learning and social needs with a range of additional disabilities, including multi-sensory impairment, exceptionally low cognitive ability and additional communication needs. The school also admits a significant number of children within the autistic spectrum, children with cerebral palsy and those with challenging behaviour alongside other special educational needs. The school is often referred to as "end of continuum" as it takes children and young people whose placements in mainstream and special schools have broken down, more often than not because their complex needs are being compounded by their challenging behaviour. For some, the only alternative would be some form of secure provision.
686
Having tried briefly to acquaint your Lordships with the work of the Royal School and the children that it takes, I shall now quickly address the Government's strategy for special educational needs, which, of course, builds on the strategy Every Child Matters. The strategy illustrates a continuation, starting with early intervention and working in partnership, which includes working with parents, and it looks at ways of tackling bureaucracy. Those can obviously be wholly supported.
However, the Royal School for the Deaf, Manchester, feels that some areas have not been fully addressed and it has some genuine concerns, with which I am persuaded to agree. In the Government's document, pages 44 to 48 are appropriate to the Royal School. The last sentence of paragraph 2.29 on page 44 includes the words:
"There are concerns about the high cost of such placements".
Although that is a general and not a specific statement, the Royal School is worried. Although it has received a glowing report from Ofsted, the Royal School is concerned that the document may not fully recognise that high costs reflect the high need of provision required. The costs for a day student at the Royal School are approximately £15,000 a year but, for a 52-week residential pupil with a multiplicity of disabilities, requiring education and care on a ratio of one-to-one or higher, the cost can be as much as £180,000 a year.
The fear that arises from the document's comment is that, if the costs are to be trimmed, the quality of provision will also suffer and that will be counter to what the Government's strategy is all about. We feel that there must be a clear realisation of the costs involved in providing education and care for children who suffer from the worst of disability and behaviour difficulties. Although the Government's paper addresses broad issues, it appears, we feel, not fully and specifically to address the needs of children with the most complex difficulties.
In our view, there is certainly a need to ensure that those children do not lose the resources and skills required. Unfortunately, at present, there is a desperate shortage of suitable support for children with complex needs who have additional mental health problems. Regrettably, there is a lack of skilled staff to deal with the needs of complex children, particularly in regard to child and adolescent mental health services. We feel that there must be very positive action on the part of government to ensure that skills and resources are in place if the strategy is to succeed in respect of those children about whom I have spoken.
In conclusion, I hope that I have highlighted the fears and concerns of those at the Royal School who, day in and day out, provide service to those children whose need is great. I hope that in reading this debate the Government will enter into a positive dialogue with those at the sharp end who provide the education and care for those who need it the most. That, I feel, is the approach that will achieve the greatest success for these children and young people.
5 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, all must applaud the Government's sentiments as set out in the recent document. For me, the most important word in the document is "support". It is not only the fragile—a word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater—children who need support. Their fragile parents and often their rather fragile teachers, who sometimes encounter cases of extreme behaviour with which they do not know how to deal, also need support.
When I first entered the House 14 years ago the late Lord Joseph, who as Keith Joseph was at different times Secretary of State for Health and Secretary of State for Education, asked me to be a patron for Home-Start, a charitable organisation using trained volunteers to give friendly, unthreatening help to families who find it difficult to cope with their children up to the age of five. He told me that Home-Start was one of his favourite charities because early support for parents with what we used to call difficult children was essential. Today Home-Start UK has 330 schemes running in the UK and for the British forces in Germany and Cyprus. It helps with more than 27,000 families and nearly 61,000 children. It has had, as it were, a baby, Home-Start International, which has more than 100 schemes all over the world. I have the privilege of being chairman of that baby. I hope I am not mixing metaphors. Good practice is being shared and I am sure that those in the DfES today who are developing the strategy for early intervention to identify and to help SEN children will acknowledge their debt to Home-Start.
The second group of people whom I believe need support are teachers. At this point I should declare that I have been a teacher all my adult life, teaching in both the maintained and the independent sectors. I am very proud of the city technology college that I have served as chairman of governors for the past 10 years. Landau Forte College is truly comprehensive, set as it is in the former industrial centre of inner city Derby. It has an admissions procedure that, I am glad to say, is approved by the DfES. It was an excellent idea to have city technology colleges and I am glad that the present Government continue to support them.
Naturally, at Landau Forte College we have our full share of SEN children. Some have physical disabilities such as sight and learning impairment, some are slow learners, some have speech impediments, one or two use wheelchairs and some can hardly read when they come to the college at age 11. Every effort is made to integrate those children, giving them self-confidence, realistic aspirations for the future and a sense of being valued and true members of the community.
Our special educational needs department consists of three full-time and four learning support teachers. The college places high priority on budgeting provision for SEN support. That is what I mean by support for the teachers. The children who need more help than can be given in a large class can be given expert, individual help quietly, on their own. I do not like to use the phrase "withdrawn from a class" because I see those children as
688
being given extra-special treatment. That is how it is seen and the specialist SEN teachers co-operate fully because they are colleagues of the subject teachers.
By the way, I do not believe that there is any shame in the phrase "special educational need". One of the aims at Landau Forte College at the moment is to deliver an even more rigorous and demanding curriculum to those at the top end of the academic scale. They, too, have their special educational needs.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that there is a great diversity and range among the different kinds of SEN, but there is one group of children with special needs who need more help than a mainstream school—even a very good one—can possibly provide. Those are the boys and girls with extreme behavioural difficulties. I mean extreme. We have plenty of naughty children and we can cope with them, but I am talking about something that is very serious indeed. Nowadays, we call it ADHD. It has taken me a long time to ensure that I can remember what it stands for—attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. There are also those with emotional and behavioural disorders that can be very worrying too.
Such children need extra, specialised help. I worry that if such a boy or girl remained in a regular class he or she could be harmed by being given perhaps too much of the drug Ritalin which is used to calm and, I suppose, sedate. On the other hand, the presence of just one aggressive, hyperactive pupil can disrupt the school experience of an entire class—one person versus, say, 29. Exclusion from mainstream schooling, yes, but inclusion in a special school must be facilitated. The present bureaucratic system of tribunals, sometimes reversing the decision of a school principal, is damaging to the morale of the principal and of the staff and does the school and the student concerned no good.
Of course, it is important to have an overall special educational need strategy hacked by government, but the best way to implement it is by encouraging and suggesting good practice in the schools themselves. All good teachers want to get the best possible results from their students. However, if noble Lords will forgive me, orders and regulations piled on from on high can be rather dispiriting. A focused and enthusiastic senior management team, working with the rest of the staff, can motivate students and encourage them to develop the necessary skills naturally and comfortably. Good practice is then developed as a joint project.
I will finish by mentioning a few of the ideas that have been pioneered at Landau Forte College to give help to students with special needs, both those who are "underachieving" and those who are capable of achieving much more than the norm. First, there is the structure. We divide classes into smaller groups at key stage 4 in the basic subjects of mathematics, English and science. We made eight groups across a year group, where there were six before. We operate a longer school day, to give extra time for individual help or for quiet study for those who have no place to study at home.
A personal tutorial system has proved a good idea in Derby. Each tutor group is run by a member of staff who has his or her buddy, and the two of them become

689
almost mentors to the children in their tutor group. It is a vertical tutor group down the ages, so there are two students from each year in the group. Often, the older students in year 12 and year 13 are natural mentors to the younger ones.
Strong communication between the school and the parents is vital. Landau Forte College produces a school guide and a workbook for every student. Parents are encouraged to look to see what their daughter or son is doing, and we like them to sign when they have seen it and the child has done the work. Parents' evenings can be a nightmare both for parents and teachers, as I know only too well. There are long queues of people waiting to be seen and talked to. I once said, "I am the mother of x"—I will not say which of my children it was—and the only answer that I got from the teacher was, "Oh dear".
We have a student guide system, and we endeavour to give a clear explanation of the system and the learning objectives. We share the assessment criteria with those who are being assessed. These are just a few ideas that have worked for us. There are so many good ideas in many schools throughout the country, and I visited a great number of such schools when I was on the education trust for the Wolfson Foundation. I look forward to seeing the development of better provision for S EN overall in the country over the next few years.
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow a Member of your Lordships' House who has had such a long and important career in teaching, especially in a debate such as this. I hope to come to the point that she made about allowing teachers to teach and riot expecting them to be social workers and take on too many other roles. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and I join my thanks with those of many other noble Lords who have spoken, for this important and timely debate.
I will concentrate on the education of children in public care and the implications of this important document for their education. Today, I visited a children's home run by Shaftesbury Homes and Arethusa. Their education specialist said how much she welcomed the changes that the Government made in the Education Act 2002, in prioritising the access to education admissions for looked-after children and in the statutory obligation to provide children with education within 21 days following their exclusion from school. I come to this debate with a prejudice in favour of what the Minister has come up with, because what she has done in the past has been so advantageous to the group of children about whom I am most concerned.
Her Majesty's Government acknowledge that the access to education of looked-after children has not been sufficient. The Government wish to raise their achievement. More than half of these children experienced abuse or neglect before being taken into care. Perhaps more than any of our other children, they need the advantages that a good education can provide to help compensate for that lack of early nurture in their lives.
690
One in seven children in public care experiences more than three placements each year. Their placement with a foster family collapses once, twice or thrice a year. It is vital for the stability of placements that there is a stable educational place. I ask noble Lords to imagine what it is like for a foster family to take in a child who has perhaps had experience of neglect or abuse and the strain that that puts on that family. Now, imagine if that child is not in school in the regular school day, how difficult it will be for that family to keep that placement going. It is vital that children in care get the full school hours of a full school week. The Minister is concerned about the shortage of foster carers. In England, we are short of 6,000 foster carers. Better access to education for children in public care would facilitate the recruitment and retention of foster carers.
I appreciate the Government's recognition of the special needs of looked-after children and their aspiration to remove the barriers to achievement for all our children and for children with special educational needs. I welcome the personalisation of education and the tailoring of education as far as possible to the individual child; the desire for a better partnership between special and mainstream schools; the adjustments to performance tables so that they better reflect the efforts of schools to include children who are not average; the intention to improve teacher development in the postgraduate certificate in education and for newly qualified teachers, so that they understand the needs of special educational needs children; and the focus on training for school leadership, so that they too are better attuned to the needs of these children.
Special schools often envy the facilities available in mainstream schools. Teachers in special schools wish to share their specialist experience with mainstream schools. However, a special school in Lambeth said that it had approached the local secondary school, a large comprehensive, which had been in special measures, but was now an improving school. Its overtures had been rejected. Apparently, the secondary school wishes to hide its light under a bushel. It was good at managing and working with children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. However, it was afraid that if it gained a reputation of success in such work it would be given ever more children with these difficulties and that that would be too much for it to bear. So I ask the Minister how the Government will prevent schools being penalised for working successfully in these partnerships and with children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.
We should not ask teachers to do more than they are equipped to do. Teachers in France and Japan are expected to teach; they are not given the wide range of pastoral responsibilities assigned to our teachers. Teachers in Paris are not asked to run the after-school photography course or other extracurricular activities; they are there to teach. These extracurricular activities and pastoral care may offer great benefits, but, combined with the additional bureaucracy, are we being fair to teachers by asking them to undertake them?

691
A few years ago I had the great pleasure of attending the graduation ceremony of the Association of Child Psychotherapists. After the ceremony I spoke to a former teacher who said, "We ask too much of our teachers. We ask them to be social workers and child guidance counsellors. We should stop doing that". The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's recent report on schools and regeneration said that the biggest contribution schools can make to improving pupils' life chances is to help them attain well in their subjects and gain knowledge. If we ask teachers and schools to include more troubled children, we must properly resource schools and properly equip teachers to do it. Neither must that happen at the cost of other pupils.
There must always be alternative special schools for the children who are most difficult to manage, who have the most demanding needs or who do not quite fit into the mainstream, as the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said. I therefore welcome the training which I mentioned earlier and the development of an advance qualification for teachers in special educational needs, with a follow-on specialist qualification, to enable teachers to understand the needs of these children and work with them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, rightly emphasised the importance of partnership working. I welcome the strong emphasis which the document gives to such working. However, I remind the Minister that child and adolescent mental health services face some difficulties. If a child psychotherapist works face to face with a child, that work is registered and reported on. However, when the psychotherapist works with a staff group, that work can be very difficult to fund and nearly impossible to recognise. A child psychotherapist at a school in Lambeth told me that the NHS regarded his work in support of a staff group working with very difficult children as about as valuable as if he were playing a round of golf. This afternoon a clinical psychologist supporting staff in a children's home reiterated that point to me.
We need to be able to recognise that work. If we are to have inclusion we need a more emotionally literate front line. We need to support the front line in their stressful work with troubled children if we are to retain them in this field. Will the Minister undertake to look at this particular issue? I will write to her with more details.
I finish by warmly welcoming this document. Implementation will be challenging. However, if children in care are to thrive as they should, this is definitely a step in the right direction.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Massey for making this debate possible. I should like also to take the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend the Minister, whose knowledge and commitment to the subject are evident on just about every page of both the Green Paper, Every Child Matters, and the report which is the subject of this debate.
692
It is a debate that allows me to take a stab at coherently addressing some of the sights, sounds and experiences I have absorbed in these past almost seven years. I have been enormously privileged to have had access to, as it were, a front-row seat from which to observe the largely unreported and certainly under-appreciated improvements that have taken place in the provision of education for every child in the state sector. My years as chair of the General Teaching Council for England involved not only listening to the way in which the inclusion/exclusion debate was developing within the profession, but travelling the country looking at how practice was developing and being implemented on the ground.
I think that it is fair to say that, over the course of the 350 or so school visits I have made, I have been left with about a dozen memories that have not only informed my thinking generally but will remain with me for the rest of my life. And of these, at least half resulted from visits to special schools or, in a couple of cases, special needs departments within the mainstream. It may interest the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that one of my most vivid memories of last year was giving GCSE certificates to a group of looked after children in the north-west. It was extraordinary because none of the children received more than three certificates that day and most received one. The enthusiasm and excitement in the room were extraordinary, as much among the carers as the recipients. It was the very first group of children in care who had ever passed a GCSE in that region.
So in some ways I suppose that it is not all that surprising to be moved when one is dealing with the special needs sector. One has to be pretty hard of heart not to respond to the extraordinary efforts being made day in and day out by teachers and their assistants trying to build fulfilling lives for children who in many cases suffer every form of disadvantage imaginable. That said, noble Lords can well imagine how much I welcome and endorse the broad thrust of the Government's policy. The report sets out to identify and address the confusion of aims, means and priorities that have for years bedevilled this vital branch of education entitlement.
The report acknowledges that too many children have had to wait too long to have their needs met. It acknowledges that good provision is "patchy"—and I would say that that is being somewhat generous. It acknowledges that the levels of uncertainty that the policies of successive governments have helped to generate have to be a thing of the past. Lastly, it acknowledges that for too long too many children have been denied places within a mainstream setting because lack of provision, inadequate funding and a lack of specialist training make it too easy for schools to duck what some of them see as simply an additional burden.
I should like to address that last point at a little more length. As I see it, this is where we fail to understand the full nature of the opportunity that society is offered when asked to address the issue of disability. Schools certainly represent the best microcosm of society that I have ever come across.

693
Were I to be totally honest, I would have to admit that when I started off on my educational adventure in 1997, if I thought about special education at all, it was with the belief, or at least the assumption, that children with reasonably severe disabilities would probably be most advantageously educated separately from the mainstream. It did not take many visits to schools of all kinds to discover how very wrong I had been and almost more importantly, the degree to which I had been looking at only one side of the coin.
The benefits to be gained through integration or inclusion within a well staffed mainstream school with a committed head and an understanding local authority have to be seen to be believed, most particularly in terms of the atmosphere and ethos of the school as a whole. I found myself, not for the first time, entirely agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who I thought made this point rather better than I call. From the very earliest years, it can only be good for young people to come to terms with the fact that they live in an imperfect and sometimes very unfair world, and that, as individuals, they have the capacity to help make it that much better.
Imagine spending one's formative years in a relatively enclosed social environment, forming a constructive relationship, even a close friendship, with someone who will never be able to live life as fully as you, and then discovering that, through one's own efforts and through one's own response to their affection and need, one can enrich one's own and their lives in so many ways. I leave it to noble Lords' imaginations to think of a more productive and worthwhile way of enabling young people to develop as caring and sensitive citizens. These are anything but one-way relationships. What the disadvantaged child can offer back to the school is, as most headteachers will confirm, simply incalculable.
Yesterday afternoon, I visited a UNICEF project in Johannesburg. It existed as a children's support group through a co-operation with British Airways and the local council. It is dealing with problems on a scale far greater than any we can even begin to imagine, yet those problems are being addressed with an enthusiasm, a commitment and a desire for change which I am not sure that we constantly or consistently match.
In the time that remains to me, I should like to add a few practical observations. An enormous amount of debate has taken place in the past year or so about what is termed "workforce reform", including the role and the professional development of support staff. However, if one is to go to any school offering first-class provision for special needs children, one will see that most, if not all, of those seemingly intractable staffing problems are not only resolved but are part and parcel of the day-to-day functioning of the learning environment. Every qualified special needs teacher—of course, there are not enough of them—will confirm that they could not for one moment function without the support of their classroom assistants. In many cases, the ratio of assistants to teachers is two to one—occasionally even three to one. I have never understood why the experience of the special needs sector has not been drawn on more
694
heavily in thinking through the most appropriate composition for the professional workforce as a whole. The analogy is not perfect, but valuable lessons for schools' staffing and management are surely there to be learned.
On the subject of lessons learned, while the profession and the Government agonise over the introduction of a more personalised approach to teaching and learning, once again, there is abundant experience in SEN on which to draw, where nothing but a personalised approach has ever been appropriate. That is also true in developing experience of behaviour management and most particularly in the introduction and day-to-day use of technology-enabled learning, but that subject deserves a debate all of its own.
As the report indicates, partnerships, both formal and informal, have developed between special schools and the "engaged mainstream". That is in every way to be encouraged. Special schools have so much to offer, not just to those children with profound disabilities, to many of whom they represent the only lifeline outside of a caring home.
I also am a fully signed-up optimist, so I hope that noble Lords will not deem it inappropriate for me to end on a note of caution. In driving ahead with these overdue and, for the most part, admirable reforms, we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Even the best of our special schools will feel their future to be threatened by the now-overwhelming acceptance of the argument in favour of inclusion. However, within our special schools resides a vast wealth of experience, most particularly of differentiation between types of need—how to apply what, and when.
I recall one small and telling statistic, which is little more than a variation on that cited by my noble friend Lady Massey. At any one time, some 2 per cent of the school population attends special schools, yet more than 20 per cent of school-age children are in need of some kind of special needs support. Most of the specialised, highly trained staff in that area have historically been unable to offer their expertise to the vast majority of children who need it. The partnerships to which I have referred offer one way forward, but as the Government's policy develops, I hope that every effort will be made to secure the future of our special schools, while developing and spreading their expertise wherever it is needed. It is absolutely crucial that we develop a range of excellent provision that is sufficient to meet all needs. That was exactly the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater.
I am concerned that those who see state education as largely a number-crunching exercise will be tempted to seek "one-size-fits-all" solutions to uniquely individual problems. In saying that, I simply echo the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I sincerely hope that we can rely on successive governments to resist that temptation. Good education is expensive and it is likely to become even more so. Nowhere is that more true than in our constant search to improve the life chances of children with special needs.

695
Any society in the 21st century that wishes to consider itself civilised cannot seek to minimise that investment. If noble Lords feel in need of a clinching argument, they should look no further than the title of the Green Paper. It is because "every child matters".
5.36 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, all of us owe particular thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for securing this early debate. Perhaps I may echo the congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, to the Minister on her influence being clearly shown in the report before us.
Earlier this afternoon, I was at a conference in Portcullis House, under the sponsorship of Oona King MP. A film was shown that featured a group of dyslexic young people from Hackney. They were very talented young people. It was an outstanding production. It was outstanding because it reflected the determination of the film's director, herself dyslexic, to encourage the youngsters themselves to tell the story of how talent can be released by the right professional help. The film also made clear the importance of peer-group support and encouragement, rather than the mickey-taking and bullying that can happen all too often in the school programme and elsewhere, even from adults, who should know better.
Some youngsters who took part in the film joined us for a little while to hear some of the debate. They saw for themselves that all of us in Parliament really are concerned to reduce, and remove where possible, the very real obstacles that they face and, in the words of the Secretary of State for Education, to allow,
"all children to enjoy education which enables them to fulfil their talents and provides a firm foundation for adult life".
The report is a welcome step forward. It clearly acknowledges that despite what the Government had believed to be a robust legal framework and set of procedures, set down in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, far too many children with special education needs do not receive the support that they and their parents need.
The postcode lottery, about which so many of us spoke when the matter was debated in February of last year, is firmly acknowledged in the report, as is the legal struggle that parents often have to face in order to obtain statements and the like. That means double jeopardy for those in most need of help, because parents from disadvantaged backgrounds are the least able to take the legalistic and bureaucratic route to addressing their problems.
Therefore, many of the conclusions about the way forward that are set out in the report do indeed make sense. The breadth of the whole strategy is impressive. The report accepts that SEN schooling should be tailored to each individual child's need. That is the "personalised learning", as the report calls it, on which so many noble Lords have made comment. The decision to transfer responsibility for children's social services to
696
the Department for Education and Skills is also a step in the right, joined-up-government direction. It might even result in money being saved and/or better spent.
The policy decision that more opportunities should be provided for parents who wish to see their children educated in mainstream schools probably makes good sense too—again, many comments have been made on that—but with the provision that the necessary support and expertise are available. Here, the intention to use the teaching expertise that already exists as a resource from special schools to mainstream schools is clearly right. So is the policy to encourage more special schools, whether in the private or the public sector, to participate in federation, cluster and twinning arrangements with mainstream education.
However, not all parents and children will accept that mainstream schooling is the right route for the child. At present, one third of all SEN children attend a special school, and changing views will take time. It will be important to get parental backing for the policy. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, I was particularly pleased to see the remark attributed to the Minister that the approach should be towards a system that can provide not "either/or" but "both/and".
Currently, one in five or one in six children need help during some part of their schooling, and we know that that number will grow, for two reasons. First, there is an increasing recognition of the complex spectrum of SEN and other disabilities. Secondly, more babies survive who, in earlier times, would have died at birth. So the need for special units in mainstream schooling should be a very high priority. That approach is right because the hallmark of any civilised society is the way in which it treats its most disadvantaged citizens. However, it is also right because there is a clear bottom-line benefit for so doing. Releasing and developing the talents of every citizen benefits the whole economy. The more successful we are in that —with every child, particularly SEN and disabled pupils—the greater will be the degree of self-help and personal satisfaction engendered and the less will public resources be needed.
In this respect, your Lordships will also have been pleased to see that the availability of a minimum standard of support and expertise will be a required provision for each local authority, and for every school as well. I hope that that, too, will help to ease the current postcode lottery situation.
There are two other points I should like to commend. First, as others have said, there is the importance given to early intervention. As the report rightly puts it, this is "the cornerstone" of the Government's strategy—that is,
"reducing the risk of long-term under achievement and disaffection".
Secondly, children themselves should be involved. The involvement of parents and children is becoming increasingly obvious in every form of planning for their future. The Salford Early Support Pilot Programme referred to in the report was a useful illustration. It shows how voluntary organisations can and should be involved.

697
The importance of early intervention is picked up again by acknowledging the very real current difficulties in finding suitable childcare for children with SEN and other disabilities. The new strategy, involving Sure Start and children's trusts, with links to children's centres and extended schools, should certainly help with the dissemination nationally of best practice. If it is still believed that where possible, parents, including single parents, of SEN and disabled children should be encouraged to return to employment, then surely a far greater priority needs to be given for extended hours childcare with the necessary expertise.
There is one more specific issue. It was good to see an acknowledgement of the extra problems faced by looked-after children—again, the issue was highlighted during our debate last year. The finding, in 2001–02, that these children were 10 times more likely to be permanently excluded than their peers is, and remains, particularly worrying. So it is reassuring that the Government are committed, in full, to implementing the recommendations of the Social Exclusion Unit's report, A Better Education, for Children in Care. What is not clear is the timing of that commitment. By when will it be implemented?
For looked-after children, a local authority is, by definition, in loco parentis. Surely, in that case, as the Disability Rights Commission has pointed out, the special educational needs or disabled child concerned should have an advocate independent of the local authority to represent his or her best interests. Can the Minister please address this point in her reply?
The Disability Rights Commission also draws attention to the important provisions in the draft discrimination Bill which will require every public authority to have due regard in carrying out its duties to the need to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity. Those two phrases are carved on my heart from the Sex Discrimination Act, and I am very glad to see them in the draft Bill. This is a requirement where facilities for disabled persons are not as satisfactory as those for other citizens. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government's strategy, along with the Children Bill—which, in a most timely way, received its First Reading today—ensures that this happens?
Let me close by asking the Minister to expand on three other issues in her reply. First, how is progress to be monitored? Should more specific targets be set? Again, the Disability Rights Commission has pointed this out. What time-scale is envisaged for the various targets that are set?
Secondly, as the Minister will know, the Independent Panel for Special Education Advice is calling for a genuinely independent agency to be established to receive complaints and to enforce the law. Can the noble Baroness say a little more about that and assure us that such an agency is not needed, if that is the Government's policy?
Last, but by no means least, the plans outlined, which so many of us have endorsed today, will clearly cost money, yet we are told that no extra resources are to be made available. So how is that gap to be bridged?
5.47 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, my vivid initial impression of this House was of a packed Chamber debating higher education. I dare say, in another few weeks, we shall have another packed House debating higher education, and we shall all enjoy it. It makes it all the more welcome that we have this opportunity today, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, to debate our concerns about that one in five of our children who need special help in our schools. We need to be so concerned for them, for our own sakes as well as theirs.
Therefore, I particularly welcome the government report, Removing Barriers to Achievement, and congratulate the Minister on it. I am sure she will be a powerful advocate of its implementation. As an old hand, who has seen many reports come and go, I say to the Minister that the easy part is saying what should be done— the part that matters is getting it done. As a spur to the sides of the Minister's intent, may I request that at annual intervals for the next four years we have a progress report on the implementation of the proposals made in this document?
Let me turn briefly to the specifics in the report and what was said by the Audit Commission in its 2002 report. I welcome the commitment to early identification and action, and the Audit Commission report's frank recognition of the need to break free of the slow-moving bureaucratic processes that stand in the way of instituting action. I can well imagine the frustration of parents as they see their child's needs and, against that, the time—the months, maybe the years— before action is taken which, possibly, because of financial stringency, is insufficient to meet the need.
My second point deals with inclusion, which has been much mentioned this afternoon. Paragraph 122 of the Audit Commission report reads:
"Almost every head teacher interviewed raised the issue of 'league tables' of school performance. This lay behind the reluctance of some to admit children with SEN, for fear they would 'drag down' the school's position; and could have a damaging effect on staff morale, failing to reflect the considerable achievements of some of the hardest-to-teach children and their teachers. This was seen as perhaps the key issue that the Government in England needed to address if committed to pursuing its policy of greater inclusion".
I am sure that the Minister is strongly committed to inclusion. But, if we are going to get that, we need a "pull" factor as well as a ministerial "push".
If teachers, parents and children are going to be as motivated as possible, we need recognition of achievement. In 1996, the Government of the day invited me to write a report on qualifications for 16 to 19 year-olds. That report was proposed that there should be national awards at four levels: the highest level would be equivalent to A-level; the next level to GCSE grades A to C; the next, to GCSE grades D to G; and then there would an entry level. That would allow us to recognise what to some children would be remarkably good achievements; and recognise, also, the teachers and their work.
Mike Tomlinson's report says exactly the same thing: we need four levels, including an entry level. I urge that we do not wait another eight years for implementation of its recommendations, as we did after the Dearing report.

699
I ask the Minister to pick up the Tomlinson report as a matter of urgency in the interests of children with special educational needs so that there is recognition of their achievements. I further advocate that a very important part of that recognition is to value added, and inclusion of the results in the value added tables.
As for the "push" factors, the Minister has potential allies in Her Majesty's inspectors and Ofsted. About a month ago I found myself saying that the work of Ofsted was so important that we ought to have a debate on it in the House. In her response to my supplementary question, the Minister adroitly asked me if I would like to lead such a debate.
I will make a brief overture. The inspectorate is a force for immense good in our schools, especially when it concentrates on what can be done to improve matters, rather than on what is wrong. It should look at the arrangements for securing inclusion on admissions policy, to see that children with special educational needs are admitted to the schools to which they are attracted.
I would like to see a vigorous attack on these time-consuming, bureaucratic processes, that stand between early identification and action to assist those children before they slip so far behind that they may be condemned to regressing even further, because it is so difficult to catch up.
I would also like them to be advocates. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others referred to innovative ideas that are proving successful—for example, the Lazarus Centre in Birmingham and the National Grid Transco Foundation initiative in Reading. I have been impressed to see innovative approaches working very well.
We trust the Minister to act as the champion of the needs of these children. In doing so, she will have the opportunity to help those who otherwise would have impaired lives. What she does matters to the wellbeing of our whole society. Unless we help these youngsters while there is time, we shall reap the cost of a dislocated society. The wellbeing of our society depends on us responding to the report and securing action on it.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for initiating this debate. As she and others have mentioned, we were deprived of the opportunity to debate the statement when it was put out three weeks ago, and some of us felt that that was a shame.
It is much more satisfactory to have a three hour debate and be able to give consideration to this matter, rather than to give a quick response when most of us have hardly seen the document. I have enjoyed the opportunity for this debate. We have all benefited from it.
I should also like to congratulate the Minister. It is very much her document. I like its format: where we are; where we want to be; actions that must be taken. It is clear. We know where we are going. I like that.
700
Like other noble Lords, I looked back to the debate we had on 29 January last year following the Audit Commission's report on special educational needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, mentioned that debate because the key issue that we considered was whether we needed another review of the issue of special educational needs, as was suggested by the Audit Commission. In particular, we considered whether it was right that 70 per cent of resources devoted to special educational needs should be concentrated on the 3 per cent of children in our community who have severe special educational—needs severe learning difficulties—as distinct from the 20 per cent of children who have special educational needs of one sort or another.
At the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, argued that we needed, and should have, a fundamental review. Her argument was endorsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Minister and I took the view that we needed to see the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act 2001 and the new code of practice bed down before we considered whether we needed a fundamental review. I remain of that view. We are not yet ready for a fundamental review.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, suggested, some very real questions need to be answered. This paper has the wrong title. It is not a "strategy". The strategy was laid out 30 years ago in the work that she did. It has been continued and reinforced in the past few years with the series of papers that the Government have issued, and in its implementation through the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act. That is the strategy and the framework of legislation that we are working to.
What we have here—and it is what the Minister promised us in the debate last year—is a programme of action. The Green Paper Every Child Matters is also part of the programme, answering to the Climbié inquiry and being a precursor to the Children Bill which had its First Reading today.
As a programme of action, it picks up on the criticisms that were brought forward by the Audit Commission report. It answers those criticisms by saying, "This is what we are going to be doing and this is the timetable we have in which to do it". What we see in this report is the emphasis on the importance of early intervention and the development of a coherent programme for intervention for those with special educational needs in early years. We see that there is a need for more co-ordination between health services, social services and education services, and the development of the idea of the children's trusts, which was incorporated into the Children Bill and Every Child Matters.
I have to say that I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, some scepticism about how satisfactorily we are going to be able to get joined-up working within the concept of children's trusts. I am very uncertain about the whole question of whether schools should be the prime actors in some of that co-ordination. It will be extremely difficult to achieve that.

701
Another item that is considered in the paper is the need for more support for schools in managing the whole diverse range of provision needed with special educational needs. Again, it mentions the lack of systematic measures for achievement of children with special educational needs and the need to develop those measures. Lastly, it refers to the uncertainties over special schools.
That is what the paper is about, and there is much in it that I welcome. I suppose that I am particularly pleased, as many other noble Lords are, with the emphasis on early intervention. There is no doubt whatever that the earlier the intervention can be made, the more likely remedial measures are to have effect. We welcome the commitment of resources to that early intervention; to the gradual rolling out of the early support pilot scheme, making it more extensive in the country; to the establishment of a national centre for excellence in early intervention; and to the general emphasis on joined-up thinking, working and partnership at this level of intervention.
I welcome, too, the clarification of the role of special schools. We have had a good deal of discussion of that subject today, and my noble friend Lady Linklater made a special plea that the complementary role between inclusion within mainstream and the role of special schools should be acknowledged. She echoed widespread concerns that there are fragile and vulnerable children who are not necessarily well served within the mainstream sector and who need to be rather more protected—possibly just for a short time. The notion of spending two or three years in a special school and then going back into the mainstream community is one that, if one can achieve it, one would like to see. Undoubtedly, however, we are all agreed that there is a special place for special schools. We certainly do not want to see the demise of special schools in any sense; it is important that they are seen as part of the overall provision.
I welcome very much the development and extension of the techniques for monitoring and assessing performance of special educational needs pupils. It is not right that, in a world so dominated by performance indicators, the special educational needs children have effectively often been left out of the picture completely. Because they have been left out, people have sometimes not been concerned about them. Equally, however, since we on these Benches aspire to a world in which tests and testing play a somewhat lesser part in education policy, we worry about the degree to which performance indicators have in themselves led to a climate in which children with special educational needs, who will not achieve highly within performance league tables, will find it difficult to find places at the schools that they would wish to attend.
Finally, I welcome very much the new emphasis being given to teacher training and continuing professional development, as well as to the development of practical tools and the toolkits for teachers for teaching within special educational needs. That said, some parts of the action programme seem to remain aspirational, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said. The key issue in
702
that regard must be resources. In my speech last year, I referred to the time taken out of mainstream teaching by those teachers who were training in special aspects of special educational needs. For each different variety, whether it is language problems, dyslexia, the autistic spectrum or behavioural difficulties, there are different training programmes. That means teachers taking one or two days out of mainstream schooling. That is a matter of resources. The longer that teachers arc required to spend on training, the more resources are required to undertake those courses.
Similarly, with regard to partnership, yes, we can talk about it, but it means finding time to sit down with the professionals from the social services and health services and work out the plans. That also means time away from mainstream teaching. Extending advice and awareness is good, but that too means teachers spending time talking to parents and explaining to them what is available, and working with them through the choices available. We are short of specialists in those subjects: we are short of teachers for special educational needs, of speech therapists and of educational psychologists. We are short of more or less every form of specialist. Time is money and money is resources. Are we really putting enough into the pot for special educational needs? That is a question that we have not considered. If we have a fundamental review, we are bound to consider it. The paper leads to very real questions as to whether we have enough resources.
I am delighted that we are doing more on initial teacher training, but are we doing enough to cope with the full range of needs within special educational needs? That requires taking people out of teaching and having special training for them. I worry slightly whether we are training teachers to work with other adults. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mentioned how well special educational needs teams work with learning assistants. However, on the whole we train our teachers to work with children, not to work with other adults. Are we training them enough to use their learning assistants well, and are we training the learning assistants well enough? Sometimes they have four days training but that is all, and they sometitmes have remarkably little in the way of an educational background. It is important that we not only train them but offer them a career pathway, because they could be some of our teachers of the future, if they were well trained.
Will the Minister say a little about gifted and talented children, and whether resources are going to them? I also wish to say something about admission arrangements. I was rather shocked to talk to a friend from London whose child is 11 and applying to secondary schools to discover that she had taken seven separate tests for admission for London schools. The school that they would like their child to go to happens to be at the end of their road, but they cannot get her into the school at the end of their road. It seems absolutely ludicrous that we are in such a situation, when we have created so many schools, which are their own admissions authorities. That is one of the problems. We have set up admissions forums, but

703
those forums have no real ability to mandate in that regard. It is important that we do not use admissions procedures as a way in which to select or deselect the kids. I am delighted that the looked-after children get such high priority, but it is vital that there is not another way in which to select children.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for raising an important topic, which unites so many Members of this House, especially those who have participated in the debate.
We on these Benches warmly welcome the report, Removing Barriers to Achievement, and its commitment to giving children with special educational needs the opportunity to succeed. SEN covers a wide range of needs, including learning, behavioural and physical difficulties. But it is important to tailor the specific requirements of each child. Sometimes we talk too often of categories and not enough about individuals. Understandably individual tailoring will be a huge task in terms of resources, but it is surely the only way to go. We cannot have blanket policies.
Will the noble Baroness tell us of the further investigations that the Secretary of State promised about looking into the funding for an individual child's SEN? We have always promoted the theory of early intervention, and we were glad to see it in the White Paper. Catching problems early will help to give children a better chance to overcome their learning difficulties and give them the best opportunities in life. There is no doubt that the first six months are crucial. Will the Minister assure us that her department will work with the Department of Health to expand birth-to-six-months screening, especially for cognitive and sensory development? I understand that there is a correlation between low birth weight and later special needs problems. Has any research been commissioned on either of those issues, as debated last month in the other place?
I am sure we all agree that finding that one has a child who has special educational needs must be a frightening and devastating experience for any parent, so it is essential that there is early intervention to give support not only to the child but to the parents. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lady Brigstocke and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. We need to ensure that parents do not feel isolated from the process that involves their child.
That means not only effective co-ordination of joined-up government at all levels, but access to suitable child care and the correct information for the child's particular disability. Many parents have made the case that greater co-ordination between the various responsibilities of different authorities would be welcome in the form of a one-stop shop. Will the noble Baroness comment on that? In addition, may I plead, along with other noble Lords, for teacher training colleges to give specialist training, and at least a minimum training in SEN to every teacher to aid that
704
vital support and early identification of problems once the child enters school? That is an issue to which many noble Lords have alluded today.
Within that context, will the Minister comment on the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that it is now time for a comprehensive review of the statementing process? The noble Baroness was largely responsible for setting it up and is now suggesting that it may be too combative. Many parents say that they have to fight for the interests of their child. Each statement of SEN costs on average £2,500, and local education authorities in England and Wales are spending £90 million each year on assessments and writing statements. That is a huge amount of money. Yet between 2000 and 2001, nearly 1,000 children and families had to wait more than five months for a statement.
Despite the fact that the number of pupils with statements of SEN has gone up by 7 per cent to 250,550 since 1997, I was disturbed, as were other noble Lords, to see that 79 special schools have closed and that the number of pupils being taught in special schools has declined by 5 per cent to 93,880. In addition, there are thousands of pupils with SEN but without statements, which I understand currently constitutes nearly 20 per cent of children in England. I find it very difficult to accept that one in five of our children falls into that category. Perhaps I should agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that to parents all children have special educational needs.
The Government's policy of inclusion is arguably hurting the very people whom it was designed to help. The Disability Rights Commission has highlighted that two thirds of pupils with disabilities attend mainstream schools, and that more than a third of those surveyed felt that they did not receive adequate support. For example, 20 per cent said that they had been discouraged from sitting GCSEs, and the vast majority did not go on to higher education—only 4 per cent of university students are those with SEN.
SEN children make up 90 per cent of permanent exclusions from primary schools, and 60 per cent from secondary schools. The National Autistic Society states that one in five autistic children is excluded. That is because their needs are not fulfilled—perhaps not even recognised. Will the Minister guarantee that when a child enters school there will be enough teachers and classroom assistants with appropriate training? Will she also accept that inclusion can fail other children too? The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that we need to be aware of the importance of children who are gifted. There is a growing incidence of children with attention deficit disorders, dyspraxia and autism disrupting the classes for other pupils. Parents of mainstream children are obviously anxious when this occurs.
I am worried that although there is a significant and important debate relating to SEN to be had, we must not neglect another category that has special needs. The children to whom I have just referred are brilliant and academically talented pupils who, I fear, are not

705
stretched to their abilities. What are the Government's plans to increase support and opportunities for those children?
I am sure that Members of this House would like to hear about the current status of the application of the Government's strategy to Northern Ireland. Now that there is no devolved government, it is our responsibility to ensure that the same facilities extend to parents and children with similar problems in Northern Ireland.
A good well-rounded grounding can be established only by high quality education for all abilities of pupil at an early age through to A-level. That is so necessary, especially for those with SEN. Only that will help to remove barriers and prepare them for life with its ups and downs. It is their basic right in a civilised society and our duty of care to provide.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Massey for this debate. I confess that I was sad that we did not have the opportunity to have a Statement, but I am delighted to have this debate. I pay tribute to my noble friend for her work as co-chair of the all-party group for children and her work as a governor.
I was flattered by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I recognise what he was saying about abandoning ambition. I have no problem about doing that for myself, but I will not do it for children. I am glad, too, that I perhaps gave him a good reason for there to be another Labour Government.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I am always sorry if I disappoint her. I hope to rekindle the fire of enthusiasm. Sometimes ideas formed 30 years ago need to find their time. I have no problem if some of our work has strong or faint echoes of the work done by the noble Baroness, which was important, lasting and critical.
There is so much to agree with on what the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said. Of course we are humbled by the knowledge and understanding brought by parents of children with special educational needs and/or disabilities. That is the reality of life and it is our duty to respond to it.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity described the Royal School for the Deaf in Manchester. I have not had the privilege of visiting that school. Perhaps that can be rectified. He pointed to an important issue in the debate about how our special schools are working increasingly with children who have more complex needs as children survive longer, as medical science advances and so on. The message from our special schools that I have heard loud and clear is that although they may all have the same number of children to work with, the complexity of needs has certainly grown.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, spoke with great authority as a former teacher and with a continuing involvement with the City Technology College. She gave a very good description of what we have described in the strategy as the good day-to-day practice with enthusiasm regarding what is happening
706
in that setting and exactly what we want to do. For example, she described the mentoring scheme. Those are exactly the kinds of practice we want to spread around.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, predictably in a positive sense reminded us yet again of children in public care. This critical group of vulnerable children, many of whom have special educational needs and most of whom have suffered and need to be in care because of that suffering. I agree with everything the noble Earl said. The group is important in relation to the Green Paper and the strategy. As we speak, a great deal is going on in the department. I shall be pleased to talk about it to the noble Earl as time goes on.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Puttnam for his kind words. He has an extensive knowledge—as he rightly pointed out—of our schools and teachers. He has been a strong advocate of support for the teachers and classroom assistants we have been privileged to have in this country. My noble friend made the point that inclusion benefits everyone. If we have one message within this document, it is that it is not a do-gooding strategy, it is about a recognition that done properly and done well—and I will come on to define what I mean by inclusion, because it is not about the setting—all children actually benefit. That is the critical part of it.
My visits around the country too are littered with examples of the kind of enrichment that the noble Lord spoke about in terms of the support that this gives to children who do not have special educational needs and the benefits that they get from working alongside their colleagues who happen to have a special educational need or a disability.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for her support. The noble Baroness made clear points on personalised learning. She gave an important example of the meeting she attended about children with dyslexia. Children with special educational needs can and do succeed. We should never assume otherwise. They fit into the full range of ability of all children. That is the critical point to remember.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing—who I know is not very well today, so I am particularly pleased to see him—focused me, as he always does, on getting the job done. It is critical. He knows all about that. I am not sure whether I would agree with an annual report, but I do accept, and would be more than willing, to come to your Lordships' House at any time to talk about progress. Perhaps I will leave that in the noble Lord's capable hands.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, told me that she thought the paper was not a strategy. I am perfectly happy to call it whatever she likes; I am not prepared to shred the document, for obvious reasons. But the noble Baroness made, as always, important points, especially—and we will come on to this—in relation to children's trusts and the role of schools in terms of their critical focus. More generally I will say that I am looking at admissions and exclusions for children with special educational needs. I have commissioned a piece of research which reports in September, and I am

707
committed to acting on its findings. I want to get underneath what is often anecdotal, but clearly very important, information and evidence to understand precisely what is happening.
It is lovely to see the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. I know she will not mind if I refer to the fact that these issues are very dear to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am very sorry that she is not here tonight. I, for one, would wish to know her views on this strategy. She has been a strong advocate of this area of work. I have her very much in my mind when I think about what I am doing in this area. I hope that she will have a chance to read the strategy and perhaps I will have a chance to discuss it with her.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, raised some important issues. I say straight away that I shall be in discussion with health colleagues and will need to write to her about some very important issues she raised about low-weight babies because I do not have an answer tonight. Equally, on the points about Northern Ireland, I shall be in discussion and will make sure that I write to her.
Noble Lords raised the point that in fact we started the debate, in a sense, in January 2003 when the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, raised the whole question of a strategic review of special education needs. At the time, the Audit Commission had just published its report, to which noble Lords have referred. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said, too many children are waiting to have their needs met; some children who should and could be taught in mainstream settings are turned away and too many staff feel ill-equipped to be able effectively to support children; many special schools feel uncertain of their future roles and many parents feel that they face an either/or choice in the school that their child attends—that is, either a mainstream or special school—and too many unacceptable variations in the level of support available from the school, local authority or local health service.
In a sense I describe that as a backdrop of lack of confidence—a lack of confidence by parents in what their children would get; a lack of confidence by schools that they could address the needs effectively; and a lack of confidence sometimes in our local authorities to know exactly what our strategy was and to be able to address the needs effectively.
So, within this document—whatever we describe it as—I have used the watchword with the people who have been good enough to write it—and they have been very good at writing it—to say that it must address the issue of confidence. I decided very deliberately to go down that route rather than going for a fundamental review. I think that a fundamental review simply will raise all those fears and concerns again and again and we shall spend too much time trying to address those issues rather than getting on with the job.
I hope that as we progress this work—as we get into the "doing" phase of it we shall be able to debate some of the issues more effectively because there will
708
be more confidence in the system. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that when she talks about inclusion sometimes failing other children, we have to be very clear that the inclusion means that every child is appropriately educated in a setting. It is quite possible for a child to be excluded in a mainstream setting by being at the back of the class, ignored, bullied or whatever.
It is also true that some children with special educational needs would feel more included in a mainstream setting. I think that inclusion is what happens to you as a young child or person in the world in which you live. It is not about saying, "That means you always have to be educated here"—for the reasons I have given. That is an absolutely fundamental principle, on which I think all noble Lords would agree.
I am not prepared, and I know that other noble Lords feel even more strongly about this, to see us waste the potential of some of our children because we have not yet found the ways of taking away all the barriers that get in the way of learning. We cannot afford to waste some fantastic good practice that goes on in schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and my noble friend Lord Puttnam referred to that. Our early years settings, our local authorities and the voluntary sector have an enormous contribution to make in this area.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that the strategy is about wanting every single school with children with special educational needs to be successful. If one in six or one in five of our children have a special educational need, every school must have children within it who have a special education need and/or a disability. Therefore, our plan should be to make sure that every school is capable of effectively addressing their needs.
The strategy is also meant to provide a bit of national leadership. That became very clear in our deliberations and discussions with schools, teachers, young people and parents. They wanted us to say what it was that we wanted to do. I hope that noble Lords when they study the document more carefully will see that it is about that. As I have said, it is about wherever children are educated feeling that they are able to be given a high-quality education to get them ready for adult life.
But I accept that that is one of the most challenging areas of public policy, particularly for local services. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that improving provision and sustaining improvements is not about a quick fix. It is very important and I do not pretend for one moment that we either can achieve this with a quick fix or that the Government have all the answers.
I want to focus on the role of special schools that I began to talk about. As I have said already, special schools increasingly tell us that the children with whom they are working have more complex needs. It is my suggestion that as time goes on those children will continue to be educated in special schools, but that increasing numbers of children will be able to be

709
educated in mainstream schools as we get better at the provision, supporting teachers, providing resources and so on.
True inclusion, as I have said, is not about setting. I am very wedded to the concept of "both/and" and not "either/or". It is possible for children to move across these settings. It is also possible—dare I say it —for teachers to move across these settings. It should be recognised that if a good special school is educating some of its children there, it is a fantastic resource that we need to release to support children in the mainstream setting. It is also true that some children with special needs are in mainstream schools, and others with similar needs are in special schools. We need to give flexibility.
There are fantastic examples around the country of children from special schools being educated in whole or in part on mainstream sites. They have the opportunity to be included, to mingle, learn, grow and develop alongside their colleagues and they are getting the intensive educational work that they need at a level appropriate to their needs. There are good examples of co-location and good examples of all these issues being taken forward.
Noble Lords have pointed to the four areas on which we have focused. There was the greatest endorsement for early intervention. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for her tribute to the importance of early years, to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who is a great supporter of the work of Sure Start and of all of our early years work, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, who described it as the key. I agree with her.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, wants a one-stop shop. I agree with her. Part of the thrust of the work that we are doing with the Green Paper and with the Children Bill is to try to develop that. In the Early Support pilot programme we are giving parents information about what they should expect from the services and trying to help them to get integrated support, with one assessment that addresses their needs for education, health and social care.
It is also important to address the issues of childcare for parents and children with special educational needs. I know that noble Lords feel very strongly about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke about getting research right and the national early intervention centre of excellence is a good example of that.
We intend to cut bureaucracy on special educational needs. It is an aim in the document and I am wedded to it. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, in particular will agree that it is very important.
It is my view that if early intervention is right and the work in schools is being done effectively, the numbers of statements will drop because parents will not feel that they need to get a statement. We recognise that statements are very important and will continue to be important for children with complex needs. But if resources in schools are right and there is appropriate early intervention and identification then, as I have said many times in your Lordships' House, children
710
should arrive at school with their needs addressed, ready, willing and able to be part of the school community, whatever the setting. We must get beyond the idea that in order to get needs addressed there must be a period of failure. This is too often the system at the moment and it is something that we cannot have any more.
Removing barriers to learning is also critical. We need to ensure that the learning environment is right for those children. That is particularly important, not least when it comes to the transfer from primary to secondary school. I think that is the most scary part, not just for children with special educational needs but, as noble Lords have said, for all children. But it is particularly scary for children with special educational needs. When the transfer is done well, it is fantastic. When special educational needs co-ordinators work well together, children transfer happily. But there is the fear, which is very much a parental fear, of the big, noisy "big school" with large people in it who might bully or put off the child. In really good examples that I have seen those big people become the biggest advocates of support for children with special educational needs. It takes leadership and a feeling that the children are really wanted in the school. It is an ethos issue that many schools have addressed. It is very important.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, that it is completely unacceptable that the reason that any child is in a special school is because he was bullied. It is completely acceptable that he is there because it is the best setting, but it is totally unacceptable that it is because of such a horror that he ends up there. It is something from which we must move away.
In the inclusion development programme we shall focus on some of the areas which many noble Lords have referred to, including children who are on the autistic spectrum or who have behavioural and emotional problems. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, in particular spoke about the challenge of children with very challenging behaviour. It is an important issue. We have a number of children in residential schools or referral units and many of them are there because of family problems that create those kinds of behaviours. We must address this. It is critically important.
We must also raise expectations. That is important. Children with special needs are perfectly capable across the spectrum of educational attainment. We must improve the skills of our teachers and other staff. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, paid tribute in particular to our teachers and classroom assistants and I know that every noble Lord shares their view. It is important that we give them help. We are working with the Teacher Training Agency on what happens in training, in the induction year and in continuous professional development. It will not work if teachers do not feel confident or if we do not train high quality support staff who can work with these children. But it will work if we do. Where schools do train, it works extremely well.

711
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, personalised learning is important. It is at the heart of all of this. It is the individual opportunity. This is as true for gifted and talented children as for children who may not achieve on the higher end of the spectrum, and for every other child. If we can get that right as a whole then we start to have one education system addressing the needs of all children.
My noble friend Lady Massey also spoke about the issues of self-evaluation, good practice and, of course, about performance tables. I have never and will never apologise for wanting to give information to parents but I agree, and I think that I said this in the Economist article and have said it all over the country, that we must get smarter at what information we give. We must recognise schools for their achievements with all their pupils and recognise the quality of life of all their pupils where inclusion is done effectively. It does not mean that other children get pulled back or left behind; it means that everybody gets a good education. We must get good at that and make schools feel confident that inclusion does not mean that they will get many more special needs children and that parents who have children who do not have special needs will reject them. It is about confidence, as I described earlier. It is interesting that the school that came top of the value-added performance league tables was a special school.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, spoke about the 14 to 19 strategy. It is important that we think about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, also described the relevance and importance of that. The 14 to 19 strategy is about making sure that as many of our young people as possible are able to stay in education. It is important that we see special needs embedded in that. I know that Mike Tomlinson is very keen to do that.
I want to take a second to talk about the Transco CRED project because I played a very small role in the development of that project. I know what a fantastic job it has done in supporting children in danger of exclusion and is a real success. I think it is still has a 100 per cent record on year three or four.
Partnership is critical. How do we develop our services, our children's trusts, our different services coming together to be a friend for the child? It is a real challenge not just here, but in the Green Paper and in the Children Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, again raised child and adolescent mental health services. They are critical players. What they are able to achieve in schools is very important.
I say to my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity that it is interesting how half a sentence provokes a response. One of the issues in this area of policy is that it is very emotive. People look in a document and see something that makes them worry. It is important that schools have the resources but I accept that it is expensive to look after children with complex needs. We should do so; I have no difficulty with that.
I want look at where our schools are positioned geographically. Some parents have no option but a residential place and would prefer not to be in that
712
position. As we look across the map of special school provision we need to consider that and make sure that the best is not the enemy of the good.
Looking at making schools the centre, the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and at extended schools, it is true that teachers are not social workers, but sometimes they feel as if they are. We must make sure that we put them in a position where they can call on expertise, whether in health, social care, social services or whatever, rather than feel that they are constantly trying to find a way to address these matters. Schools want to be at the focal point of their communities and want to be able to get those services working closely with them.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we fund much research and I should be delighted to discuss with him the issues that he raised. I have gone over my time for which I apologise. The noble Baronesses, Lady Brigstocke and Lady Linklater, referred to fragile parents. I take on board what they say about the strategy not addressing those parents. The parent partnerships we have funded are a critical part of that matter. It is absolutely crucial that parents feel that a measure will work for their child.
I pay tribute to Home-Start. I declare an interest as a friend of St Albans Home-Start. The Green Paper suggests that we have a Home-Start style operation in every community. We shall come to that. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the education that we are discussing is covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. There will be attainment targets for all children but, interestingly, we shall for the first time know where our children with special needs and disabilities are situated as we are collecting data on all our children that will enable us to develop a better approach for them and ensure that they get the highest possible attainment. I do not support the idea of a separate agency. The system works well now; we just have to ensure that we work better.
I recognise that we need resources. I decided to design a plan that did not rely on resources and crumble without them—we allocate £3.5 billion to special needs—but made them work better. However, that does not mean that I shall not seek more resources in the spending review.
I again offer my grateful thanks to my noble friend Lady Massey. As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said, I want to ensure that no child drowns at the back of the class.
6.41 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I said at the beginning that this would be a fascinating debate and it has exceeded all expectations. I am always struck by the knowledge and concern of your Lordships for children. This debate has reflected that. All speakers have expressed passion, commitment to children and to the needs of teachers and parents.
Yes, there is much fragility but there is also—and I am glad to hear it—much optimism. We discussed research, definitions, transitions and collaboration between agencies. We have heard several moving examples of good practice in schools.

713
I congratulate the Minister not just on her galloping but comprehensive response tonight but also on her involvement in the report and most of all on her continued dedication to the needs of all children. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

British Industry and the Global Economy
6.42 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel rose to call attention to the role of innovation in enabling British industry to compete in the global economy, and to the role that government can play in creating the best possible conditions for it; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is particularly appropriate to debate innovation this evening because of the concern felt all around the country about the loss of jobs and business to east Europe and to Asia.
I spent 30 years of my working life in the textile industry and so I know a lot about business going to Asia. Some months ago I met someone I used to know who manufactured industrial netting. I asked him about business, and yes he had lost his traditional business to low-cost manufacturers in the Far East and, yes, his business was now more prosperous than ever. This all came about, he explained, not through importing but because he had met a chap in a pub who had spoken to him about fishing for chub. Apparently, when you fish for chub you throw the bait into the water and the more concentrated it remains, the better the catch. What was needed was a way of holding the bait together for a short while.
My friend remembered reading something about fibres that dissolved in water and so he went to his local university and initiated some work on fibres that dissolve in water but do not pollute. He soon captured the netting market for chub bait and went on to discover other markets in medicine and agriculture and construction where netting that dissolved was a distinct advantage and solved lots of problems. With typical Yorkshire understatement, he told me that it was a good product for repeat orders.
That is just one small example of innovation. I particularly wanted to give an example from the textile industry for two reasons: first, because it is an industry about which I have some experience; and, secondly, because it is a traditional industry trying to re-invent itself through innovation. Indeed, I declare an interest as honorary international president of the Textile Institute.
Most of the time that I worked in textiles, much of the industry tried to protect itself by controlling imports. In spite of effective lobbying and considerable support from successive governments, the industry declined by 60 per cent and many firms lost their business to low cost countries. But other firms prospered. They thought up ways of improving old products and inventing new products, discovering new markets and new ways of doing business—in short, innovation. And so today not
714
only do we have new ways of fishing for chub, but the fishermen enjoy more comfortable clothing which is light and flexible and which keeps them warmer and drier but breathes and is not clammy.
The textile industry has revolutionised the treatment of burns and ulcers and other wounds by inventing fabrics that grow a patient's own skin cells and so speed up healing and recovery. By inventing fabrics that can be moulded or sandwiched into engineering components which are lighter and stronger than steel, in a modern car or aircraft many of the components and some of the bodywork are now based on textiles. Today you find innovative textiles or technical textiles everywhere. Indeed, in these kinds of textiles the European Union has a balance of payments surplus. All this is thanks to innovation.
However, all this cannot just be left to a fortunate encounter in a pub. It requires a lot more than that. It requires academia, science and business to work together. It requires business to carry out its own research. So my first question to the Minister is that while I very much support the Government's commitment to free trade, what is the DTI doing to encourage and assist our traditional industries to compete through innovation in today's global economy?
But innovation also means inventing new industries—industries that result from the flow of knowledge and information from our science and technology base to the world of business. I know that my noble friend the Minister is committed to this but in practice what can the Government do? Some would say that this is a matter best left to market forces but turning science into products and processes involves a lot of risk, a lot of money and a lot of commitment. But that is a combination that market forces do not like very much. Venture capitalists would prefer to fund things such as management buyouts where there is a greater degree of certainty. Financial institutions are reluctant to fund developments from new science as more fail than succeed. Then there is the role of skilled designers in translating science and technology into products and services. There is a great shortage of them. If innovation is going to produce these new products and services from our science base, then we need to know how all these different facets of risk, finance and knowledge are to be put together and helped along to overcome that kind of market reluctance.
However, it is even more complicated because much innovation draws on science from several sources. Cell communication technology drew on science not only from wireless communications but also from information technology, miniaturisation, the physics and chemistry of batteries and many others. But combined together they gave birth to the whole new industry of mobile phones. So as well as learning more and more about individual sciences, innovation must somehow draw them all together in order to create new industries. Can the Minister say what the DTI is doing about that because it has particular responsibility in this area?
But it is not only science which initiates innovation; society itself does it also. We do this by demanding

715
higher and higher standards to improve our quality of life and to improve the surroundings in which we live. It is often innovation which can deliver these higher standards rather than rationing or controls. Let me give an example. It was thought that commercial flying would have to be restricted because of aircraft noise. To solve the problem, Rolls-Royce developed the Trent 600/900 engines to reduce considerably both noise and pollution, and this engine is now used in one third of all passenger jets. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, who worked at Rolls-Royce had a hand in this.
My point is that the Government should encourage this kind of outcome-based regulation which is both friendly to society and encourages innovation at the same time because, in addition, industry is encouraged to cut costs, to be more efficient, to eliminate waste and to achieve higher standards. All of these are essential factors in competing in today's global economy. So does regulation have a role to play in innovation or is innovation best left to competition? This is a very important matter and I hope the Minister can say something about it.
Achieving higher standards and solving environmental problems through science, technology and innovation have created a whole new industrial sector. I declare an interest as honorary president of the Environmental Industries Commission.
I mentioned Rolls-Royce aero engines. Of course other engineering companies could copy the engine and Rolls-Royce would find themselves in a price war. So an important part of innovation is to keep on innovating to hold on to your competitive advantage. What Rolls-Royce did was to stop selling engines and start selling flying hours. They established teams of trained and skilled engineers at all major airports who service and change the engines. This completely altered the dynamics of the aero engine market by combining manufacturing with service. It is this breaking down of the barrier between manufacturing and services which is the key to much new innovation, especially in the service sector—the service sector which, itself, is now feeling the effect of globalisation.
The sector is feeling globalisation through offshoring. What is different is that the impact is being felt in the service sector rather than in manufacturing. But this is not new. Smart and intelligent technologies have been replacing workers in banking, insurance and retailing for years. Call centres that are not moving abroad are raising their productivity by using voice recognition systems. Businesses today are a highly connected interdependent chain. You cannot just move one link offshore without any effect. In reality, it requires a sophisticated and determined management team to both offshore and maintain the value of their product or service.
I see offshoring call centres as one more reminder that even in the service sector we will not be able to compete simply on the basis of cost. Innovation applies here too. When innovation breaks down the barrier between service and manufacturing, offshoring can also be reversed. Let me give another example,
716
from the textile industry. I do not know how many noble Lords buy their clothing at Zara stores, but those who do will know that nothing remains on the racks for longer than two weeks. This means that if you see something you like you had better buy it. Now, this 14-day turnaround requires very sophisticated management and planning. There is insufficient time to get the clothing from low-cost manufacturers in the Far East, so their clothing has to be made locally. They are one of the fastest growing retailers on the high street, and other firms are now trying to copy them.
However, innovation does not only affect the economy; it also affects society. Yes, it provides new and more interesting work, higher pay and better prospects, but in return it means more career changes. It demands more and better skills. It requires continuous learning with personal dedication and commitment. It demands higher professional standards and education in numeracy and IT. All this depends on how well we teach and encourage science and technology at school and university.
Thankfully today many firms are committed to training and developing their own staff so that they can meet the change and challenge of innovation. But other firms do not or cannot. They may rely on poaching or finding skilled staff from overseas. They may be too small. Certainly the textile industry has Skill Fast to help with training, while the engineering industry has SEMTA, but what about other industries and what about those industries that are only now in the process of being invented? Perhaps the Minister can say what the DTI is doing about this as it is part of its responsibility. What about those who cannot cope with innovation—those who are being left behind and form part of the two-tier society that exists in this country? Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?
At the end of the day, innovation is a matter for business. It is not easy. Many firms find it difficult to compete in the global economy because they see themselves at the mercy of impersonal forces—forces such as inflexible wages, fluctuating exchange rates, industrialisation in developing economies, unlevel playing fields, new technology, poor access to capital and overbearing regulation. But other firms seem to overcome this. What is it that they do that is different?
It seems to me that those firms create their own luck and good fortune by encouraging and rewarding ingenuity, creativity, resourcefulness and initiative without which there would be no innovation. In doing this they seem to sweep away the barriers of their own assumptions. In this way they grasp their destiny in their own hands and release the abilities of their people. They give people the tools, the time, the encouragement and the money to improve quality and productivity and achieve higher standards. Indeed they invest in productivity and skills and so introduce these competitive elements into their businesses. They use the proven techniques of continuous improvement and lean manufacturing. They eliminate waste and identify unused capacity and unused talent. Instead of complaining about regulation, somehow these companies seem to reflect and adapt to the values of their communities and their staff and build up a special

717
kind of loyalty in this way. For years, data have been collected by business organisations, stock markets, financial institutions and researchers which show that this way leads to improved business success. Indeed it is this kind of spirit and outlook which led to the rebirth of the netting business that I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks.
These firms are the seed bed of innovation. They can be large, medium or small enterprises, or even a single individual. I hope that my noble friend will do all he can to encourage them. Mine has been a simple business "hands on" approach to innovation. I look forward to the remarks of other noble Lords who have far more special knowledge than I and a much deeper understanding. I beg to move for Papers.
6.59 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Haskel for that timely and compelling introduction to this debate. I want to concentrate on the role of universities and higher education in innovation so I declare an interest as the chief executive officer of Universities UK.
I am sure that the importance of innovation to the UK and global economy is now clear to government, business and universities alike. Both the recent Lambert review and the Department of Trade and Industry-led Innovation Review have highlighted the importance of increasing innovation and business-led R& D in the United Kingdom. This is because the UK's performance, by level of business R&D and patenting, is only average compared with our international competitors. The UK is well behind the USA and roughly equals the EU average.
The Lambert review stated:
"Compared with other countries, British business is not research intensive, and its record of investment in R&D in recent years has been unimpressive".
UK business research is concentrated in a narrow range of industrial sectors and in a small number of large companies.
All this helps to explain the productivity gap between the UK and other comparable economies. Factors such as increasing competition, lower labour costs and well-educated alternative labour forces—wages in China are 5 per cent of those in the UK—mean that the UK faces a transition to a new phase of economic development. It is notable that after many years of decline in UK investment in R&D, it is now increasing.
At the same time, companies around the world are increasingly outsourcing their R&D activities, often to universities, so that the role of universities in economic development everywhere is becoming more important. Improving competitiveness in the UK means that we need to combine the excellence in teaching and research with the will and ability to convert science and technology into commercial enterprise.
The research output of UK universities compares very favourably with that of many other developed countries and a wide range of business-university collaboration already exists. Richard Lambert's report celebrates this
718
success by universities in engaging with business. All HEIs are now engaged in collaboration with business at some level. In 2000–01, for example, they earned £126 million from UK industry and commerce.
The 2003 higher education-business interaction survey shows continuing improvement in HE-business interactions by almost every indicator and a 19 per cent increase in higher education staff dedicated to commercialisation and related activities. Spin-out firms of all types from higher education institutions are estimated to have had a turnover of £340 million in 2000–01 and the income from the sales of shares by higher education institutions in such companies was around £30 million.
Indeed, United Kingdom universities are far more efficient than their American counterparts at producing spin-outs. Higher education research expenditure per spin-out is much lower in the UK at £12 million than it is in the United States at £46 million.
It is also worth making the point that the UK higher education sector is a major "business" in its own right. In 2000–01, institutions attracted a total income of £12.8 billion; they generated output worth £34.8 billion; and they created 563,000 jobs either directly or indirectly. That is equivalent to 2.7 per cent of the UK workforce in employment. Indeed, income in 2000–01 from the UK private sector accounted for £3.7 billion, or 27 per cent of all higher education institution income. HEI overseas income, or gross export earnings, was £1.3 billion.
The Lambert report recommended that universities should do more to provide continuing professional development to business employees. I am delighted to say that the 2003 higher education business-interaction survey, not available to Richard Lambert when he wrote his report, shows a marked increase in university planning for business support provision, and, indeed, university provision of courses for business. These statistics illustrate just what the sector has achieved. They show just what a positive impact the higher education sector has on the UK economy.
It is important to recognise that the university-business collaboration has been under-way for years—decades even—and that the UK higher education sector is proud of the achievements that have already been made to support the economy.
In the past decade, aided by government support, almost all universities have added a third leg to their traditional activities. The third leg is outreach to business, especially local and regional businesses. Universities are actively seeking to play a broader role in the regional and national economy. The quality of their research in science and technology continues to compare well against most international benchmarks and much more attention is being paid to governance and management issues.
I welcome recognition by the Government in the Innovation Report of the need for an increase in investment in the knowledge-driven economy to create competitive advantage through a strong science and technology base, incentives for knowledge transfer and business research and development, and high standards

719
of education at all levels, a point reinforced by my noble friend Lord Haskel. I also welcome Richard Lambert's proposal for a new stream of business-relevant research funding—between £100 million and £200 million—and his clear recognition of the achievements of universities.
Entrepreneurship, competitiveness and innovation in the UK are dependent on building the next generation of collaboration between industry, academia and the public sector. There are barriers to this collaboration, and improved communication and understanding between these sectors are the only way to boost entrepreneurship and the commercialisation of new ideas.
Of course I recognise that there are improvements which need to be made to ensure that business-university collaboration is strengthened and that these changes need to occur across the board, not just in universities but in business, in government and the regional development agencies.
With gradual devolution, regional strategies and initiatives such as centres of excellence are becoming increasingly important as they seek to bridge the business academia gap and identify technologies that have commercial potential.
There is also the Government's regional agenda to be considered. Of course all the regions need appropriate support, but it is imperative that government understand that institutions are competing internationally with countries like the USA and Japan, not just with other regions in the UK. In order to promote high-quality research and effective collaboration, appropriate support is required for universities, for business and for the regions.
Universities need consistent and appropriate levels of funding, businesses need appropriate support to help them approach universities for help in meeting some of their technology and skills needs, and the Government need to have a clear agenda which promotes international and UK-wide collaboration.
It is for these reasons that I welcome the recent announcement by the Treasury of a fundamental review of funding needs and policy priorities for science, engineering and innovation, with a 10-year investment plan to be announced as a central priority for this summer's spending review. I am also pleased that this will provide an overarching strategy for research. The review will take stock of the current framework for funding science, covering the Office of Science and Technology and the research councils and the funding for research provided to universities through the funding council. So it is vital that universities are central to this debate.
Universities UK's recent spending review submission outlines the success of UK universities' research performance. They have continued to deliver an outstanding performance both in terms of quality and value for money and their importance to the economy at regional, national and international level through links with their communities and business is beyond doubt.
The Government have recognised this success in their strong commitment now to science and the science base, but they will be judged on how far they
720
create the conditions—of resources and support—to enable that to be sustainable. I look to my noble friend the Minister for reassurance that that support will be made available.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for gaining today's important debate. He reflected on his many years working within the textile industry, which is something in which our family have shared for many years. Sadly, our family company is no longer. The noble Lord also recognised that innovation needed money, commitment and a willingness to take a risk. That is hugely important. He also acknowledged the importance of teaching science and technology in school and university. I greatly support that.
Innovation is a function of the individual being free enough to innovate; in other words, a minimum of taxation and regulation. Nanny does not always know best.
Only last week, my noble friend Lord Vinson initiated a debate calling attention to the unintended consequences of regulation. It was a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was unable to be present because, without doubt, he could not have failed to hear the clarion call from all sides of the House for the need to create a regulatory framework that is, above all, proportionate and that is applied intelligently and realistically. As my noble friend said, no one is against sensible regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also spoke in that debate. He said:
"That does not mean that more regulation is good … it must be balanced. It must reflect the aspirations of our community. It must have reasonable lead times".—[Official Report, 25/2/04; col.288.]
My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts stated that there appears to be no overview or cross-departmental view of regulatory burdens. There is duplication, overlap, inconsistency and, sometimes, outright opposition between regulations from different departments.
The CBI calculates that since 1997, Labour has introduced £54 billion in new business taxes. The British Chamber of Commerce estimates that Labour's actions have cost business more than £21 billion. The employment firm, Penninsula, sponsored a survey which implied that red tape has cost businesses more than £20 billion since 1997. Will the Minister state on the record whether he accepts those estimates? If not, why not, and what are the correct figures?
I ask the Minister to recognise that the Government can make a major contribution by freeing up businesses wherever possible. This would be of great help to small businesses which carry a proportionately higher burden and which have a good record of innovation.
Clearly, we need action. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, manufacturing employment has fallen under Labour by nearly 700,000 jobs. The year 2002 saw the biggest trade deficit since records began three centuries ago. If Great Britain plc is to remain

721
solvent we need ideas, applications and developments leading to sales and a healthy return on capital employed—both human and financial.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has been unable to take part in our deliberations on the Energy Bill which yesterday completed its Committee stage. Amendment No. 132A, headed "Application of renewables obligation to coal mine methane" was spoken to ably to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. If that waste gas were to be captured and used for generation, it would cut its global warming potential (GWP) by more than 100 per cent. It would save nine times more CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour than wind power. The amendment was not accepted. That is an example of where government policy means that innovation in that field will not take place in the UK. Germany has forged ahead, and I understand that UK firms in the sector, disappointed by the lack of support in Britain, have moved to develop their interests elsewhere.
I am particularly concerned with "proof of concept" funding. This is needed to establish whether an idea is commercially viable. It may also be of benefit in identifying changes that would enable an original concept to become acceptable. Such support is crucial but not easy to obtain privately. It is one area where the Government can make a definite contribution to innovation. The Lambert report of December 2003 made this point among others which were equally important.
I give an example of innovation. A couple of years ago, there was a proposal to use sheep's wool to insulate houses. The Minister may be able to tell us whether there has been significant progress in that area. It has the potential benefits of using a commodity for which demand has fallen drastically. It is a commodity that is not normally produced in urban areas but in those parts of the country where job creation to replace a rapidly declining agricultural sector is increasingly urgent; and a commodity whose revaluation would help a sector under great threat. Were it to be successful, it would be a regional development with large chunks of the country having little or no interest in it.
The balance of regional development makes a fascinating study. In times past, Yorkshire was associated with wool and coal, Lancashire with cotton, Sheffield with steel, and so on. Modern-day equivalents are the Thames Valley and Cambridge with marked concentrations of modern technologies. Should the Government attempt to manipulate that? If so, how should they regulate their own interference?
The north-east and north-west have plenty of housing available. They have an abundant, skilful workforce ready for retraining as necessary. They have airports, seaports and road links. Is it not possible that astute direction and use of innovation might build on these assets and relieve some of the pressure on the south-east?
The important of government assistance and support for the maintenance and development of skills in our workforce has been highlighted during the
722
passage of the Energy Bill and by the Royal Academy of Engineering. In its response to the Energy Futures Task Force consultation paper, it states:
"The Academy's response expressed concern at the shortfall occurring in the numbers of newly qualified entrants to the disciplines of importance to the energy and environment sector. Overall, this situation was due to the general malaise in the perception of engineering and science by young people.
What are the Government doing to improve that?
One of the ways of helping innovation is through government policy. I refer to the lack of policy with regard to energy production. At present, we are pushing for wind farms. That is but one sector. We can gain energy from waste, combined heat and power, and non-food crops.
Rural districts of England contain more than 577,000 businesses which represents 30 per cent of England's total. One way in which the Government can help is to encourage the spread of broadband, or high-speed electronic communication. In debate on the Queen's Speech in December, I cited the figure of 3 per cent access in the rural areas compared with 11 per cent in urban areas. What is the current position?
At page 90, the DTI innovation report recognises the difficulty experienced by small and medium-sized enterprises in gaining access to research funding. In 2001, the Government established the small business research initiative and set government departments the target of purchasing at least 2.5 per cent of their R&D from small and medium-sized enterprises by 2004–05. What progress has been made to date?
Finally, over the years British industry has been good at inventing ideas but not so successful at developing them. While much research is undertaken by our universities, many new projects come from businesses throughout the UK. Of course, we can all pay lip service to innovation. But the reality is that innovation needs innovators; and innovators need freedom from regulation and to have incentives to succeed.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Layard: My Lords, as has been said, this debate goes to the heart of one of our greatest national problems—the problem of low productivity. As we know, productivity per hour worked in Britain is approximately 20 per cent lower than it is in France, Germany and the United States. If one asks what is the biggest reason for that, the answer is chronic lower investment compared with those other countries. However, if one then asks what is the cause of the low investment, the answer is poor levels of innovation and poor skills. Those are the issues that we are discussing. As we know, the Government have come forward with major initiatives in those areas, as documented in the excellent Innovation Report. However, as the report also makes clear, there is still a very long way to go.
Perhaps I may start by referring to our universities, the knowledge that they produce and the way in which they transfer it to business. As has also been said, in the generation of knowledge, our universities have an excellent record in terms of value for money. I shall

723
give some facts. When compared with GDP, our universities receive more citations in academic journals than universities in any of the other countries that I mentioned. Yet our universities receive less in research funding—that is, a lower share of GDP— than universities in any of those other countries. If one compares those two facts, one can see that we have a comparative advantage in university research: we produce the most for the least. But we are not exploiting that advantage as we should because we are not being given enough resources to do so.
Fortunately, the Government are improving that situation step by step. The news that we read yesterday about a further initiative in the funding of science is extremely welcome. I shall give some more information on what can be expected. The best evidence that we have on the economic rate of return on university research shows that it is higher than the rate of return on R&D carried out in business. That means that it would have been completely wrong for the Government to give many hundreds of millions of pounds to business in R&D tax credits unless, at the same time, they gave extra research funding for university science, as we know they intend to do. In that connection, I hope that the funding bodies will have the guts not to spread the money too widely as evidence shows that the value for money is greatest in the highest-quality departments.
However, the biggest problem relating to research in universities—especially in the research universities—is not the funding of research staff and equipment but the abysmal level of salaries, which are paid out of general university income. Roughly speaking, the top US universities have four times the general university income per student of our top universities, and they pay double our salaries. That has had a long erosive effect, which will, we hope, be stopped if the Government's Bill on variable tuition fees is accepted. That is why that legislation matters so much.
Turning to the universities' record in transferring their new knowledge to the outside world—especially business—one has to say that it is not good but, as we have learnt, it is improving. Let us see what can be done. In the US, the impact of universities is extremely impressive and it shows how university research can help local industries. One piece of research shows that every dollar spent on research in universities in a US state stimulates 4 dollars of business research and development in that same state. That extra R&D generates an increase in the number of patents which are obtained by businesses in that state. That is a measure of what universities can contribute to the local economy, and that is what the Innovation Report and the Lambert revaew are aiming to promote in Britain.
I fully endorse the suggestions in both those reports, including the importance of a third stream of university funding dedicated to knowledge transfer. However, I want to raise one matter. The key issue is always: what is the incentive for the individual academic? The proposals in both the documents that I mentioned rely largely on financial incentives. But
724
academics also care a great deal about their personal recognition and promotion. Currently, that depends essentially on their performance in the research assessment exercise. If we want them also to look more widely, we should consider far more seriously a parallel exercise which involves an assessment where each academic sets out his contribution to knowledge transfer and to the life of the community.
So much for universities. Of course, when we think about innovation, it is easy to focus too much on the innovators and not enough on the environment within which they innovate, and especially the people who have to do the work—those on the shop floor and in the office. Potential innovations will be generated and adopted only if there are workers skilled enough to make the investments profitable.
Unfortunately, our national approach to the supply of skills below graduate level has, until recently, been a total disaster. We relied on the local TECs to do a job that they could never do. Instead, we always needed a national framework delivering high-quality skills by the apprenticeship method. Thanks to David Blunkett and his successors, we now have much of that framework in place and a surprisingly large number of people are embarking on modern apprenticeships. I wonder how many of your Lordships know what that number is. I attended a meeting with some senior civil servants—some were from the Department for Education and Skills—and I asked them what they thought the number was. They were all amazed that the answer is that 28 per cent of all young people are embarking on apprenticeships.
I believe that that story illustrates both the strengths and the weaknesses of the situation that we have reached. We have the apprenticeship framework and we have substantial numbers of apprentices but, in many areas, the quality and commitment is not there. The drop-out rate is around two-thirds, and the knowledge content of many apprenticeships is not yet up to scratch.
The Learning and Skills Council has now decided to make apprenticeships the top priority, and I greatly welcome that. However, to make that happen requires constant effort and serious promotion of the idea to young people by senior Ministers. I should like to hear Ministers say, "Please come to university if you want to but, if you don't want to, go into an apprenticeship". That is the only practical method of acquiring a skill other than going to university. On paper, we now have guaranteed access to apprenticeship for every qualified young person, and the qualification is low. However, the task is now to make all that happen. Unless we do, our innovators will not go ahead because they will not have the plumbers, and so on, to carry out the innovation which is being proposed.
A huge general deficiency in our workforce is innumeracy. We cannot have innovation when we have innumeracy at all levels in our society, including among university graduates. Starting at the bottom, something like 30 per cent of the adult population has less numeracy than we expect in an 11 year-old. That

725
is unbelievable. Of course, this is the only country in the world where one can go to university with no maths beyond the age of 16.
Therefore, the report on mathematics by Professor Adrian Smith is very timely but, unfortunately, he has left to the Tomlinson inquiry the vital question of which university entrants should take mathematics beyond the age of 16. The answer must be: all of them. We cannot wait for that to happen until the Tomlinson proposals are implemented in 2010 or whenever. There is already an excellent Use of Mathematics paper, which is designed specifically for people who do not want to study mathematics at A-level but who need the kind of maths used in business or in government. That paper was introduced in 2001 with the hope that it would become a standard requirement for university entrance. I hope that Ministers will seriously pursue the plans envisaged when the qualification was adopted.
Finally, I congratulate the Government on having established two of the most essential conditions for innovation: a competitive environment and a stable economy. Bravely, the Government have done the right thing in intensifying our rules on competition and, with regard to a stable economy, they have achieved the best record of any government in recorded history.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for initiating this debate. I shall never think of a chub in the same way again; I have never thought of it as a source of innovation before. Today's debate is about innovation in industry and we have heard much about the key drivers to achieving innovation. A variety of speakers have spoken about the various building blocks that make an innovative industry. I want to talk about another building block, one that would not naturally be covered in this type of debate: the innovation of changing one's working practices. I have two specific examples of companies that have changed their working practices and have generated wealth as a result in industries normally considered to be mature industries where it is difficult to innovate.
The first example is of a construction company in the West Midlands called Farrelly Facilities and Engineering, a business that installs ventilation and heating systems. One may not consider that to be a natural area in which to introduce progressive working practices, but the managing director strongly believes that his introduction of the practices has benefited his company. I quote what he says:
"We realised that the services we offered were no different from our competitors—it was our people who would give us our competitive edge".
The managing director changed his working practices. Now the new rules within the company are that no one starts work before 8.30; everyone knocks off at 5 o'clock and at 4 o'clock on Fridays; no one is allowed to take work home at the end of the day; and there is total flexibility for family emergencies. A
726
variety of other soft management approaches have been introduced and the net effect has made employees feel that they own their jobs.
The result has been a cascade of effects. First, there has been a huge reduction in staff turnover, a big improvement in the relationship between clients and the staff which, in turn, has led to an increase in the sales' figures. The managing director is very happy for me to quote him as saying that customers' complaints have almost become a thing of the past. He is a strong advocate of changing working practices; his innovation has led directly to increased sales.
My second example is different. It concerns an oil company of which I am a director, as I have declared. It is one of a new breed of small and agile companies in the British North Sea. About two-and-a-half years ago my colleagues acquired some boxes of unwanted and dusty data which was of no interest to any other oil company. The data was on the old Argyle field which had been abandoned about 10 years ago and had been overlooked ever since. Over the past two-and-a-half years they have worked up a development proposal; worked very closely with the DTI to acquire approval for a licence; the field has been renamed as the Ardmore field; they have secured funding; and they have entered into innovative contractual arrangements with the largest contractors to try to spread the risk. The net effect is that there was first oil in October 2003 and the field is now producing 15,000 barrels a day. That is a huge achievement in two-and-a-half years and totally unprecedented for a start-up oil company.
The key to that success is not just the innovation of my colleagues, but the innovation of all the stakeholders in the North Sea. The company itself was innovative, as was the DTI, which was extremely innovative in acquiring the licences and working with the company; the finance parties were also innovative in backing the company and in understanding the economics involved; and the contractors were engaged in innovative contracts in order to make the project work. Across the board there are examples of people changing their working practices as a mature market changes, so that wealth can be created. Other larger, better capitalised companies, were walking away from the oil.
In conclusion, the point that I am trying to make with those examples is that, whether one is talking about flexible working with ventilation engineers or about a group of oil company executives having; an idea and being able to pursue it, the changes in the working practices themselves generate wealth. In my experience on the oil side, the DTI needs to be quick on its feet to recognise the changes in the market conditions and to support those who lead that innovation.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Haskel for initiating the debate. I want to emphasise how the Government contribute to innovation and make some points about the role of

727
government funding and the management of science and technology, where I believe that there has been much progress. I also believe that the UK could do better still by not forgetting the special role in innovation of public research and development institutions in the UK and in Europe.
My qualifications are that I worked at the bottom of a government laboratory in the 1960s and at the top of one in the 1990s. Even in the 1990s there was only limited thought of commercial innovation and even now the heads of such institutions in Britain have no general mandate to help UK innovation.
I spent the 1970s, the 1980s and this decade in universities, where there has definitely been a progressive shift towards applying knowledge. During that period government policies for applying research have changed from Harold Wilson's white heat of technology to Lord Rothschild's customer-contractor principle, to Mr Waldegrave's interesting mixture of foresight and disengagement, to what one might describe as the Sainsbury-Brown expansion of basic research and financial measures to help innovation. But a feature of the past 20 years has been an absolute decline in the number and scale of major public laboratories; for example, in energy and waste technology. However, some of the greatest successes have been associated with those public laboratories: for example the MRC laboratory in Cambridge, the Hadley Centre and the Meteorological Office.
That UK phenomenon contrasts completely with the United States, the continent of Europe and Japan, where universities and industry have always benefited from the strong continuing support and knowledge provided by openly funded—not commercially funded—organisations. The European Space Agency laboratories provide a vital input to the work of universities across Europe, including those in the UK.
I echo the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, in emphasising the huge possibilities for science and technology to help innovation in new areas of technology which is where one sees the greatest opportunities for wealth creation—he mentioned some himself—and improvement of the quality of life here and around the world. I acknowledge that the Minister, in a recent parliamentary Question, redefined "quality of life" as referring to the quality of life all round the world: for example, in health, environment, new energy and agriculture.
However, one of the puzzling features in government documents and speeches on science and technology and innovation is that they always seem to omit the point that 40 per cent of the economy relates to the government and the Government's role. Their policies and procurement are extremely important in science and technology and innovation. I looked through the Lambert report—page after page—and to my astonishment I could find nothing; nor could I find anything in the Innovation Report. Maybe I did not see it so perhaps the Minister can explain that. However, I gave him credit for a helpful Parliamentary Question on 26 January, when he said that government procurement is very important in this area.
728
Another major role of innovation, as our US friends always like to point out, is that the use of science and technology often helps to depoliticise difficult political decisions; for example, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by technology, for exploring alternatives to animal testing by technology and for dealing with foot and mouth disease problems.
The capabilities of the UK Government and university institutions to help with these difficult problems should provide huge opportunities in the future for commercial development. A witness to the House of Lords Committee recently said that the United States is boasting that it will win the race for energy efficient, non-polluting systems—one of the world's biggest drivers for the future.
This Government have greatly increased funding for universities, as my noble friend Lord Layard emphasised, for research and for helping them to apply this knowledge to industry and commerce. For example, London Metropolitan University is helping furniture business in London by knowledge transfer initiatives. The Design Council has emphasised the vital role of these new specialisms in universities. I cannot tell noble Lords how bitter the arguments were in a certain university just north of London when these issues were discussed in the 1980s. That argument has been won. With colleagues, it has been exciting to see small, spin-off companies forming and marketing their products world wide.
Another important development has been the international high quality of UK universities, which have had a beneficial effect by attracting foreign companies to invest in their research. As noble Lords know, the rest of the world always follows the timetable of the House of Lords. To coincide with our debate today, Le Monde had a special supplement on research and innovation. Noble Lords can see there that the UK is at the top of the graph. It has the highest rate of attracting foreign investment into research institutions. We see the Hewlett-Packard laboratory in Bristol and Schlumberger and Microsoft in Cambridge.
It is important to realise that innovation is to do with people. The Government's financial and social policies have enabled small companies to provide proper careers for women, who can now have six months paid maternity leave in a small company and then go hack and resume their career. I can tell noble Lords about that from personal involvement—not in quite the most relevant way, I should explain. The other important development of government policy that has not been emphasised is the increasing effectiveness of the overseas representation by the DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This has certainly helped UK science and technology in overseas markets, and again I speak from experience. This programme could be stronger if there was a stronger connection between this initiative and the role of UK agencies. For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has its own office in Beijing, to push environmental exports. That kind of thing does not happen here.

729
I summarise by saying that there are about five ways in which we can use this public dimension of science and technology more effectively. It is extremely important that in such institutions there should be of the order of 15 to 20 per cent core funding—the point made by Lord Rothschild and my colleagues in the Netherlands— to ensure that such laboratories have strong continuing programmes, open access to industry and ensuring effective application to universities. The trouble is that many such institutions in Britain have something like 5 per cent core funding from the Government. That does not enable them to maintain their competitiveness and also provide open access.
Government procurement is another important point, which I have already mentioned. The third point is that the role of government agencies is important in promoting innovation abroad. It is not in the job description of many UK government agencies to do that, whereas it is in the United States. A simple development would be for the web page of every UK government agency to describe the connection between what they are doing and approved UK collaborating organisations. Foreign people often look at the web pages of our government departments and say, "Why do they not list the approved UK organisations working with them?". It is sometimes easier to find a company on the US Government web page than on the British Government web page.
The fourth point is that to recognise that such public institutions, with their long corporate memory, often provide an integral part of the Foresight process and part of the access of rapidly changing technology from universities. A previous Minister of Science, when asked why public institutions were not part of the Foresight programme, described them as part of the stage army. That attitude has changed and needs to continue to change.
Some House of Lords committees have noted that we do not have UK laboratories for important areas such as waste technology and new energy techniques, although a European one exists. Maybe we should not be thinking in terms of public laboratories in each European country, but rather on a European scale. I hope that that can go forward. Finally, the Government are investing considerably in major international programmes. One of the most important is through the World Bank, where we invest many hundreds of millions of pounds on projects for sustainable development around the world. From my experience as chairman of a non-governmental organisation, I can tell noble Lords that the UK may be contributing, but the way in which it contributes is such that UK business is not involved. Other countries are contributing in such a way that they have maximum leverage of their involvement. This is partly due to inter-relationships and different government departments not being joined up.
If we go back to Mr Wilson—who I am sure is listening to this debate—resurrecting the Ministry of Technology might not be everyone's solution. However, there might be some way of looking at these questions of the public university role and the industry
730
role to see whether there could be some improvement there: but also looking at a European-wide scale, where we need to think as Le Monde tells us to today.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the title of today's debate uses the word industry. I take that to mean all economic activity relating to competitiveness in the global economy. By innovation, I mean new methods, new products and new thinking of all kinds. An important part of that is good design, in the sense of products that are useful, user-friendly and a pleasure to own. The classic example, regrettably not British, is the Apple computer, which is a superb design compared to the Microsoft alternative.
In considering the Government's contribution, we must refer first, as my noble friend Lord Layard did, to the macro-economic framework. Here, the Government have been outstandingly successful. We have low and stable inflation and high employment, verging on full employment. Despite the usual siren voices, the Government have stuck to a policy of trade liberalisation in respect to both goods and services. They seem to have a bit of a problem on international labour mobility, but that too can be solved.
As the Economic Affairs Committee said in 2002, participating in the global economy is a necessary condition for economic success, although it is not a sufficient one. I emphasise that globalisation is not free trade in the old-fashioned sense of producing goods at home and exchanging them for goods made abroad. First, it is increasingly about services rather than goods. Secondly, it is very much about the ownership of assets, domestic and foreign, real and financial. Thirdly, the decision making of British-owned companies is to do with inputs of all kinds, including labour located abroad or brought in from abroad, together with the location of some of our plants abroad.
What is meant by innovation is much wider than British decisions makers using new British methods and ideas to generate new British outputs in Britain. Those who investigate these matters, together with policy makers and decision makers in industry, require a much broader vision than that. To get the perspective right, I add two further points. In the advanced countries of the world, the production of services now far exceeds the production of goods. There are problems of definition, but the ratio is about 2:1 or 3:1. I note en passant that the value added of the agricultural sector is tiny and is 1 to 2 per cent of the GDP. One notes with amazement the enormous amount of time and public resources wasted on that sector, not least the time wasted on it in your Lordships' House.
The second contextual consideration is the vital importance of competitive markets. Despite the existence of OFT and the Competition Commission, one views with despair the scale of restrictive practices that continue to exist. We have moved forward, but it is obvious, to take an example from the retail sector, that there still appears to be much abuse of market

731
power. To quote the latest OECD report, the Government's recent approach to planning has made new large scale entry into that sector very difficult. Furthermore, despite its illegality, retail price maintenance still seems to exist to an alarming degree in that sector.
More especially on the role of government, my chief proposition is that their criterion should be first and foremost to avoid doing harm. If they do that they can then move carefully to trying to do some good. The main method of avoiding harm is that, while we all accept that it is impossible to remove uncertainty, the Government should at least not add unnecessarily to business risk.
Secondly, an important task for government is to generate appropriate conditions for the provision of a modern infrastructure. Unfortunately, because of disastrous privatisations by the earlier government, to too great an extent the Government are not in a position themselves to provide the infrastructure. The obvious example is transport. What we have there nationwide is a poor state of affairs verging on the primitive. The Government have a responsibility to see that the private utilities do something about that.
I am not an admirer of the current President of the United States. However, I am depressed when he can talk seriously about planning to send people to Mars while we in this country cannot manage to build a state of the art dedicated main line to the north and Scotland. The contrast is depressing beyond belief. I make a similar remark about environmental constraints. The ecological lobby in our country is too powerful and in my judgment is immensely damaging to the economic interests of this country. I see them as damaging to the environment, too; in terms of unforeseen consequences, they are masters at it. The remarks this morning by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds relating to wind farms is as good an example as any. If I had more time I would give the House many more examples of the idiocy of the ecological lobbies.
I turn to some remarks on science and industry. My position is that although the relationship is important, it should not be allowed to become too close. It is of course useful for the two to get together, but such a relationship can also be damaging. Business interests are not the same as higher education interests, especially when it comes to fundamental work, and there is especially the problem—which I came across in my academic days—about the restriction on access to data, the restriction on publishing data used in PhDs, and the attempt which has happened more than once to restrict the dissemination of research results adverse to the profits of the sponsoring organisations.
I also believe very strongly—and if my own committee had not been meeting I would have said this in the debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield—that science should not get too close to government either. I should add that I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of natural scientists who felt able to participate in this debate.
732
None the less, I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord May, set out in today's Financial Times. I am especially pleased by the balance he shows between bringing researchers' ideas to the marketplace as products and services while not jeopardising basic science. It may be, however—dare I say it in his absence?—that he might be somewhat naïve in thinking that it is possible to do one without risking the other.
This is not an area where we have no knowledge; economists have studied this subject very fully. The connections between scientific research, innovation and economic success turn out, not surprisingly, to be rather complex, and it has been hard if not impossible to establish what they are. However, the proposition that pouring more money into science which would then lead to more innovation in the country in question, which in turn would lead to greater economic success, does not stand up. Similarly, the argument that a country that has a poor science base and is not very innovative cannot succeed economically is not validated by evidence. That does not place me in the anti-science camp. Quite the contrary, I am convinced that we need more natural scientists and even more mathematicians. I strongly welcome Adrian Smith's report on mathematics which I hope we shall find time to debate in this House. However, it does cause me to plead that extra funds should be allocated with care and should certainly not be distributed to what used to be called "old boy networks".
I very much welcome the extra funds that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised, or indicated that he might promise the universities—I am not sure which. However, those funds, assuming they become available, should be dispersed as far as possible according to objective criteria—and here I disagree with my noble friend Lord Layard—with no bias in favour of a few self-important universities which praise themselves to the enormous detriment of the rest of us.
I am bound to say that my main conclusion is that the problem for our country is not science but industry. Apart from the fact that business leaders and their representative bodies spend more time complaining and not doing, we still find that short-termism pervades UK industry. They seem to want early rewards, preferably based on clever finance rather than anything else. Too many of them do not seem to see R&D based investment coupled with good design as the way forward. I also have to point out that scientists themselves are absurdly poorly rewarded in industry compared with lawyers, accountants and, dare I say it, economists.
This debate is about innovation in industry, but I cannot conclude without making a few remarks about the public sector, which does, after all, employ 20 to 25 per cent of the working population. We cannot argue that the private sector must be innovative, abandon old ways and be open to new ideas while at the same time the public sector is conservative to the highest degree. The Government have a direct responsibility to encourage innovation in the public

733
sector and to ask in all cases whether present structures and methods are suitable for delivering the desired outcomes and whether new ways might not be more suitable in terms of lowering costs and improving results. No matter how well we think we are doing—and this is true of both the private and the public sector— we must create a culture in which we always want to do better.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate on the role of innovation in enabling Britain to compete in the world marketplace. I think we can all agree that it has been a fascinating debate. I only regret that, because the subject of the debate was announced so late, I am the only Liberal Democrat speaker.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for his comments on Rolls-Royce. It is true that we had a very large noise department, and I was instrumental in trying to specify the computers for it. I had the pleasure of working for both IBM and for Rolls-Royce, both well known and innovative companies. I had access to all the shop floors of Rolls-Royce in order to see how they did things. The processes and innovative methods of making things were a marvel to me. I am an engineer and I was always fascinated to be part of that organisation. I shall have more to say about Rolls-Royce later.
This country has a long history of successful innovation. We were world leaders during the Industrial Revolution, the Victorian era, and the 20th century. Sadly, we seem to some extent to have lost our way. Our country's future depends on our ability to innovate, develop, exploit and bring new products to market. In many cases recently, we have made the inventions and others overseas have reaped the benefits. One can think of may such examples immediately following the last war.
Yesterday's announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Clarke and Patricia Hewitt of the long-term strategy for supporting British science and technology and the commitment to make Britain one of the world leaders for science research, development and innovation are to be welcomed. The recent Science and Technology Select Committee report on Science and the Regional Development Agencies—which I hope we will debate soon—emphasised the importance to the regional economy of science, engineering and technology. Within the regions, universities and industry must work together with the relevant financial institutions to promote and exploit world class innovation and development. The formation of regional science councils that is beginning to occur, with a membership drawn from a region's university and industrial sectors, should be a major driver for the enhancement of science and engineering technology within those regions.
As was stated by the Government yesterday, it is essential that adequate funding is available in the education system. Many other speakers have mentioned that. It is essential to provide for teachers and lecturers to inspire and train our children and
734
young people to believe that science, engineering and technology are subjects of interest, and that careers in those fields will be worth while and rewarding, both financially and personally. I had 45 years in industry and I enjoyed practically all of it.
It is appalling that universities can even contemplate the closure of a science or technology department because the cost of providing the courses and laboratory facilities is too high compared with arts courses. If we do not have those departments, how are we ever going to train the new scientists and engineers that we desperately need, or to provide the incentive for university spin-off companies, which are the seed corn for so many hi-tech companies?
Provision of finance for start-up companies is another matter that has been raised by noble Lords. Beneficial tax incentives from the Government can help allay the national aversion to financial risk-taking. Further, we need to induce the City to take a longer-term view of investments in R&D, which is an area where our EU partners seem to be better organised than ourselves.
During a Science and Technology Select Committee visit to California in connection with our Chips with Everything report, we went to the IBM Almaden research laboratory. When one of the researchers was asked the period of time before which some financial benefit was expected from his research, he told us that IBM were looking at a time scale of 10 to 15 years. How many UK companies are operating to those kinds of time-scales? The financial market is reluctant to support that type of basic research. Only a few UK companies, such as the pharmaceutical industry, Rolls-Royce and some others, are perhaps so forward looking.
I shall make one point about Rolls-Royce developments. It is interesting that the RB5211 family of engines, which includes the Trent engines that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is a continuing development rather than being a new idea. It incorporates new design techniques, but it is essentially the progressive development of a family of engines and that is one of the reasons for its great success in various airlines.
It is good to hear the Government acknowledge the need for long-term commitment to achieve a resurgence in UK innovation. Sadly, those long-term ideals are so often abruptly terminated by an unexpected hiatus in the economy or a change of government. To achieve those aims will require extensive cross-departmental co-operation—truly joined-up thinking. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.3 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for introducing such an important and fascinating debate. His timing is remarkably good in light of the Chancellor's announcement of his 10-year plan for research and development.
I fear that my contribution may be a little thin as was informed of the debate only two days ago and I have had no time to read, for instance, the DTI

735
Innovation Report of last year, which was so ably spearheaded by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I also regret that only my noble friend Lady Byford has spoken from these Benches.
I started out in industry in the late 1970s with Smiths Industries, manufacturing vehicle instruments for the motor industry. I am technically minded, but I cannot claim to be a professional engineer, far less to have worked for, or even with, Rolls-Royce. However, that was a difficult time. I did not realise it then, but my noble friend Lady Thatcher was restructuring British industry. From a junior level in the factory, I could not see how the UK would survive as an economic power without the traditional industries of steel, heavy engineering and self-sufficiency in manufacturing. Nor could I see how we would survive without the textile industry that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I now call that attitude "industrial romanticism".
However, our products of the time were not very good. Our markets were feather-bedded in a number of incestuous and uncompetitive ways. We wasted resources on "sunset industries" rather than investing in industries of the future. On top of that, considerable scientific effort and engineering resources were expended on the Cold War.
Now, of course, we have huge new industries that were not even thought of in the 1980s, and we are still the fourth or fifth biggest economy in the world. Nobody seriously considers returning to the interventionist policies of that era. It is unfortunate that some of our EU partners did not reconstruct as we did in the 1980s.
It seems to me that as long as we have ideas, capital and a highly skilled workforce in the widest sense of the term, we can be competitive in the world economy. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, gave an interesting example from the textile and clothing industry of innovation in new products.
However, we still face the perils of bureaucracy, regulation and red tape, so ably described by my noble friend Lady Byford. Those perils can adversely affect research as well as industry. For instance, the medical devices directive is not entirely helpful to research. However, it is not clear what mischief that directive seeks to remedy. That is why we on these Benches are for ever banging on about the burden of regulation. Your Lordships had an excellent debate on that very subject last week and my noble friend Lady Byford reminded us about some of the concerns raised. In many cases, the best that the government of the day can do is to get out of the way or, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, put it, "at least do no harm".
In his article in today's Financial Times, the noble Lord, Lord May, identified a worrying fall in the number of A-level entrants between 1991 and 2003. He cited an 18 per cent fall in chemistry applications, a 25 per cent fall in maths and a 29 per cent fall in physics applications for A-level examinations. That does not bode well for the future. That is not necessarily the Minister's responsibility, but it is a worrying indicator.
736
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made some interesting observations about technical textiles—a new material, if noble Lords will forgive the pun. One can only guess what Leonardo da Vinci would have achieved if he had all the materials that we have available to us now. The noble Lord mentioned the Rolls-Royce Trent engine. I well recall in the aftermath of the RB211 problems, a depressing TV documentary entitled, "Can we Afford a Rolls-Royce?" Fortunately, UK plc made a good judgment around that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, also asked the Minister about firms that cannot keep up, that cannot innovate. I think it is the Minister's duty to create a favourable environment, but the noble Lord will recognise a definite limit to what the Minister and the DTI can do to save firms, or even industries, that cannot innovate or be competitive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, not unsurprisingly, talked about R&D and universities. She also painted a very encouraging picture from higher education.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked some very tough questions about the cost of regulation and bureaucracy. I am sure the Minister will have winced when she described the situation in the manufacturing industry. She also talked about the need to spread more evenly high-tech "sunrise industries' across the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Layard, suggested concentrating government research expenditure on fewer but higher quality institutions. I am sure he will be aware that a balance has to be struck, because concentration could threaten quality, which was based on the recognition that higher education teaching must take place in an environment of research and scholarship. This point excited the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who said that funds should be allocated objectively. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, also made some very interesting comments about apprenticeships.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, talked about innovation in working practices. One of the best military training courses I ever attended was a Total Quality Management team leader's course. It suggested a management philosophy very much along the lines suggested by the noble Lord.
While innovative business plans are not patentable, the Minister will be pleased that I will not be pursuing that concept during the passage of the Patents Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about overseas trade representation, among other matters. We see the Foreign and Commonwealth Office working closely with the DTI and we are receiving positive feedback. Of course, there is always room for improvement. The noble Lord also suggested research organised on an EU basis. One anxiety I have is about research that turns out to lead to a dead end. Is there any EU database of research that does not bear fruit? It worries me that various organisations may be researching the same dead end and everyone keeps quiet about it, for obvious reasons.

737
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, mentioned, en passant, the problems of railway development. It seems extraordinary that although railway signalling technical challenges seem relatively simple—perhaps similar to the management of air traffic control—railway signalling is fabulously expensive.
It would be bizarre for me to oppose the Chancellor's announcement. The Minister recognises the danger inherent in intervention and market distortion, and will be trying to avoid them. I hope that when he responds, he can say how the needs of funding blue sky curiosity-driven research will be met but balanced against the attractions of the immediate marketable results.
Finally, we on these Benches are deeply concerned about all-pervasive regulation and red tape. The Minister loses no opportunity to point to the high levels of employment in the UK. He is right, but we have been on a favourable economic curve since 1992. The problem is that the adverse effects of regulation take a long time to become apparent. It takes even longer for painful corrective action to take effect and to be seen to be taking effect. I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Haskel for raising the challenge which British industry faces from low-wage fast-growth countries such as China and India, and the need for the Government to create the best possible conditions for industry to innovate, so that it can compete effectively. I believe that these are extremely important issues for the future success of our economy. This has been an excellent debate, which shows the House of Lords focusing on a key issue for the country. I should like to reply to the points made and set out the action the Government are taking to position the UK as a key knowledge hub in the global economy.
There are two fundamental reasons why innovation today is so vital to our future. The first is simply globalisation. Trade liberalisation and a rapid fall in communication and transport costs mean that the UK has increasingly to compete against countries with significantly lower labour costs and reasonably well educated labour forces. My noble friend Lady Warwick was right to point out that wages today in China are 5 per cent of those in the UK. Perhaps even more sobering is the fact that the hourly labour costs in Korea are just over half UK levels, but the proportion of graduates in the working age population is almost identical to that in our society.
The second reason why innovation is so important for companies and governments is the major advances that are taking place in science and technology. Today, technology and scientific understanding are changing our world faster than ever before, and developments in ICT, new materials, biotechnology, new fuels and nanotechnology are unleashing new waves of innovation, and creating many opportunities for
738
entrepreneurial businesses to gain competitive advantage. On the one hand we have the challenge of emerging economies, and on the other the developments in science and technology and the huge opportunities that those open up for us.
The only way that we will be able to compete in this new world is by moving resources out of the low added-value areas into the high added-value ones. That is why the Government have put so much emphasis on knowledge and entrepreneurship, and why we want to see the start-up and fast growth of many more high-tech businesses.
As my noble friend said, earlier innovation is helping traditional industries, such as the textile industry, to reinvent themselves and compete successfully. The growth of the textile industry—particularly in the north-west of the country— is a real British success story, and a model of what we have to do in many more traditional industries.
At the same time, we have to build new industries, such as optelectronics, biotechnology, e-science and others, which will create jobs for the future. While the total manufacturing industry has reduced over the past 10 years, there have been high growth areas within that. That tells us where we ought to be going in the future.
In the period 1991 to 2001, the growth for computers and office equipment was 16.1 per cent; for communications, TV and radio it was 6.4 per cent per annum; and for pharmaceuticals it was 6.6 per cent. These are, of course, high-tech areas. Those figures compare with low-tech areas such as plastic and rubber products where growth was 1.4 per cent, and food, drink and tobacco where it was 0.4 per cent. I am not saying that companies cannot be profitable in low-tech industries, but only if they find sources of competitive advantage, particularly science and technology. I believe that there are no high-tech and low-tech industries, only high-tech and low-tech companies. What characterises the success stories is that they tend to have relatively high inputs of research and development and skilled labour forces, compared to those industries that only have a small growth rate.
If innovation is so important, what is our record in this country? The two best measures of technological innovation are business research and development and patenting. They show that the UK's performance is not good enough compared to our international competitors.
My noble friend Lord Haskel asked what we could do to stimulate innovation in traditional industry. The Government can do a lot. The same range of public goods are necessary to support a dynamic and innovative economy for both traditional and new, high-tech industries. Both require the same essential public goods.
The first of those is a dynamic science base. Over the past eight years we have doubled the science budget from approximately £1.3 billion to nearly £3 billion in 2005–06. We have also introduced research and development tax credits that are worth £600 million per year to business. The Government have made

739
significant changes to the tax regime to encourage greater levels of investment by UK companies. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that our record is good in trying to remedy the failures of the past, but there is still a long way to go.
We have also provided the universities with incentives for knowledge transfer through schemes such as University Challenge, Science Enterprise Centres and the Higher Education Innovation Fund. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, was right to point to the extraordinary culture change that has taken place in our universities in the past five years, and the way in which they have successfully responded to these incentives.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, there was a slight drop from 248 spin-outs in 2000–01 to 213 in 2001–02, but that compares with the situation five years ago when the average was about 70 per year. There has been a radical change.
Income from licensing increased from £18 million to £33 million last year, an increase of 83 per cent. There was also a substantial increase in the number of patents.
My noble friend Lord Layard said that the situation did not compare well with American universities, but I am not certain that that is true. If one decided simply to take any American university and picked MIT for comparison, it is true that we do not do as well. However, MIT is not a typical American university. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, pointed out, in terms of spin-offs per one million dollars of research, we do better than the USA.
With business R&D, while the UK is well behind the US and roughly equal to the EU average, it is encouraging that after a steady period of decline from 1.5 per cent of GDP in 1981 to 1.16 per cent in 1997, there has been a move in the right direction. Business R&D has gone up to 1.24 per cent in 2002. We have also seen a huge growth of the number of incubators in this country; there are currently 220. That compares with a figure of 100 in 2000, and about 25 in 1996. So we are creating the conditions for the restructuring of business and the start up of new companies.
A number of speakers raised the question of skills. That is clearly essential if we are to move out of low added-value areas and into the high added-value areas. At the higher level we actually do very well, as we produce more science, engineering and technology graduates than any other G8 country except France. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, the overall improvement in numbers conceals a decline in specific subject areas such as materials science, electrical engineering, chemistry, physics and biochemistry. That is an area of real concern although, interestingly, it is a problem that one finds across the world. It is an extraordinary factor that as we enter this new world in which science and technology are going to be more important, young people are turning away from physics, chemistry and engineering in particular. That is true of Germany, Japan, South Korea and even China.
740
There is a real challenge here to communicate to young people the excitement in the physical sciences. Young people see all the excitement being in biology and IT, but we need to convey to them the extraordinary excitement and changes in the physical sciences—in optelectronics, aerospace, satellites, nanotechnology, telecommunications and bioengineering. However, as my noble friend Lord Layard pointed out, the real problem is at the middle range of skills and particularly at the technician level, where we have a serious shortage of skills in comparison with Germany and France. While 27.7 per cent of the workforce have intermediate skills levels in the UK, that compares with 51.2 per cent in France and 65 per cent in Germany. There is no question but that that clearly has a serious impact on our productivity.
We have to make rapid and major improvements here, which is why we issued a new skills strategy last year. We have made a large and important change by putting business demand at the centre, whereas previously things have been driven from a supply side perspective. That is a huge move forward for industry and our economy, as it recognises that our education system has failed if it does not meet the needs of the workplace. Without the DTI, the voice of industry would not have been heard. We have made a real change to how skills are addressed by government.
A number of noble Lords made comments about government policy. Let me deal with those views. My noble friend Lord Haskel asked what we would do about those who lose their jobs because companies fail to innovate. It is absolutely key that we do not try to get back into the world in which we keep companies afloat that have been unsuccessful. Equally, however, it is essential that the Government create the opportunities for those people to retrain and move into new jobs. We must create opportunities for everyone throughout their careers, not only at the beginning of their careers. We need to make lifetime learning, as we are doing, a real reality for people, so that they feel that they can retrain during the course of their lives.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the question of burdens on business and the question of regulation. I shall deal with the specific figure of the £20 billion burden on business since 1997. It should be clear that we are talking about two things here. The first is the administrative cost of the new regulations, which is a tiny fraction of that figure. The big figure are the benefits that people will enjoy as a result of the regulations, such as decent wages the minimum wage—paid holidays, time off to attend to family matters, and the working time regulations. I shall not apologise for any of those benefits. They are what modern business is about. We are happy to stand behind them as long as people understand that they are not costs of administration, but go towards what people are paid and decent working conditions.
Regulation is an enormously important subject. Government constantly have to work hard to make certain that there are no new regulations. The noble Baroness is wrong to suggest that there is no strategic overview of regulations. We have a regulatory impact

741
unit in the Cabinet Office to take an overview and scrutinise departments. We set up the better regulation task force with independent members to challenge the Government.
It is also important to realise that regulation is not the only issue that hinders or causes problems with innovation. The Government need to do positive things. To omit to put alongside the issue of regulation the importance of education and training, science and competition policy is to show that one does not realise the key challenges facing British industry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also raised the question of methane gas being a renewable energy source. That is not correct; it is not a renewable energy source. We support it because it is a good thing to do for quite other reasons. It should also be said that in the total energy policy it will make hardly any difference because the amount is so small.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of the proof of concept idea. That is what University Challenge was all about. One of the new products from business support in the DTI covers the same field. The proof of concept idea has been successfully developed in Scotland. It is a great success story.
The noble Baroness referred to energy policy and the new sources of energy. We are putting considerable amounts of money into wave power, non-food crops and photovoltaics, which are all important. We are investing in the research for the future and setting up a special centre with the research councils to monitor and network that research for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Layard, raised the question of motivation of academics. I do not think that we want another RAE to cover the subject of innovation, which is difficult to measure. There are financial incentives and the esteem of colleagues, which falls on people who innovate, who set up their own companies and work with large business successfully. That is doing a good job in motivating academics. The exciting thing is that there is no longer a sense among academics that to work in industry is something that reflects badly on one's academic career. On the contrary, it is now seen as reflecting well on one's academic background.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, that mathematics is a key skill for undergraduates. I shall follow up the question of David Blunkett's idea that all young people should take mathematics at A-level as a qualification for university.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that changed working practices can lead to improved business performance. Innovation is driven largely, but not exclusively, by science and technology. Innovation can take many forms, all of which are to be encouraged.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised a very interesting question on the decline in research institutes not located in universities. I think that this is the way the world is going and that the countries with strong research institutes not in universities, such as France and Japan, are now suffering in terms of the quality of the research.
742
The noble Lord also raised the question of the impact of government departments on innovation through knowledge transfer, procurement and output based regulations. I would simply draw his attention to Chapter 5 of the Innovation Report, which is entirely on that subject and is headed "Innovation policies across Government". It covers that in great detail because we feel that procuring £109 billion per year is an enormous resource which government can use to support innovation. We are very keen that that should take place.
My noble friend Lord Peston raised the question of competition policy. According to a recent survey, our competition regime in this country is reckoned to be one of the best in the world. My noble friend also argued that the relationship between science and business should not get too close. I had hoped t hat we had got away from that kind of view of science and business. We need to fund basic science extremely well so that scientists have the independence to pursue blue skies research without any considerations of its use or any pressure from anyone to exploit it. Equally, we need to have incentives for knowledge transfer because of its key role in the economy. I cannot think that there is any doubt that American economic success in the past 15 years has been based crucially on both the high quality of its basic research and the incentives for its exploitation. That has been its great strength.
There is no question of "old boy networks" in the way that science money is handed out; it is done through the most rigorous form of peer review in the research councils by the scientists themselves.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, that we need to scrutinise the closure of university departments very carefully, particularly those which are still attracting a good many students. It is very worrying if those are closed.
As far as concerns cross-government co-ordination, we have a cross-departmental ministerial group, chaired by Patricia Hewitt, which is doing just that in terms of implementing the Innovation Report.
I end by saying that our vision is that the UK should be a key hub in the global knowledge economy. That means that we should be a country famed not only for our outstanding record of discovery but also for innovation—a country that invests heavily in business R&D and education and skills, and which exports high-tech goods and services to the world. We also want to be a country with strong science and technology links with the best research around the world, so that we can stay always at the leading edge.
We should be a country to which talented entrepreneurs and world-class companies come from around the world to carry out research and to set up high-tech companies. We see these companies being attracted by the quality of our research, the strong links between universities, research institutes and industry, the geographic clusters of high-tech companies, the ability to raise finances—particularly venture capital—and our quality of life.

743
We have made much progress in achieving that vision, but there is still a long way to go. That is why at the end of last year we published the Innovation Report and why we are determined that in the next year to 18 months we will fully and properly implement that report.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the debate was arranged at very short notice, so I am particularly grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. In spite of the short notice, we seem to have debated the many facets that involve innovation. I am most grateful to noble Lords who have brought their specialist knowledge to the debate.
I am most grateful to my noble friends Lord Layard and Lady Warwick who spoke with their special knowledge about the contribution made by universities. Our economist, Professor Layard—my noble friend Lord Layard—and my noble friend Lord Peston spoke about the macroeconomic success that is necessary to underpin innovation. My noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Preston spoke about innovation in the public sector. This is something that is quite new and is of increasing importance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, spoke about regulation and its impact on innovation. They spoke about the debate last week on the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. I spoke in that debate and I have the impression that in it the compensation culture was blamed on regulation. I think that this compensation culture is largely to do with the fact that if one does not win, one does not pay. I felt that a mistake was made about that in that debate.
I was most grateful to the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who spoke about the importance of not protecting industry by artificial means. That is important. The textile industry suffered from that and was set back many years by it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, spoke about the importance of progressive working practices; I agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, spoke about Rolls-Royce. One of the reasons why continuous development of the Rolls-Royce engines took place was that carbon-fibre fabrics were used for the rotor blades in the engine. It is another example of new textiles in engineering producing an improvement.
I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply. I think that he covered all the key issues. We all agree that he has done so much to champion science and we are all grateful to him for that. He referred to young people being turned away from science and technology but he started the ambassador scheme, which is very popular. The shortage of mid-range skills that he spoke about greatly affects our innovation. Our debate has covered all the important factors and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus
8.38 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how the European Union is developing its policy towards Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of my Unstarred Question this evening is to look at the European Union's new eastern neighbours, namely Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine. Of course, these neighbours rightly see themselves as being at the heart of Europe—not at the eastern edge but at the centre.
On 1 May the EU's border will move and a new border will be formed. It will be a physical border of some 5,000 kilometres. It will represent the border between relative wealth and relative poverty. Some will see it as a new frontline between East and West. I believe that it is of the utmost importance for the European Union to counter such a perception. While it is true that the EU has its own values and that not all countries on this border share those values, it is also true that the European Union has its own interests and those interests should be advanced. The EU has an interest in expanding the zone where the same economic rules apply, where the fight against crime and terrorism is co-ordinated and where migration issues are addressed. In short, the EU has an interest in a border that is both open and secure and the best way to achieve that is through co-operation with our new eastern neighbours.
The EU has said that it wishes to agree action plans for each of the countries on its new border. It has also said that "differentiation" is a key word since no single policy would be appropriate or desirable for each of the new neighbours. So I shall deal with Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine in turn as they too each have their own interests and aspirations.
First, I shall deal with Belarus. Belarus has expressed no desire to join the European Union. It sees its main ally as Russia and one still hears the echoes of the Cold War in the speeches of President Lukashenka. There is a debate in the international community about the extent to which we should engage with the authorities in Minsk. There are those, led by some American politicians, who wish to punish Belarus for its human rights abuses, for lack of freedom in the media and for lack of economic reform; and there are others who argue for selective engagement and the expansion of constructive programmes in parallel with isolating the President and his close administration. I have been actively involved in this debate over the past few years and I have two observations: first, that the countries physically closest to Belarus seem to favour selective engagement—here I am thinking of Poland, Lithuania and Sweden in particular—whereas countries further away from the new border are more ready to see Belarus remain isolated. My second observation is that the Belarusian leadership do nothing to help themselves. Barely a month goes by when I do not receive an e-mail about an NGO being shut down, or

745
a newspaper being closed. With the growth of the Internet and the availability of media from Belarus's immediate neighbours, this seems a particularly shortsighted and counterproductive activity by the Belarusian authorities.
I would argue that the expansion of the EU to the Belarusian border offers a new opportunity to engage with the people of Belarus. The OSCE office is up and running again and important decisions will have to be taken about the forthcoming elections. But where is the European Union? Why is it that there is no EU office in Minsk? It seems bizarre that the EU has offices from Barbados to Nepal but nothing with its new next door neighbour. I would argue that the EU should open an office in Minsk with a view to disseminating information about its activities. If there is to be a policy of differentiation between countries, there can also be a policy of differentiation within Belarus itself. It seems to me that when Commissioner Prodi offers the EU's neighbours four freedoms— freedoms for people, services, goods and capital—he should also offer to help those countries, including Belarus, take advantage of those freedoms with practical projects. President Lukashenka will not be in place for ever and it is important to work for good will between the people of Belarus and the European Union.
Next I shall speak of Moldova. Moldova is a different case as it borders Romania and Romania aspires to join the EU in 2007, so there will not be an EU border with Moldova in the near future. Moldova, however, does aspire to join the EU, which seems logical given its close relationship with Romania. The Transnistria conflict and its economic dependence on Russia will hamper Moldova in its aspiration to join the EU; nevertheless, the very fact that Moldova even aspires to join the EU gives an opportunity for the EU to influence Moldova's development. Moldova is a small country and it is a poor country. Many of its people have become disillusioned with the political process due to falling standards in the economic and social spheres and this was reflected in the 2001 elections when the Communist Party won landslide victories. This all adds up to a fragile country where maintaining stability should be at the top of the EU's agenda. The longer term goals of attracting foreign investment, fighting crime and corruption and building stable institutions mean that the EU should see its goal as helping to normalise the legal structures and to give confidence to potential investors be they domestic or foreign.
The situation in Transnistria is fluid. I do not want to say much about that as I know that the Russians have advanced possible solutions and the OSCE and the Council of Europe are actively involved in trying to find a way ahead. My only comment on this matter is that it is difficult to imagine the Moldovans solving this problem for themselves and that whatever the final solution is, the Russians and the international institutions will be central to finding the way ahead.
Finally, I shall say something about Ukraine. In my view Ukraine will be the key to the success of the whole of the EU's policy to its eastern neighbours. It is a large
746
country with extensive links with Britain and other countries in the West, and, importantly, it aspires to joining the EU. The EU should promote Ukraine's independence and the best way to do this is to base EU policy on the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership. This approach has proven to be successful with the current new member states and offers a tested framework for reform and the implementation of those reforms necessary to join the European Union.
In previous years I have been a rapporteur for two papers concerned with Ukraine. The first was about how the minority Tartar people were treated on their return to Crimea from other parts of the former Soviet Union. The second paper was about the financing of the shut down of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. In both cases, while I was critical of particular aspects of Ukrainian government policy, I was extremely impressed by the importance that Ukrainian officials, institutions and politicians attached to the views of the international communities of which I was a part It was refreshing that we were taken so seriously.
I know that there are concerns regarding Ukraine. Its treatment of journalists and some dissidents, for example, is not so very different from other countries in the region which are regularly pilloried by the international human rights organisations. Nevertheless, there is an active and organised opposition in Ukraine; the parliament is a focal point for national debate, and its economy is growing so quickly that I recently overheard one international diplomat complain about it. He said that we could lose influence there because they will not need to borrow so much money in the future, which seems a perverse argument. Nevertheless, most importantly, there is the aspiration to join the EU. For these reasons I argue that Ukraine should be seen as the key to the success of the EU's policy towards its eastern neighbours and therefore a constructive programme of working towards the Copenhagen criteria should be a central part of the action plan for Ukraine.
Throughout my contribution I have tried to avoid mentioning Russia. The reason for this is simply that when one brings Russia into the equation it so dominates the considerations that it almost denies debate about the countries concerned. There could be no clearer illustration of this than when on 18 February this year the Russians cut off the gas to Belarus for 24 hours in a dispute about tariffs, one was immediately catapulted into debates about security of energy supplies and all sorts of other things. It is then difficult to get back to talking about the immediate neighbours. However, it is impossible not to talk about the influence of Russia.
I opened my contribution by saying that there is a fear that all that EU expansion will achieve will be to redraw the dividing line between East and West, which is the dividing line between Russian and western influence. I argue that, given that Russian influence is so dominant in Minsk, Chisinau and Kiev, the Russians should be a partner in the wider Europe process, but also that the EU should actively and independently co-operate with its new neighbours in the new neighbour policy.
The new neighbour policy of the EU should concentrate on Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine, but the wider Europe policy should include Russia and its strategic concerns. There may well be limits on how far the EU can export its model for free trade and social democracy, but other international groupings, namely the OSCE and the Council of Europe, can be used to bind Europe together.
However, when one looks at how the EU treats its other neighbours in south-eastern Europe, it is difficult not to make comparisons which are unfavourable. The EU has invested far more in south-eastern Europe. The funding for CARDS is double that for TACIS, while it serves only 10 per cent of the CIS population. I understand that comparisons of this type are always invidious and they are difficult, but I believe there is a strong argument for putting the treatment of Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine on a new financial footing.
I want to conclude on a lighter note. At the time of the last European IGC in Strasbourg, I met a couple of Belarusian officials and I made a joke. Belarusians are fond of jokes. I said that the Polish were the new tough guys in Europe since the Sun newspaper said that Poland had saved Britain from the new European constitution. The Belarusians laughed like drains: they loved the idea of Poland saving Britain from Europe. It seems to me that the example of Poland as an assertive and assured partner in Europe could give as much encouragement to the Belarusians and to others to reform as any amount of finger wagging by the international institutions.
It is a very select group of Members of this House who take an interest in these matters. However, I know that what my noble friend says here today will be of great interest to many people at the heart of Europe.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I rise in this exclusive climate, conscious of the extent to which my familiarity with European institutions is fading fast and that I am a fading Euro buff. However, I am reassured by the aura of authority and wisdom that has been manifest in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I am confident that I shall be rescued from any misunderstanding by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in due course.
I speak, in the old Chinese fashion, as an "old friend of Ukraine" and I declare an interest as having received the honour of the Order of Public Service of Ukraine, of which I am very proud. It does not need me to underline the point made by the noble Lord that Ukraine is an important nation. One tends to forget that in terms of population it is on the same scale as the United Kingdom—much larger than that—and that we have many human links with Ukraine. I always think with affection of the fact that Stefan Terlezki became a Conservative Member of Parliament, having been a refugee in his teens from Ukraine. One of the individuals I was able to get Mr Gromiko to release from Ukraine to come on holiday to this country was
748
Stefan Terlezki's father. It is the kind of human link that lives in one's mind to remind one of the humanity of the relationship. I am sure the Minister will agree that Terlezki is an honorary Welshman born in Ukraine.
I first went there in 1988 when it was still part of the Soviet Union. I last went as a parliamentarian leading an IPU delegation with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, the late Lord Dormand of Easington and Ann Clwyd, who is now chairman of the Anglo-Ukraine Parliamentary Group. I made a number of other visits in company—if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will not misunderstand this—with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. We were both members of the Economic Advisory Council of the Supreme Rada for a number of years.
In those early days one had a glimpse of the difficulties that were to develop. On our first meeting with President Kravchuk, some time after Ukraine's claim to independence, one of us was surprised to see on the wall behind him in his office the picture of Lenin still in place and asked, "Mr President, forgive us for asking, but why is that picture still on the wall?". We got the rather disarming reply, "You can't expect us to do everything at once". At the same time, I remember an observation by the then American head of mission saying, "You will have to go through simultaneously what the United States went through in 1776, 1861 and 1931". That is the scale of the problems that they have to face.
One must admire the courage of those who have grappled with them over the years, particularly given their loneliness on the edge of the European Union, in a region not renowned for its security. One thinks of the tragically poor economic performance of the country for its first decade. Although Moldova is the poorest of the three countries, with an income of 417 euros per head, Ukraine is not far behind at 855 euros per head. Happily, real progress has been made in the past three years. That was confirmed to me today when the Anglo-Ukrainian parliamentary groups had a meeting with the First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs for European Integration, Mr Olexandr Chalyi. He was confident that that economic performance would be maintained. He pointed out that the scale of Ukraine trade with the European Union is one-third of its total turnover. The European Union is of great importance to it. The percentage of EU trade with the Ukraine is insignificant. That might tempt us to feel that it is not a country of significance to us. Happily, that is not the view that we have been taking.
Its success matters hugely to the stability of the region and to us. In that respect, the European Union has been giving an enormous amount of help. It is perceived as one of the targets as regards the way in which Ukraine develops itself. The United Kingdom is seen genuinely as one of the countries which can do the most within the European Union to help it in that direction. There is no doubt about its economic and political aspirations.
I dare to mention the Russian factor at this stage. There is no doubt about the competitive nature of Russian foreign policies in relation to Ukraine and the

749
European Union. They have been offered the prospects of a customs union, a single currency union and joining the security umbrella of Russia. As the noble Lord pointed out, one has somehow to conduct the European Union's management of those questions in a fashion which does not provoke increasing rivalry and hostility. That is why I underline his point about the need for our relations with Russia to be part of our general relations internationally.
In preference to that road, Ukraine wishes to set the prospect of the closest possible relationship with the European Union, aspiring to membership of the Union and of NATO. There is no doubt that it attaches real value to the partnership co-operation agreement. It looks forward to early completion of the agreed action plan—agreed to the extent that it will then be able to claim ownership of that with clearly stated goals for the next steps they want to achieve along the road, and rightly so.
It had doubts about the wisdom of that course at one time when the Balkan war was at its height and there was a tendency to resile from a European partnership. Happily, that has now given way, if to anything, to hesitation about the Chechnyan alternative. That is another reason for us to want to hold out a welcoming hand.
I wish to stress the need for help, not solely or primarily in the economic field. I certainly would not enthuse over the past economic policies of Ukraine, but now at least they are on an upward path. It is still the politics which lack confidence, coherence and authority. Political stability—the need for an effective political structure founded on electoral legitimacy—is probably the most important feature that we can now commend to it. Its constitution makes life very difficult in that respect. It has carried intellectually the concept of separation of powers even further than has the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I remember making an observation quite early on in my presence in Ukraine to the effect that Montesquieu threatened to do far more damage to Ukraine than Marx had ever done. That is at the heart of what has been happening. There has been gridlock of the most frustrating kind between the president and the Rada.
In that context, in the past few months, quite dangerous change in constitutional reform has been attempted. It has been criticised—certainly understandably—by the opposition as being no more than a device to prolong the tenure of President Kuchma. On the other hand, if one is charitable, one can see arguments in favour of altering the balance of power as between the legislature and the presidency. That may be one explanation for what has happened recently.
However, it certainly appeared to the opposition and to outsiders that the changes made at about Christmas-time were designed by the Rada members who voted for them, as well as by the courts, to prolong the president's term and legitimise the prospect of his remaining in office for a third term. Then the changes were observed as being designed to guarantee that, if
750
he did not become president, the powers of the presidency would be reduced and would be exercised by Parliament instead. Therefore, one can see the possibility of sinister interpretations being made of the situation. All that has happened without consultation with the opposition or with the country.
In those circumstances, the Council of Europe and the Strasbourg institutions rightly protested about what was happening and the way in which it was happening. Happily, those protests seem to have led to the repudiation and withdrawal of all the earlier measures. It is important that that change of heart should be genuine and complete. We now have an assurance from President Kuchma that he will not seek to stand as president for another term; nor will he seek to stand for election as Prime Minister or Speaker. However, I heard this morning that he intends to establish a foundation for the study of the future of his country, rather following the fashion set by Mikhail Gorbachev and others.
It is now most important that we do all that we can to ensure progress along this line of development of bona fide democratic institutions. I wonder whether we are yet putting enough resources and coherency into the delivery of political advice. I remember being very struck in the early years by the extent to which the Ukrainians had been confronted by visiting delegations. Our advisory council was bundled out of the room to be succeeded on one occasion by a group of wise people from Harvard and even, on another, by wise people from the London School of Economics. The poor Ukrainian Government had to select from this pot-pourri of advice without knowing whether they needed a plumber, an electrician or an economist.
I believe we should try to do all that we can to integrate the wisdom that we offer so as to ensure that the process towards a clean, democratically legitimate government—president and Rada alike—really does emerge. Here, I should declare an interest. I am president of the British-Ukrainian Law Association—a rather modest organisation but, for what it is worth, it is there. We should also try to ensure a coherent rule of law.
As the noble Lord pointed out, free and fair access to the media is probably the most worrying feature. Free and fair elections should be carried out and delivered to the genuine satisfaction of independent election monitors, including, in particular, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE—all in compliance, I hope, with clearly laid out benchmarks.
Today, I had the clear impression that, as the noble Lord pointed out, there is a fund of good will within people on all sides in Ukraine. They want the path to be made clear and they want help and guidance in going along it. Therefore, I hope that we shall ensure that the resources, whether intellectual or economic, of the European Union, the United Kingdom and the United States that go into Ukraine are concerted as well as possible and that they contribute to one flow of wisdom and to securing the legitimacy of the political process in that country.

751
We cannot, of course, do it all for them. When considering what to say today, I was reminded of a quotation in Rodric Braithwaite's CER pamphlet. The quotation is from George Kennan in 1951 talking about Russia, but the same argument applies here:
"When Soviet power has run its course, or when its personalities and spirit begin to change (for the ultimate outcome could be one or the other) let us not hover nervously over the people who come after, applying litmus papers daily to their political complexions to find out whether they answer to our concept of 'democrats'. Give them time; … let them work out their internal problems in their own manner. The ways by which people advance towards dignity and enlightenment in government are things that constitute the deepest and most intimate processes of national life"
They have had time; the ball is still in their hands and not in ours. We can and must do all that we can to help, but in the last resort it is for the people of Ukraine who will save themselves, as I am sure they intend to do. They have all our good wishes in that respect.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for introducing the debate. I was not aware of his interest in these areas until I went—I was not dragged unwillingly to school—to a Foreign Office seminar one day, where I saw he was in charge, surrounded by people with the most amazing collection of names that I could not pronounce and whom I thought were masquerading as British. It made me realise what little involvement we have had to date in these countries. At this time of night I shall not try to entertain your Lordships, but I want to express a few views as I stand here and look towards, say, the east, or perhaps the Baltic with Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia somewhere nearby—one Division Lobby—and the Black Sea on the other side.
Geography plays an important part, as it always has done, in our economic and political history. There is a line of states but I do not know whether they are beyond the border of Europe. I have yet to find anyone who can tell me where the border of Europe is and draw that line in the sand or on the hills. I was always told that it was the Urals. Once upon a time children studied geography at school. This evening I went to the Library to consult a map to see where the Danube came out because I was not sure. One fact that I knew is that the main rivers of Europe often flow in that direction.
Now we have a time of change. I should declare an interest as I have worked in and with the countries of central and eastern Europe on and off for years. Perhaps I should say that I have tried to work in and with them but somehow they have always won and I have never had much success other than receiving two Know-How Fund grants. Change in those countries does not happen quickly. I know nothing of Moldova. I have a great affection for the Ukraine, where I have been many times. The noble and learned Lord—"Sir Howe", as he is called there—is heavily respected because he is an island unto himself; he is a form of Crimea in Europe, as they have described him to me.
752
I do not want to consider the European opportunities, but the British opportunities. At this moment our competitors—we have competitors within the European Union—in matters of trade and economic affairs are reeling a little. Germany is bankrupt because of the cost of eastern Europe; France has too much capital expenditure; we, as a country, for whatever reason—there is no political credit—are in a position where enormous resources are passing through London which can be directed almost anywhere in the world. We are now the third largest investor in the world but with the lovely phrase OPM—other people's money.
I return to my favourite country in that part of the world, Ukraine. I first became involved with two countries because originally Scotland was called Albania—the white people—and because Ukraine is next door to the United Kingdom in the alphabet. I went out there to see one of my Ukrainian friends. I have been privileged to sit with most of their politburo and found that your Lordships' card with the red and white stripes gets one into the KGB and anywhere in the Ukraine. I thought that it would be nice if we could build ships so we set up "British Ukrainian Shipbuilders". The idea was that they would build the hulls and we would equip them and trade with them. At the end of the day, they did not need us. The Black Sea shipping company—BLASSCO—was one of the most successful in the world and traded almost everywhere. Their shipbuilding did not have to rely upon the need to produce profit. Profit was the picture you hung on the wall and dreamed about one day, but it did not come into the scene.
Shipbuilding interested me first, and from that came the spin-off—the technology of trying to turn swords into ploughshares. I did not realise the remarkable economic and industrial strength that there was in the military, with 40 per cent of Ukraine's economy defence-related, but with parts of that defence being in a fairly high-tech area. I mentioned this in your Lordships' House some years ago. When I was first taken out there, they set me up a bit. I was asked if I would like to go and look at a factory. I ended up in the SS24 missile factory in Dniper Petrosk, where I was taken in, supposedly through the clean rooms. The doors squeaked shut, and I suddenly found that my colleagues had walked round the outside, because their equipment was designed to work in any area at all.
When the first Ukrainian Airways flight took off and went out there it was run by Aer Lingus. The pilot who I happened to sit next to—we were on a Boeing, because they did not think that people trusted Ukrainian or Russian aircraft—said, "The one thing that you should never do is fly on a plane where the only training that the pilot has had is from Boeing, because we know in our country that anything that can go wrong will go wrong". We discussed Murphy's Law, and in Scotland MacDonald's Law says that Murphy was an optimist. He said, "We are used to anything going wrong that can go wrong. We have the extremes of weather. I could even land this Boeing with a hook on one of the aircraft carriers that we are trying to sell to you".

753
Going in to the missile factory, I realised that these were people who sent things into space; but they did not have the lightweight technology, the software. It was only then that I realised the association that goes back to the twelfth century between Kiev and Belarus, and Belarus was the country that had some of the greatest software and the lighter parts of high technology. I suppose the former Soviet Union had deliberately tried to divide or control its empire by allocating to some areas one form of technology and production and the others to another area. The engines for ships were not made in Ukraine, they were made somewhere else. The transfer prices after perestroika were such that it was not possible to make it economic.
I realised that with these countries the words economic and profit did not seem to apply. The wonderful concept of PPP, or privatisation, was a much simpler issue. The general manager or the management of a company in most of these countries would find that he no longer had the resources from central government, so he would ask if he could have control. There would be a government decree that would effectively hand over the business to him and his former colleagues. He may not be allowed to have two cars or four secretaries, but his job was to make sure that the workforce was paid, and that it received its facilities in sport and other areas. The community of interest became more isolated from the centre.
This is where our country could step in. We have much to offer that part of the world. In general, we are not disliked. I think that we are regarded as a friend, and not as a competitor. There are little things that stick in my mind. I never realised that the two presidents, former and current, had flats next door to each other, although they were each other's main rivals. When you went out to a dacha up on the way to Chernobyl, you looked to make sure that the pine cones were on the trees, and that you were not too near to that area. You would find their dachas were next door to each other. I took the occasion to invite them out to dinner. To show me that things had not changed, we had an excellent dinner of lobster, champagne, and so on. When the bill came for eight people, I was told that it was so many local currency. I asked how much it was in dollars. "We do not take dollars, my Lord. It is £5, preferably an old white £5 note". That showed the devaluation of the currency.
I got to like these people. When they asked whether I could help them in the management of their football club, or by looking after that young, slim skater, who came to the West and did extraordinarily well, I realised that we were dealing with a deep culture that somehow struck at one's soul. One only had to go to an opera in Kiev and it was like a pantomime. Suddenly, just before the curtain went up, the children would come in dressed in uniforms, each carrying a stool. They would sit in the aisles and learn about their culture.
I am not trying to promote a country such as that. However, I had to open my own eyes as I had previously understood that we were dealing with a military power.
754
I was drawn through and told that 3 million people had been killed or starved to death under Stalin and that 3 million had been killed by the Germans in the war. I was told that it was the breadbasket of central and eastern Europe. Black grow bags, almost as if they were from Fyson's, came down from the delta, and there was an ability to grow as much food as one could wish, but without the organisation of the farms. Under Lazarenko, all the technology and finance had been allocated to the military and people were still raking by hand in the fields.
Then, I suddenly became interested in Belarus, for one simple reason. It is quite intriguing when a president has his own website. When a man says, "In order to unite my country we must gang up together against our common enemy, and our common enemies arc the United States, Russia, Japan and Western Europe", you have to say, "There is a man who has an idea. He may become a benevolent dictator rather than what people call him at the moment". I thought it might be a good idea to go there. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will remember the advice given by the Foreign Office: "It might be a hit dangerous to go there. We do not have a lot of interests".
So I thought that I would go off and meet the people. I met the Foreign Minister in Geneva and said, "Why don't you come to lunch and see us here". He said, "I am not allowed to". We are not allowed to exchange ministerial visits; I have forgotten how far back that convention goes. I ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to allow Ministers to go freely unencumbered from one place to another in the world. Do we really have to wait until all sorts of things happen before we make friends again? I speak from my time in the Middle East. Whenever a Minister could not go, they would send traders like me to Libya, Iran, Algeria—it did not matter where—because we could not have official relations.
This line from the Black Sea up to the Baltic is critical for the future. On the other side of that line lies enormous oil and mineral wealth. As the Drushba pipeline which runs through Ukraine demonstrates, these countries are interposed in an important way as regards materials exported from the east. No one has yet managed to produce a true mineral map or an oil map of those parts of the world, I suppose because it was a secret. I remember, at an oil conference, being asked whether the British had the technology to tell the countries where the oil pipelines ran through their countries. They had been kept secret.
I am grateful for this debate. As noble Lords have probably gathered, I have a lot of affection for these people who stare at you, do not smile for maybe two to three years, but then suddenly become one's friend. I think that we need some of their technology. With our industrial base so eroded—as outlined in the previous debate; I was able to hear only part of it—I think that there are new opportunities which we could explore bilaterally and not necessarily through the EU. Part of me says, "Let us keep the EU out of this and let us do it bilaterally". However, I still have great affection for Kipling and the Great Game as you can

755
find it. There are so many opportunities in countries which are yet unknown to us. In almost all cases, we will probably have to pass through one of the three countries which are the subject of this debate.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I have been sitting here thinking we all go out to these countries in one capacity or another. They welcome us all as we go there. I hope that we do more good than others. I visited many of the countries in the early 1990s in, I am ashamed to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, the capacity of an expert—he will know that one of the definitions of an "expert" is "someone carrying a briefcase a long way from his office"—while I was working for the Open Society Foundation. I remember staying in a hotel in Yerevan and being told in hushed tones by the key lady on my floor at the hotel that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, herself had stayed on that floor only a few months before. So we leave impressions behind us of one sort or another.
I also remember a particularly fascinating but frustrating conference in Kiev when Ukraine had been independent for only two weeks. I again regret to admit to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, that I was part of a joint Harvard/LSE delegation—at least it was joint—in which the Foreign Minister arrived to say as his opening message to us that Ukraine had two strategic objectives in its foreign policy for the next two years. The first was to join NATO and the second was to join the European Union. That was some time ago. I recognise the frustrations that NATO and the European Union have had in dealing with Ukraine and even in attempting to deal with Belarus and Moldova.
Those three states suffered immensely in the 20th century—above all, in the Second World War. After all, the grandchildren of many displaced Ukrainians arc still living in this country. I pass the graves of many in Bradford when I go to see where some of my own and my wife's family are buried. I remember a sad joke that was told in Rochdale a generation ago: Rochdale had three Ukrainian clubs one for those who had fought with the Germans; one for those who had fought against the Germans; and one for those who thought that you should not argue about that any longer. Ukrainians suffered desperately during the Second World War. It was only after the Cold War that some of those disappearances began to come to light.
Those three countries are caught between the European Union and Russia; they are desperately dependent on both; and they have so far failed to organise their own future orientation or, in the case of two of them, even to manage their own state. The European Union has tried to extend its conditionality policy from the new states that are joining the EU this coming May to the next set of neighbours through neighbourhood policy, because that works only if the potential partner is interested in bargaining by the same rules.
756
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, compared the situation with the western Balkans. The EU is in a very different situation in the western Balkans. In effect, it is operating in a trusteeship situation in Bosnia and Kosovo; and for Albania and Macedonia, the recognition and acceptance of dependence on the EU is strong. Belarus does not accept its dependence on the EU. Ukraine sees itself as an important country, but certainly does not see itself bargaining on the same basis as the western Balkans. For all the difficulties we face in the western Balkans, there is in some ways a more straightforward understanding on both sides of the nature of the relationship.
We clearly have immense common interests with our three new neighbours. Border management is difficult enough. Three years ago, the Belarusian authorities had not even finished demarcating their side of the boundary with Lithuania and Poland. We need to ensure that there is as much continuing cross-border trade and contact as possible—after all, there are links between populations on both sides of the border—but at the same time, we have to control illegal transactions. A great deal of smuggling and illegal immigration takes place. In preparation for our debate, I read of the large number of illegal immigrants in Belarus and Ukraine who are waiting to cross the border and move west. Therefore, the control of cross-border crime, illegal immigration and smuggling are clearly important factors.
The European Union is trying to export stability from western Europe across those states and it is conscious that unless it succeeds in doing so, it will import instability. Indeed, it has to some extent already done so. I note from the figures that I was looking at that the population of each of those three states has gone down on the official figures by at least 10 per cent in the past 10 years. In Moldova, I understand that the population is much more likely to have gone down by 15 to 20 per cent. There are substantial Moldovan and Ukrainian minorities in Portugal. On my previous visit to Athens, I met a Moldovan couple who had walked through Bulgaria to Greece. That is desperate poverty. How we reverse that flow and give those people an opportunity to make something of their own countries is a real problem.
We have a substantial problem in parts of Europe of Ukrainian criminal networks operating within the European Union, particularly across Hungary and the Czech Republic. There are also problems of arms traders into Africa and elsewhere based in Ukraine.
Belarus presents a particular problem for the European Union. We really do not know what to do with it. I have been struck at many meetings by the number of occasions on which Belarus simply is not mentioned when it comes to talking about the wider Europe because no one really knows what to say. The European Union embassies have had their great

757
difficulties; the OSCE was excluded for some time. I hope the Minister will tell us what the position is with the OSCE and the monitoring group. Belarus will, after all, be a transit state between two parts of Russia once the EU has expanded, and the problems we will have with managing the Kaliningrad issue will necessarily involve a close relationship with that extremely difficult country.
With Moldova, I understood that some months ago there was some prospect that we would manage to persuade to negotiate withdrawal of the remaining Russian troops from Transnistria and that discussions were under way within NATO and the EU about sending a limited number of troops to play an intermediate peacekeeping and peace monitoring role as we achieved a reunited Moldova. But that appears to have stalled, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us whether anything is now moving forward, or whether we have again reached an impasse over the Transnistria situation.
With Ukraine, we have seen very limited transition so far. There is a semi-democratic Government with a semi-legal system and a semi-market economy. Real assets, as other speakers have said, include agriculture—underutilised at present—and heavy industry, some of which is still valuable. I have been doing some work on the European defence policy and have noted that the number of members of the European Union which depend on Ukrainian Antonovs to get their troops to anywhere outside Europe is high. There are clearly assets which we use and could use more.
We all understand that Ukraine is a key state, and have a direct interest in its independence because Russia, without Ukraine, is a state, and, with Ukraine, is an empire again. But I am not sure whether full EU membership, as offered, is necessarily the answer, because there is a problem with just how large the European Union becomes. I say this with some passion, because I spent this afternoon with a group of Turkish students and academics who were all arguing that Turkey has to become a member of the European Union but there is no reason why Ukraine should. It seems to me that the two necessarily go together; the question of when the European Union becomes too large to be manageable is raised by these very major states to our east.
The European Union needs a new strategy for Ukraine. I hope the Minister will tell us what is in mind. Should we be putting more money into education? Should we be attracting more Ukrainians over here for technical, administrative and military training? What can we do in this difficult situation?
The new members of the European Union can clearly play a very important role. I know that the Poles have already been talking actively about future relations with Belarus and Ukraine. It is important that everything we do goes alongside and works with Polish efforts. But we all recognise that this is a hard and unrewarding row to hoe, and we hope that the British Government will nevertheless continue to try to hoe the ground.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for raising this issue. The importance of this debate is surely shown by the fact that there are as many officials here tonight—six—as we have speakers.
We welcome the enlargement of the EU and hope that Romania and Bulgaria will join in 2007. We also hope that negotiations will eventually lead Turkey into membership. The EU acknowledges that closer cooperation with countries on its new border is inevitable from 1 May this year; but there is still a vast amount to do regarding the EU's relationship with the Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus. How these will complement or contrast with the EU's relationship with Russia is also a significant issue. It would be a tragedy if the result of enlargement was to weaken the ties that those countries enjoy with the rest of Europe.
The assumption that the regional degrouping that took place after the collapse of the USSR would result in those countries remaining closely allied with Russia has, in many cases, been proved wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned the recent dispute between Russia and Belarus, in which Russia accused Belarus of tapping illegally into the Russian gas giant Gazprom's pipeline, and natural gas supplies were cut off. That left a huge swathe of land stretching from Germany to Lithuania without its main source of fuel in the dead of winter.
The Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus are three ex-Soviet countries with serious problems, both social and economic. These include human rights, democracy and the rule of law. For example, Moldova's failure to establish a functioning, stable economy and internal tension between the ethnic Russian and Romanian populations; Belarus's ongoing issues with human rights and the worrying deterioration of democracy; and the Ukraine's problems with law and order.
The Centre for European Reform has rightly said that,
"EU states can never be sale so long as their neighbours are poor and unstable countries, rife with the trafficking of arms, drugs and people".
Can the Minister update the House on the EU's delegation to these three countries and their progress in fulfilling their mandate? What is the current status of implementation of the partnership and cooperation agreements—PCAs—between the EU And Ukraine, and the EU and Moldova?
My noble and learned friend Lord Howe gave a fascinating overview of Ukraine, a country of which he is obviously very fond and where, as my noble friend Lord Selsdon said, he is highly respected. I agree with my noble friend that one must admire the courage of' those in that country who have grappled with its problems, particularly, as we have heard from both my noble friends, when things move slowly.
As my noble friend said, one-third of their trade is with the EU, and I agree that we should do everything that we can to help them. As my noble friend Lord Selsdon said, we have much to offer them.

759
Relations between the EU and Ukraine are fairly advanced—the most advanced of the three. The EU gives Ukraine generous aid—48 million euros plus an additional 126 million euros based on regional programmes last year alone. This goes to a country that, despite being well placed to take advantage of the benefits of EU enlargement, continues to have significant problems with law and order.
Denis MacShane, the Minister for Europe, has said:
"It is difficult to talk seriously with our Ukrainian friends while the rule of law … remains broken".
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office Human Rights Report 2003 highlights serious failings in women's rights, particularly in rural areas; minority rights; the censorship and control of the media; and disabled people's rights. Can the Minister inform the House what steps the Government are taking to help to ensure that the presidential elections this October will be free and fair?
Despite Moldova's president stating that,
"integration with Europe is an absolute priority in Moldova's foreign policy",
it still has significant child abuse and prison reform problems, and issues with disabled rights. The most worrying is the continual ethnic tensions between the Russian and Romanian populations, which have not eased since the 1992 war. Some 1,500 Russian troops remain in the Dnestr region, and the unrecognised separatist government there have said that, if international troops are sent in, Europe will see another war. What discussion have Her Majesty's Government had with Russia on that issue to work towards preventing such a situation occurring?
Belarus remains the most out on a limb of the three. We strongly welcomed the introduction of sanctions in 1997 as a response to its poor human rights record. President Lukashenka's moves towards authoritarian rule and his rejection of several overtures by the EU to assist the return to basic democratic standards are of great concern, bearing in mind the importance of Belarus as a future neighbour come May this year. It has never expressed any interest in joining the EU and remains the only European successor state of the former USSR without a ratified partnership and co-operation agreement. Its application for WTO membership is still under consideration nine years on. There are signs of growing trade. Imports have nearly doubled since 1996 and exports to the EU are up by nearly half over the same period. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, it is important that the EU works very closely with Belarus, so it seems surprising that there is no EU office in Minsk.
We must not back down on our position regarding human rights and good governance in that country. Will the Minister assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not support the lifting of sanctions until Belarus is back on the track to democracy?
9.37 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for bringing this important issue before the House. As he says, the imminent enlargement of the European Union has given new impetus to strengthening relations with Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. The EU has a clear interest in ensuring that the countries on its borders are stable, democratic and prosperous.
As my noble friend reminded us, from 1 April the EU will, for the first time, share a border with Ukraine and Belarus, and Romania's accession in three years' time will give the EU a shared border with Moldova. All three countries will share with the EU a greater interest in increasing trade and investment and co-operating on cross-border issues, such as counter-terrorism, immigration and the environment. Those are all very important issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, reminded us.
My noble friend is right that the very proximity of those countries will create some challenges for us, and how we react will be crucial. It was, of course, the United Kingdom that first proposed the creation of the "wider Europe" policy. Our aim was to deliver to the people of the EU and its near neighbours the mutual benefits of security, stability and development. As we know, that UK initiative has now been developed into the European "neighbourhood" policy. That policy sets us a new agenda; it aims to develop a zone of enhanced economic growth and stability, which is enormously important across a range of industries, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, told us, in his characteristically interesting intervention. It will offer to the near neighbours closer co-operation and greater integration with Europe, in return for political and economic reform.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, was right. We—that is, the European Union—want and need those countries to have real success in their trade and commerce and their economies as a whole, because that in turn will increase our own security and prosperity as their close neighbours. Of course, both Ukraine and Moldova have ambitions to become members of the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, implied, both countries have some way to go along the path of reform before the question of their possible EU membership can be addressed. Belarus under the present leadership, as many of your Lordships have remarked, has no ambitions towards EU membership.
The European neighbourhood policy should be seen as a response to the practical issues posed by proximity and neighbourhood as we see them impending and as separate from the question of accession. We believe that our new eastern neighbours should focus for the

761
moment on their domestic reforms and take advantage of what the European Union is offering in this neighbourhood policy. What is on offer includes the prospect of eventual full access to the EU's internal market and the gradual extension of the four freedoms of that internal market—the freedom of movement and people, and the freedom of goods, services and capital. It is significant that that would represent a fundamental advancement in relations, were that to be achieved. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, implied, it is a tremendous opportunity for those of the EU's neighbours who are ready to seize that opportunity.
How would the European neighbourhood policy work? The countries that border the enlarged EU are very different judged by most standards. A key element of the European neighbourhood policy will be differentiation, which is the country's specific action plan, setting out clear targets and benchmarks by which progress on reform can be judged over several years. Those will form an integral part of the policy. In order to encourage progress, the benchmarks for reform and the action plan are linked to credible incentives, such as preferential trading relations and targeted development assistance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, indicated, action plans from Moldova and Ukraine are now being drawn up. The European Union Commission has been asked to work closely with each country throughout this process.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked specifically about progress on those two action plans. The precise content of each country's action plan— the benchmark for reform— is under discussion, so I am unable to give any details as those discussions are still in progress. However, I can give some details of the areas that are likely to be covered by those plans. They include OSCE validated free and fair elections. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Astor of Hever. In addition, they would also cover media reforms, progress on other human rights, such as judicial reforms, economic and social reform, the improvement of environmental standards and achievements on other cross-border issues, such as drug trafficking and illegal immigration, which were important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about Moldova in relation to the settlement of the Transnistria dispute. The Government are working with all parties to help where we can to achieve a political settlement in Moldova and to end the frozen conflict—if I can put it that way—with breakaway Transnistria. On Moldova, we expect progress on finding a solution to the problem to be included in action plans in the way in which my noble friend implied. We hope that negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova will be completed by May of this year and
762
action plans endorsed at the June European Council. I hope that that gives the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, a benchmark in terms of the progress that might be made this year.
The noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Selsdon, and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, spoke about Ukraine and the constitutional changes. I was grateful for the thoughtful way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, with his considerable experience, approached the subject.
Your Lordships will recall that late last year Ukrainian authorities pushed for constitutional amendments to reduce the next president's powers to shorten his term of office and to have his successor elected by Parliament instead of by popular vote. The main opposition party resisted. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, set out a number of rationales for all that. The EU, the United States and the Council of Europe protested that the changes were ill-timed—only months before the presidential elections—and that they were being forced through without full consultation. We are glad that the authorities have now amended the draft proposals and that the president will remain elected by popular vote. President Kuchma has also declared that he will not stand again and will retire from politics.
We hope that President Kuchma's lasting legacy will be free and fair elections, providing for a democratic transfer of power, with any new constitutional framework agreed through full consultation.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it clear to the Foreign Minister in January that Ukraine's closer relations with the EU were dependent on the democratic process. The extent to which the 2004 presidential elections are free and fair will be an absolutely crucial test of the Ukraine's readiness for this. Again that addresses the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
So, I hope that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, will be pleased to know that the Department for International Development and the FCO have committed almost £3 million to enhance the independent Ukrainian media to enable them to expose any electoral malpractice. We believe that this will make a real contribution to creating the right environment for democratic elections.
I turn to the fraught question of the inclusion of Belarus in the EU. A number of your Lordships were in some ways quite critical of what was seen as a disengagement or rate of disengagement in relation to Belarus.
In 1997, EU/Belarus relations did indeed stall as a consequence of serious setbacks in the development of democracy and human rights in Belarus. That year saw the replacement of the democratically elected Parliament with a national assembly nominated by the

763
president in violation of the constitution. So, together with our EU partners in the General Affairs Council we reacted swiftly to these very unwelcome developments.
We immediately froze conclusion of the EU's Partnership and Co-operation Agreement with Belarus. That is why we restricted ministerial level contacts and the scope of EU assistance. I hope that that gives some real explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and other noble Lords who were worried about that point.
Like my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, I am dismayed that despite repeated approaches—and there have been repeated approaches—by the EU, the OSCE and the Council of Europe since 1997, Belarus has applied a constant policy of deviation for the commitments it made in international forums.
The fact is that we deplore the current situation regarding freedom of speech and religion and basic human rights. There is oppression of civil society, harassment and closing of the independent press, of trades unions and NGOs. There is increasing pressure being brought on the OSCE office in Minsk. These are all very important issues. The failure of the Belarusian Government to initiate genuine investigations into the fate of disappeared members of the opposition is also a very worrying aspect of what is going on in that country.
The EU policy towards Belarus—and it is a policy which we all pursue together—is, however, based on a very clear proposition; namely, that the Government of Belarus improve the quality of democracy and respect for human rights and in return the EU will build close and mutually profitable relations. We have an agreed step-by-step approach towards Belarus, so it really is not a question of a complete block on relations in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, perhaps implied. There is a way forward, but bilateral relations are restricted at the moment. They could be lifted if the clear political benchmarks for EU co-operation with the Belarusian authorities were moved forward.
I hope that that gives a more rounded picture of the relationship with Belarus and shows that there is a way forward for that country to improve its relationship with the EU. I do however have to report to your Lordships that sadly President Lukashenka has so far ignored this offer. Instead, we believe that he is moving Belarus back towards its totalitarian past.
The UK and the EU would prefer a better relationship with Belarus. We shall continue to offer opportunities for dialogue and to make every effort we can to encourage the re-establishment of democracy and the rule of law there.
Perhaps I should just say that the EU does cover Belarus, but not from Belarus itself. It covers Belarus from Kiev. We maintain our assistance to civil society, deliver aid on humanitarian grounds and of course, as many of your Lordships will know, we try our best to alleviate the suffering still felt after the Chernobyl disaster.
764
A number of noble Lords raised the question of the new neighbourhood policy in relation to EU/Russia relations. I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has said—and of course the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, asked questions on this point. The EU is determined to build a genuine strategic partnership with Russia based on equal rights and obligations, mutual trust and open and frank dialogue. The European neighbourhood policy should not be seen as competing with Russia for newly independent former Soviet states. Russia understands that its neighbours to the West are also the EU neighbours. We believe that we have a common neighbourhood and that we ought to be working together on those issues. The EU will seek to develop relations with Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova but will do so in co-operation with Russia, transparently, stressing the benefits that the economic development of the region will bring to all.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, also asked about the OSCE's role in Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus. The EU introduced a visa ban on President Lukashenka and seven other senior officials in January 2003 in response to the forced closure of the OSCE office in Minsk. The ban was removed when the new office was allowed to open in April 2003.
The OSCE can help to supplement the EU's policy towards all three countries through the work of its field missions and through project work by other institutions, for example, the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. The OSCE mission mandate in Belarus includes assisting the Government in further promoting institution building, consolidating the rule of law and developing relations with civil society, obviously in congruence, in accordance with the OSCE principles. The continuing presence and functioning of the OSCE presence in Belarus is of enormous importance to the EU.
I hope that I have been able to indicate to your Lordships the overall span across all three countries, all at very different stages in their relationship with the EU. As we clearly recognise, Belarus is at a greater distance from us. The fact is that EU relations with Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova will continue to be of enormous importance over the coming decades. For our part, we shall strive to achieve a relationship that delivers real benefits to both sides: to the people of the European Union and to our new neighbours in eastern Europe.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, as we do have a little time, can she be more specific, if possible, about whether there is any movement on Transnistria and the withdrawal of Russian troops? It seems to us to be important. We have heard a certain amount about whether the EU would play a larger role, including perhaps sending peacekeeping monitors, if that conflict did move towards resolution.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, reinforcements have arrived from the Box, fully justifying the number of civil servants who are with us

765
this evening. I can tell your Lordships that the UK continues to raise with the Russian leadership the need for Russia to remove its troops from Moldova. The UK will not ratify the adapted CSE treaty until Russia removes its troops. Many thanks to officials for running to the aid of their Minister. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord on that question.

University of Manchester Bill [H.L.]
The petition against the Bill from Kenneth Rohde and Ian David Bell (No. 1) was withdrawn. The order made on 11 February last was discharged and the Bill was committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Health Protection Agency Bill [H.L.]
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, may I remind Members of the Committee of two points of procedure? Noble Lords will speak standing, and the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in Grand Committee. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
  Title postponed.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Health functions]:
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 8, leave out "(or any part of the community)"
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I begin our Grand Committee proceedings by reiterating the general welcome that I gave to the Bill at Second Reading and by making it clear that I approach our debates today in an entirely constructive spirit. I hope that that will become even more evident as we proceed. Where I flag up our genuine concerns, I hope and trust that the Minister will be able to reassure me sufficiently on those matters. I look forward to hearing what he and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, have to say.
  I must start by apologising to the Minister for tabling what may seem a somewhat oblique and elliptical amendment. It is not my purpose to dissect the meaning of "community", although no doubt that would be an interesting debate were we to have it. I have homed in on,
  "any part of the community",
  as a means of highlighting a number of concerns relating to the ability of the new agency to operate not only on a national basis but, as it needs to, in a truly local way.
  The agency's ability to respond rapidly to an outbreak of infection—whether from a food-borne organism, a virus transmitted from person to person, or whatever it happens to be—and to monitor what is going on day to day will depend critically on the networks put in place on the ground and on the efficiency with which the information can be communicated up the chain. That may seem a statement of the obvious but there are worries among some of us that the local mechanisms for controlling communicable disease have been disrupted by the recent reorganisations.
  GC 250
  Much will depend on PCTs, which, as we know, have their hands full in all sorts of ways unrelated to public health. Many—I am one—feel that PCTs are in any case too small, in terms of population, to have the full range of specialties needed to produce effective health gain and effective local control. Indeed, the consultants in communicable disease control—the very people who know most about the day-to-day business of health protection—have been removed from the PCTs and relocated into the Health Protection Agency. The direct involvement of those individuals with the local arms of the NHS and with environmental health departments of local authorities has thereby been done away with.
  I strongly question the wisdom of that. Although one can produce a lot of good arguments for overarching structures, staffed by professionals, those overarching structures can work only if there are people with both the skills and the authority on the ground to get things done as they should be done.
  Whoever is charged with those day-to-day tasks needs to be monitored, but how will we know whether or not they are doing a good job? In theory, the strategic health authorities are there to performance-manage. I am not the only one who regards strategic health authorities as too large and too distant to have the knowledge of what can effectively be done at ground level. In the main, they are not staffed with grass-roots experts on health commissioning and delivery. That, combined with the fragmentation of commissioning and delivery, will prove a serious barrier to driving up standards in public health.
  We will drive up standards only by having clinically-led service improvements, speciality by speciality, across wider perspectives than single hospitals or single PCTs. Medical management should find ways of recreating the necessary integration of hospitals and PCTs in that sense. Unless that happens, the laudable aim articulated for the agency in the clause—that it should have, as it were, fingertip control at a local level—cannot be fulfilled properly.
  It is not clear to me how communicable disease consultants will link up with PCTs. Other than in emergencies, there is no clear command structure. Even then, as I shall say later on, there are all kinds of grey areas. I have heard it said before that if we look at this country's record of infectious disease control, it is only because we have had extremely competent people dealing with it that that we have got by without a major epidemic. In other words, we have got by despite the system, not because of it.
  We are in danger now of making the system a good deal less joined-up than before at local level. It would be very helpful if the Minister could tell the Committee something about the day-to-day practical arrangements—the allocations of responsibilities for lines of command and so on—that will overcome the structural shortcomings to which I have referred. I beg to move.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): The words which are the subject of the amendment were put in to make it clear beyond peradventure that the HPA may

  GC 251
  undertake functions in relation to not only the population as a whole, but particular localities—as it will do in its support for primary care trusts in England—and in respect of other sections of the community, such as children or workers in a particular area.
  The noble Earl perhaps understated the capacity of the SHAs to monitor the work of PCTs. There are, after all, 28 strategic health authorities and 303 PCTs, a ratio of about 10 to one or 11 to one, which is not a huge span of control in terms of monitoring activities. Certainly we are not looking for a command-and-control model between the HPA and communicable disease consultants.
  It has always been our intention that the agency should play a hands-on role in supporting local services in England. The consultation exercise carried out before the Special Health Authority was set up showed that we needed to explain more clearly—it may be the cause of some of the problems—that the role would be active and not simply advisory. Misunderstandings about that have caused some concern and I can understand why the noble Earl is probing the issue.
  Certainly the agency has worked closely with local NHS bodies since its establishment as a special health authority to achieve a clearer understanding of its role in relation to local services. It has been negotiating memorandums of understanding and putting them in place with primary care trusts. Those have been based on a standard model. I should be happy to show the noble Earl the standard model if it would help him. That standard model allows adjustments to take place to take account of local variations, but it will introduce a pretty standard set of arrangements for how the HPA will relate to people locally. Further work is in hand to refine the memoranda of understanding for future years.
  There will always be the issue of what balance of the resources available to the HPA is allocated to local and national issues, but the H PA's plans, which have been discussed and agreed with the Department of Health, project it, broadly speaking, spending just over 20 cent of its total resources in 2004–05 on local and regional services. So there is a clear intent to identify a chunk of resources that is committed to local areas.
  I think I mentioned at Second Reading that the agency had identified 10 key gains. One of the 10 key gains that it has committed itself to achieving states:
  "from Cumbria to Cornwall, the same high standards of response to an outbreak or incident".
  So it is conscious of the need for standardisation of quality of response in different parts of the country. Historically, it would be fair to say that different PCTs and their predecessors have taken different decisions about the funding of health protection. The noble Earl expressed concerns about that at Second Reading. None of us would disagree that there have been variations around the country in that response. The HPA's existence, with the memoranda of understanding that I mentioned, offers the opportunity to work towards more uniformly high standards throughout the country.
  GC 252
  So what we have is a pragmatic solution in which there is a clear allocation of resources by the HPA to the work of local and regional services; a pretty standard memorandum of understanding, but one tweaked to take account of local circumstances, as is right; and a commitment by the agency as one of its key priorities to produce a more standardised response where there are local control or infection incidents, so that it can respond around the country in a consistent way. That strikes me as a considerable improvement on what existed previously. I do not underestimate the contribution made by consultants on communicable diseases, but we had a less consistent service. The existence of the agency offers improvements in that area. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Earl.
  Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. His answer clarifies a number of dark corners in my mind. I shall obviously read his reply when it is printed, but what he had to say about the allocation of resources was especially helpful. Also, the memoranda of understanding ought, as he said, to put in place uniform protocols and standards across the country, if the system works as intended. I am a little sceptical about the ability of strategic health authorities to manage performance in the same tight way that they do for acute services, but we shall have to see how that works. It is important that the performance management role is conducted in as an informed and expert a way as possible.
  I do not intend to delay the Committee further on this amendment. It has been useful to flag up the issues to which the Minister has helpfully responded. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, line 10, at end insert "including zoonosis"
  The noble Lord said: One of the most important parts of the Bill is the clause that deals with the health function of the HPA. This amendment goes to the heart of the Bill as currently constructed. It is designed to ensure that the HPA's remit includes diseases which can be transmitted from animals to humans, such as SARS and avian flu.
  I did a quick printout of some of the headlines from the past few months. SARS and avian flu have been right at the centre of not only domestic public health concerns, but also international health concerns. In parenthesis, I should like to say that I attempted to make the amendment refer to "zoonoses". Unfortunately, there appear to be too few Greek speakers in the Public Bill Office; the amendment should read "zoonoses" as opposed to "zoonosis". That is what I am reliably told, not having had a very strong classical education.
  Because zoonoses can pose such serious public health threats, many of which are newly emerging diseases, the HPA certainly should have a responsibility for preventing their spread. That point was made strongly in the report entitled Getting Ahead of the Curve, in 2002. I

  GC 253
  shall not weary the Minister by repeating the words in that report, but it was a very interesting tour d'horizon on some aspects of public health. I think that the Minister might find paragraph 2.48 of the report quite helpful.
  By including zoonoses in the Bill, we would ensure that the HPA can draw resources not only from agencies dealing solely with human health, but also from those with animal health and food safety concerns, such as Defra and the FSA. With the HPA, we have an excellent opportunity to bring together surveillance information and prevention approaches to infections that cross the borders of human, animal and food-borne disease.
  I hesitate to quote at great length from the House of Lords Select Committee report, Fighting Infection, in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, who I know will be making a contribution later. Page 27 of the report authoritatively states that,
  "many emerging human infections are zoonotic and in order to predict possible outbreaks more accurately it is essential to have good collaboration between specialists in human and animal infection".
  The report recommended,
  "that the HPA be provided with resources to take on specific and primary responsibility for integrating surveillance related to human, animal and food-borne infection at national, regional and local levels in order to bridge the gaps that currently exist between these areas of specialties".
  Including zoonoses clearly within the remit of the HPA would help to bridge those gaps and strengthen surveillance networks. In response to Fighting Infection the Government produced another document that I shall also pray in aid. It agreed that close collaboration is needed between human health and animal health in the investigation of zoonotic diseases, referred to on page 15.
  More generally, we understand that the New and Emerging Infections Panel has been set up to assess infectious disease threats. I believe that the panel met in November 2003. It will be an advising body to the Department of Health and the HPA. It will also coordinate activities with the UK Zoonoses Group. Therefore, including zoonoses in the remit of the HPA would help to formalise the existing ties between the HPA and zoonosis surveillance. I understand that the HPA already is working with veterinary laboratories to set up formal communication networks to bring together the UK Zoonoses Group and local specialists in infectious disease and veterinary health.
  Finally, co-operation between agencies is extremely important in handling the animal/human interface of disease transmission. I hope that I am not anticipating the Minister too much; I am sure that he will say that co-operation is working marvellously and will continue to do so, and so forth. But it is vital that no gaps exist for surveillance or emergency planning. The importance of shared information and collaboration in the area of zoonosis is noted internationally. In the United States, which lacks a national public health surveillance system comparable to that of the UK, animal and human infection experts are required to share surveillance information for animal-borne infections such as West Nile fever.
  GC 254
  Of course there is a strong case to be made for co-operation, but we need an agency charged with taking the lead role in respect of that co-operation. That is the crux of the matter and noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment believe that it should be HPA-led. I beg to move.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I start by expressing my thanks to officials in the Public Bill Office for their patience. I was slow to spot the drafting error in the amendment sent to them. They have been extremely helpful in seeking to make the correction to "zoonoses".
  I strongly commend the amendment. There is a need for joint working, in particular to develop adequate surveillance, sharing of intelligence, joint field investigations, joint risk assessment and the development of common control policies and advice over infections occurring in man that derive from animal sources.
  Over the years, attempts have been made to develop forums for medico-veterinary collaboration. The Zoonoses Order 1975 was passed to bring together the then Department of Health and Social Services, the State Veterinary Service and the Public Health Laboratory Service. At the local level, liaison groups were established, but the momentum was not sustained. Following the publication of the Phillips report, the Chief Medical Officer for England established the new UK Zoonoses Group. Within the former PHLS, the Zoonoses Advisory Committee, known as AC Zoo, was established in 2000. At the local level, a new initiative to revitalise local liaison groups was introduced by Defra and the Chief Veterinary Officer. However, it has been difficult to sustain a cross-disciplinary focus on the unique status of zoonoses infections at the national level. Indeed, at times the profile of such infections slips in terms of political importance.
  The Chief Medical Officer has set up a new high-level committee, the National Expert Panel on New and Emerging Infections. Much of its time will be devoted to zoonotic diseases, but the word "zoonoses" is not included in the title. What is lacking is a cross-disciplinary scientific core unit embracing the full spectrum of activity in order to provide leadership across disciplines as well as serving the UK Zoonoses Group and other relevant committees.
  It is important that this major group of diseases should fall under the remit of the agency to be charged with health protection. A zoonoses unit within the HPA should be given designated responsibility for co-ordination of zoonoses activities, including surveillance and contributing to the annual UK zoonoses report, field investigations and so forth. It should also establish the necessary cross-disciplinary expertise with Defra and the Veterinary Licensing Authority.
  I suggest that there should also be a standing conference on zoonoses. In 2001, the first international conference was held in Cardiff, headed "The Prevention and Control of Zoonoses: from Science to Policy". It was sponsored by Defra, the Department of Health, the National Assembly for Wales and the

  GC 255
  European Society for Emerging Infections, and was an outstanding success. It set the tone and established the feel for the kind of collaboration required.
  I should declare an interest in that I am employed by the NHS trust which has incorporated the National Public Health Service for Wales. It has provided the Zoonoses Surveillance Centre for England and Wales and houses an extremely important reference unit in this area, in particular in relation to anaerobes, toxoplasma, cryptosporidia, hydatid and toxocara. Between 24,000 and 25,000 specimens per annum are sent from England to Wales for the Zoonoses Surveillance Centre, in particular the toxoplasma reference unit.
  I hope that, given the size of the problem of the zoonoses, not only those that have hit the headlines recently, the Committee will agree that it will be important for the Health Protection Agency formally to include this spectrum of diseases within its remit.
  Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment for all of the reasons that have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The noble Baroness mentioned the Cardiff conference in 2001 on zoonosis. It was an outstanding event and demonstrated clearly that the medical and veterinary people concerned with infectious disease thought that diseases transmissible between animals and man could exist. The amendment is to make sure that collaboration between veterinary and medical authorities will provide a unity of surveillance of infectious diseases in animals.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, so many of the new infections that we have—avian flu is the latest, SA RS is another—are zoonoses. However, there are others that we forget, such as human flu that occurs world-wide and was originally a zoonosis that came from animals in mainland China. Many of our food-borne infections are zoonoses. It is important that we have that insertion at the end of line 10 to include "zoonoses"—it is right that it should be "e" rather than "i"—so that we do not forget the importance of the relation between animal infections and human infections. I am sure that that will not be the case, but we must make sure that the word "infectious" of "infectious disease" is not forgotten and that so many of them devolve from animals, either through food-borne infections or other sources. I support the insertion of the two words "including zoonoses" into the clause.
  Lord Turnberg: I shall comment briefly on the amendment and I have to mention my special interest as a past chairman of the Public Health Laboratory Service.
  I understand why noble Lords have raised the amendment. Zoonoses are very serious diseases. They are quite common—more common than we think—and we have to take them seriously. The HPA—and its predecessor the PHLS—certainly takes the matter seriously and spends much time dealing with such
  GC 256
  examples as SARS and Asian flu that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned; and the agency has teams specifically set up for them. There is no doubt that they are important, that the HPA is involved and takes them seriously.
  The real question is not whether the HPA takes the matter seriously or is involved, but how it can best work with other agencies such as Defra that are involved in animal health. Does the amendment encourage the solution that we seek? Will there be better working, a closer relationship and better co-ordination between the HPA and Defra? I am not sure that the amendment will achieve that aim. Should we not be looking at other ways of achieving that, perhaps by some mandatory arrangement for the degree of co-operation and co-ordination that the amendment seeks?
  Earl Howe: I support the amendment. The challenge is particularly great with regard to those infections that are asymptomatic in animals but cause overt disease in humans. Chief among those are some of the more serious food-borne pathogens. Surveillance of both wild and companion animals, as well as livestock, is essential, if such hazards are to be predicted and controlled. The key to that is good collaboration between public health doctors and the veterinary profession. Vets are an under-utilised resource in disease surveillance. In my view, vets have a crucial part to play in ensuring that the new agency is capable of meeting its preventive responsibilities to the full.
  But a joined-up approach of this kind is perhaps not as simple as it might appear. As the House of Lords Select Committee noted last year, the extent to which surveillance of animals takes place is usually determined by the economic impact of a disease on animal health rather than its potential to damage human health. That means that an organism which does no harm to an animal might not attract the kind of surveillance effort that in a wider context it deserves. Campylobacter has no economic relevance to agriculture whereas it has a considerable impact on human health. There is therefore a critical need for medical and veterinary personnel in adequate numbers to collaborate, under the agency umbrella, in an integrated approach to those threats, not only at a laboratory level but at a surveillance level on the ground.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Warner: It is already clear that it has always been our intention that the HPA should be concerned with zoonoses. It would be impossible to disagree with virtually all the remarks made by noble Lords in this mini-debate.
  But the HPA already has that responsibility within its remit under the terms of the Bill as presently drafted. I have checked that with parliamentary counsel, who assure me that "infectious disease" already covers zoonoses, so the amendment is not necessary to ensure that the HPA has authority to operate in the area.

  GC 257
  The HPA already has plentiful powers under the terms of the Bill to secure information to enable it to do its job. As its predecessor bodies were also active in this area—for example, in work on foot and mouth disease and BSE—so it has been contributing to international efforts to combat avian flu. That is another example which shows that it is already active and obtaining information.
  I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 5, which requires mutual co-operation between the HPA and relevant bodies. So there is already provision in the Bill to ensure that the HPA co-operates with all relevant bodies.
  Zoonoses are already included in the term "infectious diseases". The HPA is already active in that area and the Bill places a duty on it to co-operate. As to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about whether it will always do this work as part of its planned work programmes, the agency will have to agree its work plans in relation to its budget with the Department of Health. Therefore, we can formalise those arrangements in the work plans to be agreed with the HPA. There will be no problem in regard to a mechanism to ensure that it takes an active part in the area. Neither the chairman nor the chief executive, who have been listening to the debate from the end of the Room, will be in any doubt whatever of the Committee's views on the subject.
  As to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, there is nothing to stop the HPA from generating income from a variety of sources when carrying out work for a non-traditional health body. We shall come on to that income-generating power later in our discussions.
  Against that background, the Bill already adequately meets the concerns expressed by Members of the Committee, and I am not sure whether the addition of the words would improve its provisions. When I consulted parliamentary counsel on the matter, lie advised that the inclusion of a reference to a particular example of infectious disease could have the effect of casting doubt on the scope of the generality of "infectious disease". Unqualified, it is actually broader than qualified.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply and in particular, speaking as a lawyer, for the sui generis sting in the tail known to all lawyers as somewhat spurious on occasion. Nevertheless, it was a very useful coda—a warning signal that we should not further amend the already immaculate clause—which was very salutary. His reply was carefully considered, and I thank Members of the Committee who took part in the debate. I am very pleased that the senior executives from the HPA are present today to hear the debate. Clearly, there is the intention—it appears from what the Minister said that the draftsmen certainly intended it—that zoonosis is included within the remit of the HPA.
  A number of points have been made that give me slight pause for thought. There may be ways in which we want to bring back some of the substance of the debate on Report, for the simple reason that the noble
  GC 258
  Earl, Lord Howe, made a very important point about the relative priorities in the matter and the relative impact on the animal world and on human health. That made quite an impact on my thinking on the matter.
  A second point, which derives from what I said earlier, concerns the whole issue of accountability. Of course, if the matter is within the remit of the HPA. that simply makes it primus inter pares—we have been bandying Latin and Greek words around in this debate—with the other agencies dealing with zoonosis. It does not necessarily put it in pole position. When we come to the likes of avian flu and SARS, there may well be—I shall not be totally adamant about it—a good case to put the HPA in the leading role, and give it the accountability and responsibility for dealing with such matters.
  We may not be in the right part of the Bill for that; I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. Perhaps such a provision should be a subsection in the clause on the duty of co-operation, stating specifically that the lead role in the area should be taken by the HPA. My words were taken out of my mouth because my response would have been about the detailed work plans, but the Minister addressed that point. That is extremely helpful, and a useful signal for his colleagues when they approve the work plans of the HPA, the budget and so on. Whether that is enough of a signpost for future administrations, I do not know. Again, I wonder whether something in primary legislation to deal with the matter would not be desirable.
  The Minister has very helpfully elucidated some of the area, but I am not totally satisfied that we should not go rather further and be utterly explicit. We shall obviously debate the matter on a future occasion hut, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am not in any way calling order, but I wonder if I might suggest a piece of gentle advice as a Member of your Lordships' House. It has always been my understanding that it is not considered proper to refer to people in the Public Gallery, however distinguished they may be.
  Earl Howe moved Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 1, line 15, after "Wales" insert "and such other persons as he considers appropriate"
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 9, 10 and 11 Clause 2(2) allows the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to confer new health-related functions on the agency, and stipulates that the Secretary of State should consult the Assembly and vice versa whenever either initiates such action. I merely pose the question of whether it is really enough for the consultation envisaged to be interdepartmental in the broadest sense and nothing further. I should have thought that we ought to provide for wider consultation, especially bearing in mind that the

  GC 259
  functions that may be conferred on the agency under the subsection could be any functions whatever relating to health.
  At the very least, the Secretary of State or the Assembly should consult the agency itself, but they might also wish to consult relevant parts of the National Health Service and other government departments or agencies in order to ensure that those materially affected by the change were signed up to it, and that there were no unforeseen logistical complications. I hope that the Minister will look constructively on the amendments, which are in no way intended to fetter the authority of Ministers in England or Wales, but rather to give them the opportunity to listen to the advice of key individuals whose experience and views were relevant and important.
  I shall move on to Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, which are of purely a probing nature. However, they raise some issues of importance. Subsections (6) to (12) of Clause 2 bring us face to face with one of the anomalous features of the Bill: the effect on it of devolution. To the extent that the principal functions of the agency set out in subsection (1) are matters that have already been devolved to Scottish or Northern Ireland Ministers, the Bill is unable to say anything at all beyond the fact that it is up to those Ministers themselves to confer the functions on the agency, should they choose to do so.
  It is a truism to say, as we often do in our debates, that the hazards of infectious diseases and other public health dangers are no respecters of national boundaries. Quite why we then have a situation in which a supposedly national agency—a UK-wide agency—will find itself performing potentially different roles under potentially different remits depending on which part of the country it operates in is something that only the Minister can tell us. At best, it is an arrangement that is bizarre as well as administratively difficult. At worst, it is positively dangerous.
  If the Scottish Parliament were to choose not to confer the same functions on the agency as those conferred under the Bill for England, questions arise on, first, whether the agency would be able to work satisfactorily with such a split personality, and secondly, whether the Scottish Parliament will have the capacity to perform by itself all the responsibilities that it chooses not to pass to the agency. We simply do not know the answer to either of these questions, and they are very important.
  If the extent to which the agency is responsible for controlling the spread of infectious diseases north of the Border is in some way less than it is to the south. what risks to the population does that give rise to? The cardinal requirement for protecting the health of the population effectively across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is full—not partial—coordination, yet this part of the Bill is a recipe not for co-ordination, but for lack of co-ordination.
  GC 260
  The contrast between Clauses 2 and 3 could not be more glaring. In matters relating to radiological protection, the agency will operate on a truly nationwide basis, with a single remit and a single set of functions. That is entirely logical. In stark comparison, when it comes to infectious diseases, that will not happen. I do not believe that Ministers think that if terrorists were to release a quantity of smallpox bacteria in England, the progress of the disease would be miraculously halted at Gretna Green. If they do not believe that, what is the justification for allowing the Scots to opt out of using the agency in a manner that would maximise its effectiveness? I cannot see one.
  We then have to consider the phrase in subsection (6):
  "Subsection (1) does not apply to a function to the extent that it is … exercisable within devolved competence (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46))".
  Can the Minister explain to what extent the function of protecting the community against infectious diseases is exercisable within devolved competence and to what extent it is not? That is the question posed by this phrase. Where does the devolved competence in this area begin and end?
  The same questions could be asked about the other functions mentioned in subsection (1). Someone, somewhere, once said, "I think we should be told". Upon the answer depends our entire understanding of what the Bill will empower the agency to do both north of the Border and in Northern Ireland without the say-so of Ministers in either country. Indeed, for all I know, the position may be even more complicated than that. If we take, for example, the function of preventing the spread of infectious disease, we may find that the extent to which that function has been devolved is different in the case of Scotland than it is in the case of Northern Ireland. I do not know whether that is in fact the case, but if so, it is important to be clear about it.
  I turn now to what is for me a very obvious point. If any of the functions falling within the scope of subsection (1) are legally speaking devolved matters, there should be no two ways about it: they are devolved matters. Why, then, does subsection (8)(a) state that an order by Scottish Ministers may not be made unless they have first,
  "obtained the agreement of the Secretary of State?
  It would be helpful for the Minister to explain to those noble Lords whose understanding of the Scotland Act 1998 is limited why any decision or action that can be taken by the Scots under a devolved power should require the Secretary of State to agree to it. If Scottish Ministers wish to remove a function from the agency, they need only consult the Secretary of State. I do not know why there should be such a difference, but that is why I have tabled Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which would bring subsections (8)(a) and (b) and (11)(a) and (b) into line with each other.
  Whatever answers the Minister may give, one point needs no elaboration: in the context of this Bill. devolution has created a minefield. That fact is much to be regretted given that the Bill presents the country as a whole with a golden opportunity to speak and act

  GC 261
  with one voice for the good of the entire population. The Government have not allowed us to seize that opportunity, which I believe is a great pity. I beg to move.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Warner: Perhaps I may deal first with Amendments Nos. 3 and 5. I do not believe that these would add anything to the Bill. If there are people whom the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales believe need to be consulted, they will be able to do so whether or not that is required by the Bill. These amendments do nothing to extend or facilitate the Secretary of State consulting those with whom he needs to consult before taking action. I suggest that all they do is add to the length of the Bill without actually fulfilling a useful function.
  I turn now to the more substantial amendments, Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11. I understand where the noble Earl is coming from. As he was speaking I had a slight sense of déjà vu during which I relived some of those glorious hours on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. However, I should say that agreement has been reached between the UK Government and the devolved administrations that the Bill should be introduced as it is. Perhaps I should go over the ground on this point.
  The structure of Clause 2(1) gives the HPA the functions of the UK Government and the National Assembly for Wales but, under Clause 2(6), not the functions of the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health. Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland. It creates quite consciously procedures by which Scottish Ministers and the department in Northern Ireland may give the HPA the devolved or transferred functions included in Clause 2(1) in their parts of the UK, subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State and to scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I shall return later to the Secretary of State's functions, an issue that the noble Earl raised.
  I recognise that the noble Earl and some colleagues take the view that it would be desirable for the HPA to carry out Clause 2(1) functions for Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, in Northern Ireland, as well as for the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales. However, whether we like it or not, it is a feature of the devolution settlements—that is water under the bridge—that the devolved authorities take their own decisions in certain areas. The Bill reflects that; the amendments do not. In effect, they try to rewrite slightly the devolution settlement that, for better or for worse, Parliament agreed.
  Nevertheless, it must be recognised that, for the first time, we will have a body that has a legislative basis for exercising health protection functions in every part of the UK. It may not be in quite the legal format that the noble Earl would prefer, but it enables those functions to be co-ordinated by the HPA. I shall give some examples in a few moments. Many of the responses to
  GC 262
  our 2002 consultation exercise argued that there were benefits from having radiation protection services provided on a UK-wide basis, as Clause 3 allows. It would be unfair of me not to acknowledge that some argued essentially for the noble Earl's approach. We have achieved much of what is necessary through the structure of the Bill as drafted.
  There is no doubt that Scottish Ministers and the department in Northern Ireland intend to make use of the health protection services to be provided or commissioned by the Health Protection Agency. Scottish Ministers plan to give the agency certain responsibilities for providing advice on chemicals and for commissioning advice on poisons, by means of the procedures in Clause 2(7). Their rationale is that that capitalises on the formation of the HPA to maintain high standards for these specialist services.
  Northern Ireland will look to the HPA, as now, to commission services for it from the National Poisons Information Service and to provide advice on chemical incidents. The intention is that the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre in Northern Ireland, which is currently part of the HPA and funded by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, will transfer to the HPA and continue to operate in Belfast. A lot of such joined-up work is happening, although the Bill may not be structured exactly as the noble Earl would like.
  The UK-wide approach for which the Bill allows is already reflected in working practices. For example, there is unified HIV/AIDS surveillance across the whole of the UK. There is also a Five Nations Working Group, comprising the UK plus Ireland, which agreed, when SARS first emerged, that the HPA should establish a SARS task force. Calls from the World Health Organisation for assistance over SARS are channelled via the HPA. The various Chief Medical Officers also agreed that the HPA should set up an expert working group, with representatives from each part of the UK, to co-ordinate work on SARS. The HPA convenes weekly teleconferences on current topics, such as avian flu, which involve Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; it is also working with the devolved administrations on developing planning, training materials and running scenario planning exercises on preparedness. Similarly, the UK Government and the devolved administrations work together very closely on preparedness for bio-terrorism.
  I am trying to tell the noble Earl that, in the hypothetical case that he cited, there would not be a void north of Gretna Green. There is a planning system that reassures the people of Gretna Green and people north and south of it that is a system is in place for co-ordinated and joined-up work in this area. The situation is not quite as bad as the noble Earl suggests. The structure of the Bill provides for co-ordinated work across the UK. I hope that I have given examples to show that it works in practice.
  The noble Earl asked in passing why it was necessary under the Bill for the Secretary of State to give consent when Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland departments wished to confer functions on the

  GC 263
  HPA. That matter is covered in the noble Earl's latter amendments. It is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State would refuse a proposal by Scottish or Northern Ireland Ministers to confer a Clause 2(1) function on the agency. As I have said, we are trying to secure a totally co-ordinated approach across the UK, but there could be times when it would be sensible to agree that a particular function should be conferred only after the HPA had time to absorb other pressures. This is a timing issue; it gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to phase a transferred function to the HPA if workloads or priorities suggested that that was necessary. That is the significance of the provision.
  I hope that I have reassured Members of the Committee that we have a co-ordinated approach, and that the amendments are not necessary.
  Earl Howe: Once again, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for the examples that he gave of the joined-up approach north and south of the border. Those examples are extremely welcome, but they lead me to ask why they should not be codified in the legal structures in the Bill. If that is the intention, why should it not be reflected in the Bill? The Minister referred to previous debates that we have had on devolution. I hasten to reassure him that the point is not so much that I wish devolution had not happened—although I freely admit that in an arena such as public health, devolution seems the last thing one would choose to bring into the melting pot—but that in Clause 3 we appear to have surmounted the legal obstacle of devolution, because for the purposes of radiation protection the agency will genuinely act as a pan-UK body. For all its other functions, however, it will not. That seems to make no sense. I still have not heard from the Minister a satisfactory explanation of why there should be that difference and why Ministers did not insist that there should not be a difference.
  As I understand it, the Scotland Act 1998 can be overridden by any Act of the UK Parliament. Given that Clause 2(8) provides for an effective veto by the Secretary of State over the Scottish Parliament, why are we messing around and having to go through hoops in apparent deference to devolution, when all the time it is being overridden in other ways in other parts of the Bill?
  I am still baffled. From the Minister's answer, I sense that I am knocking at a door that is firmly shut, so I shall not continue at length, but we may well want to return to the matter on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.30 p.m.
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 1, line 15, leave out "directs" and insert "may by order provide"
  The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 12 and, with the leave of the Committee, defer speaking to Amendments
  GC 264
  Nos. 45 and 46 until we reach a later amendment. They are not an important ingredient in what I shall say.
  Clause 2 contains significant powers for the Secretary of State and the National Assembly to issue directions. Subsection (2) contains powers to make directions for the creation of new health-related functions for the agency; and subsections (3) and (4) contain further direction-making powers to enable the agency to exercise functions previously conferred on either the Secretary of State or the Assembly by statute.
  When I tabled my amendments, I had not had the advantage of reading government Amendment No. 36, which I thoroughly welcome, because I believe that it meets the substantive point at issue in my amendments. If I am right, I am most grateful to the Government for paying heed to the express views of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, which was clear that directions should be expressed by way of a statutory instrument.
  I therefore pass on to Amendment No. 12. Clause 3(3) permits the appropriate authority to direct the agency to exercise any other function in relation to protection from radiation risks, in addition to those set out in subsection (1). My amendment questions whether a power of direction is necessary or desirable. The department's memorandum to the Select Committee sought to make the case for a power of direction on the grounds that such a power is desirable—which I have no doubt that it is to those who want to use it—and that it would correspond well with the approach taken for NHS bodies.
  The Government need to be more persuasive than that. Yes, one can say that any extra functions conferred on the agency must be limited by the scope of subsection (1)—in other words, they would have to be in some way related to radiological protection. But the corresponding section of the Radiological Protection Act 1970, which contains a power for Ministers to confer extra functions on the NRPB, makes that power exercisable by affirmative resolution. So we are moving from affirmative resolution to a power of direction with no parliamentary scrutiny.
  I do not suggest that the affirmative procedure is necessary in this context, but I question whether it is appropriate to abandon the order-making procedure altogether. Speed of action cannot be a reason for wanting to do so. Even under the clause as drafted, provision is made in subsection (6) for prior consultation before a direction is given—which cannot be done overnight. If we consider Clause 2, in which the Government agree that conferring additional functions should involve the negative order-making procedure, there is a good case for making the different ends of the Bill tie up with each other.
  I hope that I am not being too uncharitable, but I cannot help thinking that the department allows itself to use one set of arguments when it suits it and abandon it when it does not. One reason cited for Scottish Ministers obtaining the prior consent of the Secretary of State before conferring functions on the agency under Clause 2(7) is apparently to ensure that

  GC 265
  the agency is not overwhelmed by being given too many functions at once. If that is a fear when an order-making power is in force, as there is under Clause 2, the fear should be even more real under Clause 3, where no parliamentary scrutiny is provided.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to view the amendment constructively and say that she will give it further consideration. I beg to move.
  Baroness Andrews: I am grateful for the warm welcome offered to government Amendment No. 36 by the noble Earl. It meets what he has in mind. We were completely influenced by the noble Earl's attempts to change the Bill. We also have in mind the scrutiny given to the Bill by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. We are all of one mind and clearly Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8 will not be necessary.
  Just as we are minded to take account of the scrutiny given by the Select Committee to our Amendment No. 36, so we are in relation to Amendment No. 12. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended a change only to Clause 2 and sensibly left Clause 3 alone. However, I should like to soften the blow by explaining to the noble Earl—he has gone into the matter in some detail—what Clause 3(3) of the Bill seeks to do and why we have made changes in response to drivers.
  Basically, the noble Earl is quite right that the power provided in the subsection is similar to that currently provided by Section 1(6)(a) and (c) of the Radiological Protection Act 1970. Both allow the body concerned—the NRPB in the case of the old power and the HPA in the case of the new power—to be required to carry out extra functions in the area of radiation risks. The scope for directions under Clause 3(3) is defined by reference back to Clause 3(1). We wish to reserve that power in order to have flexibility if new functions are identified in future. That is the core of the clause.
  As the noble Earl said previously, we had the ability to provide for additional consultation by affirmative resolution, but let me explain why that has changed. Before using the old power, the 1970 Act required us to consult with the Atomic Energy Authority and the MRC. That requirement reflected the historical fact that the NRPB originated in a unit run jointly by the AEA and the MRC. The public consultation exercise that we conducted in 2002, and which we have tried to take into account as much as it is relevant and helpful, confirmed that there are no arguments for retaining this requirement. So we are reinforced in our decision by that evidence.
  Secondly, the old power allows the Secretary of State for Health to confer additional radiation protection functions on the National Radiological Protection Board while the new power, to take account of devolution, allows any of the appropriate authorities to direct the HPA to carry out additional radiation protection functions.
  GC 266
  Thirdly—this is a variation on that theme—the old power provided for the Secretary of State to confer a function on NRPB. The new power provides for the appropriate authority to direct the HPA to exercise a function. We shall come to the reasons for that change when we debate Amendment No. 14.
  Finally, the old power was exercised by the making of an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as the noble Earl said. Our proposal to remove that procedure and replace it by direction was explained in the memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As regards consistency with the NHS as a whole--I know that the noble Earl is well aware of this—the direction as a concept has worked well for NHS bodies to which the agency will be closely akin. It is consistent with the powers sought elsewhere in Clause 3 and it recognises that the functions in relation to which directions under this power might be made are limited by the reference to subsection (1). The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee accepted these proposals and has not recommended any change.
  We are used in this House to the arguments about negative and other resolutions offering a flexible response, and the noble Earl's point about speed is particularly relevant in this area because of the speed of scientific development across this corpus of work. But that is not the complete argument.
  The extra functions that could be conferred under Clause 3(3) are relatively limited compared with those conferred under Clause 2. Just for proportionality. we can make the case that a direction-making power is more appropriate. Finally, I revert to the fact that we are following the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to go against that; we believe that Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 would do so.
  Earl Howe: In her customary way, the noble Baroness has more than gone through the motions of making me believe that I have got a point. As a result, I feel warmer, although, in the end, I am not comforted. This clearly is a matter on which I shall need to reflect. I recognise that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not go as far as I am seeking here but that is not a reason for us not to revisit the issue, especially since your Lordships' Committee—I have read the report—did not appear to consider the various aspects that I have tried to highlight.
  There is an inconsistency here with the treatment in Clause 2. I fully take on board the point made by the noble Baroness that perhaps the two clauses are not on all fours with each other. For now it is time to move on. I reserve the right to perhaps come back to this issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 5 to 11 not moved.]
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Radiation protection functions]:
  [Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 3, line 1, leave out from "Agency" to "out" in line 2 and insert "and a Health and Safety body with the purpose of ensuring that the Agency carries"
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 16. Amendment No. 13 is a very simple amendment designed to highlight what appears to be a questionable provision in Clause 3(4) whereby the agency may be directed to agree with a health and safety body to carry out one or more of that body's statutory functions.
  I was always led to believe that one could not, as a matter of law, bind someone to agree with another person about anything. If the other person is an independent agent, it is open to him to refuse to agree to whatever is proposed. If that is so, no instruction to agree can bite. I simply question whether the Secretary of State can direct the agency to agree with the Health and Safety Commission that the commission should relinquish any of its functions in favour of the agency. That is a simple point. I recognise that this provision is carried over from other statutes. Nevertheless, we should hear why it is thought to be appropriate.
  There may be a good case for such a transfer of functions in an emergency. If that is so, and if speed is thought to be of the essence, surely a power of direction is required over both the agency and the health and safety body, and not only the agency.
  Moving on to Amendment No. 16, it may be a surprising and unusual turn of events for an amendment to be tabled that proposes substituting the word "may" for the word "must". However, I make no apology for having done so because it enables me to ask the Minister why Clause 3(9) is worded as it is and what lies behind it. The Government have tabled an amendment to take out Clause 3(9), which I found something of a surprise. Presumably, in the first instance, subsection (9) was inserted in the Bill by design with the approval of Scottish Ministers. While my amendment was designed as a probe, I do not understand why there should now be a change of heart.
  My understanding was that Scottish Ministers had agreed to subordinate or relinquish to English Ministers their right of direction in relation to radiological protection matters. They recognised that it made sense for the relatively simple and straightforward accountability mechanisms of the NRPB to be carried over into the new agency. So what happened to alter that?
  Rather than Members of the Committee agreeing to the Government amendment today, as we have not had very long to think about it, I wonder whether it would be better to put this matter to one side until Report. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I shall do so with an open mind. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Warner: I shall turn first to Amendment No. 13 but I will try to answer the noble Earl later over why there has been a change of direction in the government amendment.
  Amendment No. 13 would alter Clause 3(4). That provision is based on Section 7A of the Radiological Protection Act and continues a provision that was made in the past. I shall not describe all the details but we have followed that model closely. I can see where the noble Earl is coming from but we are trying to legitimise the HPA in taking on a particular function. It is not necessary to replace the current provision to direct the agency and the health and safety body because the Health and Safety Commission already has the power to enter into agreements with such bodies as the HPA under Section 13(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. We are trying to mirror that in relation to the HPA.
  We are continuing a practice that has been in National Radiological Protection Board legislation for more than 30 years. There is no reason to think that the HPA and the Health and Safety Commission would not agree, but the direction legitimises HPA activities. There is nothing more significant in the provision than that.
  Amendment No. 14 seeks to delete subsection (8)(b), which provides that the giving of a direction under subsection (2) or (3) does not prevent the exercise of the function by the appropriate body. I understand where the noble Earl is coming from but I am not sure that he is right. Clause 3(1) gives the HPA certain functions in the area of radiation protection. Those are similar to the functions currently given to the NRPB by the Radiological Protection Act, although the agency's functions go wider in that it will also be able to undertake activities in relation to ultrasound.
  The functions in subsection (1) are functions of the agency given to it by the Bill. They cannot be exercised by the appropriate authorities—the Secretary of State or the devolved administrations—except in the extreme and unlikely circumstances provided for by Clause 4(8). Subsection (8)(b) of Clause 3 applies not to those Clause 3(1) functions but to the additional functions which the agency might be directed to exercise under Clause 3(2) and (3). I hope that I can reassure the Committee that the possibility of such functions being exercised by an appropriate authority as well as the agency poses no threat to the agency's independence.
  We set out in our memorandum for the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform the ways in which we expect to use the powers in subsections (2) and (3). I shall briefly quote from that. Of subsection (2) we noted that:
  "This power can be used only in relation to functions exercisable by the National Radiological Protection Board at the date of commencement. The Board currently provides a secretariat for one advisory non-departmental public body (the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment) and a support unit for another (the Administration of Radioactive

  GC 269
  Substances Advisory Committee). The intention is that the power will be used to direct the Agency to take over those functions. thereby ensuring continuity".
  That remains our intention. However, as I have said previously, we are conducting a review of all arm's length bodies and we need to keep open the possibility that the way things are done now is not necessarily the way that it will be sensible for them to be done in the future. So flexibility is provided.
  Clause 3(3) provides a power for the appropriate authority to direct the agency to exercise other functions in relation to protection from the risks mentioned in subsection (1). The power is very similar to that currently provided under the Radiological Protection Act 1970. We are making sensible provisions with a degree of flexibility, but that in no way affects the independence of the HPA in taking over the radiological functions.
  Noble Lords have not objected to the approach where we have made similar provisions in relation to health functions in Clause 5; they have done so only in relation to the radiation protection functions in Clause 3(8). I hope that what I have said explains why we do not think there is any reason to object.
  I shall now outline the thinking behind government Amendment No. 15. The noble Earl is right; the Bill as introduced reflected originally the Scottish Executive's view that they would not need the power in Clause 3(4) because health and safety is largely a reserved matter. However, in the interests of consistency across the UK, and to reflect the existing statutory provision in the 1970 Act, Scottish Ministers have decided now that it would be appropriate for the power in Clause 3(4) to extend to them, as it extends to the other appropriate authorities. That means that subsection (9) can be deleted, which is what Amendment No. 15 provides for. To put it bluntly, there has been a change of mind on the part of Scottish Ministers in this respect.
  The effect of deleting subsection (9) is that, under subsection (4), Scottish Ministers will be able to direct the agency to enter an agreement with a health and safety body. subject to the consultation required by subsection (6). The other appropriate authorities will need to consult Scottish Ministers before they issue such a direction themselves. I can assure Members of the Committee that the other appropriate authorities are content with that. The change would render Amendment No. 16 inappropriate, so it would fall. I shall not therefore go through the arguments relating to Amendment No. 16.
  I understand that Members of the Committee may wish to consider the amendment further. I am in the Committee's hands as regards whether we effectively withdraw the amendment and do not move it at a later stage. I shall wait to hear from the noble Earl.
  Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for his replies. On Amendment No. 13 he said that the Health and Safety Commission already has the power to make agreements with other bodies and that there is no reason to think that the agency and the Health and Safety Commission would not agree. I cannot dissent from that, but the point I sought to make was perhaps
  GC 270
  the more legalistic one: that the provision purports to bind the agency into making an agreement. From my limited legal knowledge I think that that is an odd provision to put into statute. Perhaps I may be so bold as to leave the matter with the Minister to reflect upon before Report.
  I was grateful for the Minister's remarks on Amendment No. 14 and particularly government Amendment No. 15. Because the tabling of the government amendment was so recent, I suggested that it might be good for Members of the Committee to have a chance to reflect on the implications of it before Report, thus deferring the amendment of the Bill until then. It is not a matter of huge controversy, but I cannot help observing that it is a pity that what I thought was the subordination of the powers by Scottish Ministers in favour of Ministers in Westminster will be diluted, albeit in this modest way. Surely the more joined-up the radiological protection functions, the better it will be for everyone.
  If the Minister is content not to move his amendment at present, perhaps I might have the advantage of speaking to him further before Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Until we hear further from the Minister I shall be in some difficulty, because I ought to advise the Committee that, were Amendment No. 15 to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 16 because of pre-emption.
  [Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Earl Howe: If I may, I should like to spend a short time looking at some of the issues surrounding the absorption of the National Radiological Protection Board into the HPA. Although the decision is not something I intend to oppose in any way, it is important that the concerns expressed in relation to it are squarely confronted and, so far as possible, put to bed.
  If we look back at the work of the NRPB over the past 30 and more years, no one can level a criticism of any significance about the service it has given to the nation, or of the ability and dedication of the men and women who have worked to deliver that service--quite the contrary. The NRPB has been an outstanding success story, and for that very reason we need to be extremely careful that, in abolishing it, we do not jeopardise the effectiveness of the radiological protection work that must continue under the broader umbrella of the new agency.
  There are perhaps two dangers against which Ministers must guard. One is that the expertise present in the NRPB will leach away and disperse once the agency assumes its new shape. In a large organisation, staff tend to get seconded into all sorts of different areas of work, often necessitating a move of home and

  GC 271
  office by the individual. For NRPB staff that would be little short of disastrous because they are concentrated in particular locations and such expertise most certainly does not grow on trees. One cannot simply go along to a university and replace a radiological expert in the same way that one might replace someone with a knowledge of infectious disease control. Instead one must ensure that the bank of expertise is nurtured and replenished by a continuing programme of research.
  The maintenance of that programme is best assured by having a discrete, ring-fenced budget for radiological protection work which can be allocated appropriately year by year. Without a certain critical mass, not only would we lose effectiveness at home, we risk losing it internationally, where our advice on radiological protection is respected and we have active networks, involving named individuals, which can be deployed rapidly if need be. It was primarily for those reasons that the NRPB, in its response to the Government's consultation paper, asked that the board should remain as a discrete entity within the agency. I do not think, even at this late stage, that the logic of its arguments can be seriously faulted. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how those concerns will be addressed.
  The second danger of absorbing the board into the agency is that the additional layers of bureaucracy associated with a larger organisational structure may impede the ability of staff on the ground to deliver advice to the Government as rapidly and fully as they would wish. Within the current NRPB, access to Ministers is immediate, because the chairman is directly accountable to the Minister for Public Health. I hope that the Minister can assure me that the fear of additional organisational barriers identified by the NRPB is imaginary, and that the reporting lines to be put in place within the agency will ensure that access to Ministers, when required, is as speedy as may be necessary and as it has been hitherto.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Warner: I, too, would like to associate myself with the tributes paid by the noble Earl to the work and staff of the National Radiological Protection Board. There is certainly no intention on the part of the Government or the HPA in any way to weaken its international reputation. It is still intended that its work will be a discrete entity within the HPA, as the Chief Medical Officer's strategy proposed.
  Will it be as effective as in the past? We see no reason why the agency should not be at least as effective as is the NRPB in carrying out radiation protection responsibilities. Its advice on radiation protection should be just as authoritative as the board was and continues to be. But there will also be benefits from the synergies achieved by bringing responsibility for radiation protection and other aspects of health protection into the same organisation and by the modern set of powers that we propose for the new agency.
  We agree that the board's reputation for independence and impartiality should not be undermined, and have tried to take that into account
  GC 272
  in proposing that the new agency should be established as a non-departmental public body, as is the NRPB now, and by giving it more explicit power to publish its advice and information than the NRPB currently has. So we have strengthened that aspect of the board's work.
  We also value the NRPB's international reputation. We believe that the new agency will be at least as well equipped as is the board to maintain that reputation. Indeed, it should be more effective, given its ability to work across subject boundaries. The Bill gives it clear powers to make staff available for international work.
  I have always said that we believe that the board has worked well over 30 years, but I ask the Committee to recognise that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that we can deal with new challenges, including threats of terrorism. It was clear from our consultation that many involved in health protection and emergency planning, including the emergency services, welcomed the inclusion of the NRPB's functions in the HPA as a way to achieve that. From the work that has been done so far, I see no reason to believe that radiation protection will receive a lower priority as part of the HPA's work. As I said earlier, the work plan of the HPA can be formalised in a way that ensures that that does not happen.
  To summarise, we do not agree that we have in any way weakened the position of radiation protection. The agency will be an independent, non-departmental public body. The good thing is that in other respects, incorporation in the HPA will mean positive gains for radiation protection work. The HPA's local and regional structure will facilitate communication with the public about radiation protection. There will be benefits for staff, who will be able to broaden their scientific expertise and take advantage of extra opportunities for career development in a larger, dynamic organisation.
  As I said, there will be clear synergies between the work of the HPA and the NRPB, especially in emergency response and in relation to radiation and chemical hazards. In general, things have moved on since some of the comments made in the consultation exercise. I understand that staff are now positive about those developing interactions, and that the establishment of the HPA's headquarters dealing with chemical hazards at the NRPB's Chilton site has been welcomed.
  From my briefing, I understand that the board has already established a good working relationship and is now actively involved at executive group level in a wide range of HPA planning groups. In the view of both organisations, it would be a retrograde step not to proceed as we propose. It is also worth mentioning that by bringing together the two bodies as proposed under the Bill—bringing the board into the new agency—we can economise a little on some back office functions, which will produce resources for more front-line work. That will increasingly be a feature throughout the public service, as people consider how to economise on back office services such as finance, human resources, IT and estates management, so that

  GC 273
  they can free up resources for the frontline services provided by any particular public service body. There is scope for doing that, and it has already been realised in the joint working between the board and the Health Protection Agency Special Health Authority.
  I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Earl that we have a thought-out position. There is no intention to diminish the independence and authority of the work done on radiation protection.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I want to ask the Minister about the freeing-up of resources from more streamlined back office provision. My information from people in radiation protection is that the moves that the Minister outlined are occurring and are generally welcome and that working relationships are good. The scientific weight of the National Radiological Protection Board has been added to the chemical hazards and poisons work of the Health Protection Agency.
  I want some reassurance that those freed-up resources will still be available in radiation protection training. There is a potential problem with the interface at local and national level. At a local and regional level, people will have to know the point at which their expertise runs out and they should seek help from the Health Protection Agency. There is an ongoing, long-term training issue for staff, if we are to make sure that the interface between local services and the Health Protection Agency is clarified, so that the agency can function effectively.
  Lord Warner: The noble Baroness will be surprised to know that I do not, I confess, have that level of detail at my fingertips. I will look into that point and write to her. I shall copy the letter to other Members of the Committee.
  Earl Howe: The Minister's reply was, in large measure, reassuring. I recognise the synergies that the Minister referred to and the savings on back office costs, which are obviously desirable. However, my main concern was that there was a risk of loss of critical mass—perhaps inadvertently and for the good reason that staff might be seconded within the agency—and that, therefore, the discrete function of radiological protection might be weakened, albeit subtly. Much of what the Minister said has reassured me that such matters have been taken fully into account, and I thank him for going into the detail that he did.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Functions: supplementary]:
  Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 17: Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
  "( ) ensure that specialist services at a local level are adequately resourced to enable them to provide appropriate services"
  The noble Baroness said: When I was preparing for today's debate, my mind went back to an occasion a long time ago, when I was involved in doing some work on older people and HIV/AIDS. I took part in a conference that was organised by a hospital in the West Country. I met the two formidable ladies who
  GC 274
  ran the department of infection control and who had organised the conference. I asked, "What do you do?", and they said, in unison, "We listen to the experts. and then we tell people to wash their hands". In a way, that sums up a lot of what I will talk about today. The amendment would ensure that there were adequate resources for specialist laboratory services and that expertise, which is of fundamental importance—as anyone who has listened to the debate so far will know—was widely available not just in specialist services in the NHS but to those involved in the provision of community services, including diagnosis and management of conditions that arise from infection.
  In the Select Committee report, there was a great deal of evidence from specialists that many of the difficulties then being experienced in fighting infection would continue, because of the shortage of qualified staff and the lack of access to specialist knowledge. The Government's response to that report will, I think, cause noble Lords to share that concern: it was somewhat lukewarm.
  The main concern is that the integration of staff at local level—especially those who were employed by the Public Health Laboratory Service—into the HPA, rather than into primary care trust laboratories, is being done on the basis of inadequate resources. It is important, if that transfer is to go ahead and be effectual, that there are adequate resources. Throughout our debates, we have talked about the increased threat of biological incidents and biological terrorism, but there is a great deal of day-to-day work that continues and grows, as a result of infections. For example, Members of the Committee who have taken part in other debates in the House on, for example, the incidence of sexually transmitted disease will know about the ongoing, ordinary work—if one can call it that--of those laboratories. We are placing additional demands on them.
  The Faculty of Public Health of the Royal College of Physicians provided an extremely useful briefing on the matter, in which it said that it understood that the Bill was to be introduced on a cost-neutral basis, which failed to take into account the fact that there was an existing deficit in the resources available to the laboratory services. When the last survey was carried out on behalf of the NHS Executive in an attempt to establish a baseline for those services, it was found that, in many areas, services were below that baseline. It is against that background that the Bill proposes to give people working in primary care trusts additional duties.
  Primary care trusts are, as we know, a major focal point in the detection of the incidence of disease and in the management of disease. I note from some of the discussions that we have had that we are talking about incidences of disease that are extremely difficult to predict. Such diseases may occur in widespread and diffuse ways, which has an impact on detection. I draw to the Committee's attention the difference between the incidence of diseases such as pneumoconiosis, which occurred, by and large, in geographical areas in which it was possible for specialist knowledge to be

  GC 275
  developed, and the incidence of diseases such as mesothelioma, which occurs all over the place. Healthcare professionals know what the disease is, but they may not have come across an incidence of it for a long time and may have to start to learn about it all on their own.
  The report of the Select Committee also raised an important aspect of all this. It talked about the need for surge capacity—the need to amass very swiftly a body of expertise within a particular area when an infection breaks out. It stated in the report that it doubted very much whether a system that was already coping with chronic underfunding could do that.
  Finally, as Mr Derek Wanless said in his report last week, the role of PCTs and the HPA is as yet somewhat unclear. The memorandum of understanding between the two is unclear and needs to be further clarified. In many of our discussions so far we have focused on the diseases and infections which cause acute problems, but there are many infections and zoonotic agents, to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred, which cause chronic conditions. It is the management of chronic conditions that primary care is all about.
  It is therefore important, not only for detection but also the management of cases, that there is quick, ready access by non-specialists throughout the health service to specialist facilities. It is for that reason that we believe there is a practical and laudable case for looking again at the resourcing of those specialist services and access to them. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Fowler: The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is right to raise this issue and I should like to add to one aspect of what she said. If services in this area break down it will be at the local level. I am very much in favour of devolving responsibility for, say, the management of hospitals to the local level.
  But it is not only a matter of resources; it is also a matter of the willingness of local organisations—and PCTs in particular—to use those resources. When it comes to the issue of public health, I have my doubts about devolution. I say that because I believe that the old Public Health Laboratory Service did well in this area and because public health is a crucial central government responsibility. That means that the Department of Health must act very speedily and very decisively.
  Finally, I am not encouraged by the evidence so far that local priority is being given to these issues. Governments can appear embarrassed enough in areas such as sexual health, where they can be criticised or, worst of all, lampooned, but in many ways it gets worse in local areas. I seriously doubt whether, at the moment, primary care trusts are giving the right priority to these areas.
  Let me give an example of what I mean. The second annual survey from three of the major agencies involved in sexual health in the United Kingdom—the British HIV Association, the providers of AIDS care and treatment and the Terence Higgins Trust—has
  GC 276
  just been published. They say, basically, that there are clearly instances of good practice and growing understanding, but in too many responses there are clear signs that the need at the local level is outstripping the ability of services to respond. That is their finding.
  The key findings are, basically, that the United Kingdom's health planning system is continuing to fail to give the issues of sexual health and HIV the attention they deserve. That comes as no surprise. HIV and sexual health services do not have the resources they need to implement government policy; the majority of clinicians continue to warn that things are getting worse rather than better; and many services are at crisis point and in urgent need of modernisation.
  The surveys found that almost a third of PCTs had carried out no assessment of needs around sexual health and HIV since their inception, despite the rising numbers of people needing those services. Somewhere between a third and a half of all PCTs have spent less per case in 2003 on sexual health and HIV, although the numbers have increased. That is not an encouraging picture of what is happening around the country at local level. I say to the Minister that there is a serious warning in those figures. Devolution by itself does not mean effective action or adequate resources. But at the local level it is a matter of priority being given to those areas. At the moment, no one can argue that that priority is being given. The Government, and we in Parliament, should be warned about what is now happening.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I, too, would like to speak to the amendment and to build on some of the remarks already made by noble Lords. Clause 4 outlines what the agency may do, but to fulfil all those functions costs money. The importance of resources should not be underestimated. If the agency becomes strapped for resources, one would have to ask where the services would be squeezed, cut or downgraded. But that is not the only concern. Services need to keep developing and to keep modern, and that requires ongoing investment. Good equipment costs money. Training of specialist registrars, technicians at local level, epidemiologists and scientists all takes money.
  New diagnostic techniques are emerging all the time, especially for viruses and fungal infections, some of which are notoriously difficult to diagnose. If there are insufficient resources locally for accurate diagnosis, lives will be lost. I am not trying to be a scaremonger, but it is a reality that if a diagnosis is missed, someone will die. If it is missed several times, several people will die.
  The other difficulty is that new diseases are emerging annually—outlined in the report Fighting Infection—especially given the changes in travel, industrial exposure and zoonoses, which was mentioned earlier; that is, the mutation of organisms, particularly in the animal kingdom, which are transferred to humans. The contracting arrangements appear to be increasingly complex for services and create some difficulties. It is important to ensure that services delivered directly affecting patient care have

  GC 277
  the resources they need. The services need to be delivered not only today, but also tomorrow, next year and thereafter. There needs to be a modern service, not one that just ticks over.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: I have a query on the amendment regarding the local level. As has been said, there are some infections and diseases that are so complex and difficult that I do not believe that they could all be dealt with at the local level.
  Lord Warner: A number of issues were raised during the debate on this amendment, the scope of which became rather wider than that of the Bill.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised issues relating to the transfer of the old PHLS laboratories back into the NHS. That is not essentially an issue for the HPA. I am not saying that there have not been disagreements; there have been disagreements with the Department of Health about the transfer of resources to primary care trusts. We hope that the final discussions on the issue are taking place, and that the transfers will then be put in place. I hope that we will then be able to draw a line under that activity. I do not think that we will resolve the issue by amending the Bill; it is about reassuring the PCTs about the adequate transfer of funding when they take over responsibility for laboratories.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I do not wish to allow the Minister to misinterpret what has been said. There have been transfers in the other direction, with resource implications for the HPA.
  Lord Warner: My understanding of the noble Baroness's point was that laboratories at local level were her concern. If we are talking about laboratories that the HPA has taken over, that is a question of local management decisions. As I said during our debate on the earlier amendment about local services, 20 per cent of the HPA budget is allocated to local and regional services. As an example of how some of those are being strengthened. the HPA is already addressing the matter through its plans to deliver radiological protection support and training to its local and regional services divisions, in close collaboration with the National Radiological Protection Board. That is an example of where local specialist services are being strengthened as a result of the HPA.
  In debating this Bill, we cannot go through the detailed operational financial arrangements between the HPA and other parts of its services, although I will be happy to make more enquiries and to write to Members of the Committee.
  I am full of admiration for the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on HIV/AIDS, and his ability to take every opportunity to remind us of the issues involved. It is easy to say that there are problems in the area, but it is equally easy to forget that there is a government strategy on the matter, which is hacked by an initial investment of £47.5 million, plus a further £40 million committed over the next two years. In addition, a further £ 11.4 million was announced in response to concerns raised by the Health Select Committee and
  GC 278
  stakeholders, plus a further £15 million capital to modernise premises for genito-urinary medicine. In the context of a sexual health strategy, a substantial amount of new resources is being allocated. We share the noble Lord's concerns about the poor state of sexual health. but we do not agree that there is a crisis, or that the response has been inadequate.
  People have been saying a lot about concerns regarding funding for local services and specialist services. We now have a situation in which 75 per cent of the resources available to the NHS are allocated by PCTs. This is now a health service in which PCTs shape their spending on the basis of local priorities. We must simply accept that devolution in this area means that PCTs will reshape their budgets and expenditure plans to meet their service needs and the needs of their local community. That is not something that we shall continue to prescribe in great detail from the centre.
  I am not sure exactly what the amendment means. There is no definition of specialist services. Does it mean that there are specialist services that the HPA should provide across all parts of the country? I have already said in response to an earlier amendment that the HPA has been constructing a memorandum of understanding with all PCTs, so that there is consistency of service provision across the country in health protection. We must allow those memoranda of understanding to play out and be more confident that the joint working between the PCTs and the HPA will be beneficial.
  It is easy to view change as being for the worse. I would say that we are moving into an era where combined working between the HPA and PCTs will mean a more consistent approach to health protection across the country as a result of the initiatives being taken by the HPA. I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: Yesterday, I attended a meeting in Portcullis House on the health problems of Greater Manchester. I sat next to the chairman of a local hospital who said that it was in total crisis over sexually transmitted diseases. The Government may be pouring in more and more money, but there needs to be a national campaign. The public do not know; young people do not realise what they are doing. The situation is out of control and at crisis level.
  Lord Warner: I am sorry but I simply do not agree with the noble Baroness that there is a crisis. The issue is serious. I remind the noble Baroness—I will send her details—of the sexual health strategy and the "Sex Lottery" campaign that is being run with a good deal of success, as I explained at an international conference only a couple of weeks ago in a European Union meeting. We are doing much more to educate our young people in that area than many other countries. We may not always be as successful as we would like, but it is misleading to suggest that nothing is being done. We will monitor the results of that campaign and publish them later.

  GC 279
  The noble Baroness's intervention also allowed me to find a bit more briefing in my folder which may be of use to the Committee. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and others, the HPA has some ideas about how it will use its resources in 2004–05. For example, nearly £54 million will go on regional laboratories; about £41 million on local and regional services; and nearly £21 million on specialist laboratories. I could go on but I say that just to reassure the Committee that we have an agency that is considering the local and regional dimension and, through its work plans and budgeting system, is providing adequate funding for those services.
  Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for his reply. I apologise if there was any misunderstanding or lack of clarity on my part. I was trying to direct my comments to the level of concern that exists about those public health laboratory service operations that have been transferred to the HPA. I return to the point made by the Faculty of Public Health that many local teams inherited by the HPA are well below the level of resource that they were deemed to need. It was on those teams I mainly focused.
  I return to the fact that in his report last week, Mr Wanless pointed out that the roles of the HPA and PCTs in health protection need further clarification. He pointed out that directors of public health and chief executives of PCTs are concerned that, although health protection teams have been transferred to the HPA, PCTs are still expected to perform some of the functions previously undertaken by those teams—for example, emergency planning under Section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
  I may be more of a devolutionist than many Members of the Committee, but I have a great deal of sympathy with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that public health remains a government responsibility. I have always believed that devolution in the health service should involve more than the shifting of blame and passing of the buck. That was the disappointing tenor of the Minister's remarks. The memoranda of understanding require clarification.
  The Minister was somewhat disparaging in his treatment of my amendment—why spoil the habit of a lifetime?—and the term "specialist services". I refer him to the points made by the faculty of health. We are talking about improving national priority inspections, which include STDs. That does not just mean HIV/ AIDS; I refer the Minister to our recent debate on undetected chlamydia. It is a huge public health crisis which, as we know, has immediate but also latent effects that may be incalculable in their cost to health.
  On providing a service that covers chemical and environmental hazards at local and national level, the Faculty of Public Health is clear and unambiguous. It states that it believes that the inherited resource cannot manage such a service. As we know from Getting Ahead of the Curve, several major instances of widespread public health problems have emerged from chemical incidents. If we have learnt nothing else from
  GC 280
  the Camelford disaster of 1988, we must surely have learnt the need to be prepared for such incidents. We need improved training for HPA staff and their partners in the NHS.
  I talked to PCT staff during the SARS outbreak last year. We were extremely fortunate, but for around 10 days staff envisaged most of their work stopping while they were hauled off to be trained in what to do about the problem. That must have been a great disruption to their normal ongoing activity, such as research and development. Any PCT that manages to prioritise research and development activity—in particular, integration with university research facilities—above immediate demand is pulling off something of a miracle in the current financial climate. Providing information to the public is also a specialist function which, the Faculty of Public Health makes clear, remains to be addressed.
  We have made clear that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I do not find the Minister's response wholly convincing. As we are in Grand Committee, I shall withdraw the amendment, but we will be back to discuss the matter later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
  Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 4, line 16, at end insert—

  "(d) for the purposes of sections 13 (payments by NHS bodies towards certain local authority expenditure) and 14 (payments by local authorities towards expenditure by NHS bodies on prescribed functions) of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 5) as if it is an NHS body within the meaning of that Act:

  (e) for the purposes of section 15 of that Act (delegation etc. between local authorities and NHS bodies) as if it is an NHS body within the meaning of that Act."

  The noble Lord said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 19 and 22. They arise because Scottish Ministers have asked for the amendments, which add details of the Scottish equivalents to the legislation already mentioned here. It will enable the HPA, NHS bodies and local authorities in Scotland to enter into agreements and to make and receive payments to and from each other. The powers provided by the amendment are not new. They are powers which NHS bodies currently have and which the Bill now also makes available to the HPA. The amendments are a straightforward tidying-up operation regarding the relationship between Scottish health authorities and the HPA. I beg to move.
  Earl Howe: Amendment No. 20 is included in this group and I shall also talk about my Amendments Nos. 45 and 46, which have a bearing on the matter.
  It would be remiss of the Committee to pass over subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 4 without comment, as they raise quite deep-seated questions about the extent to which the Health Protection Agency will really be able to operate at arm's length from Ministers and thereby give the Government and the public independent, authoritative and impartial advice. We

  GC 281
  need to remind ourselves of the importance of that point because, unless at all times the agency commands the trust and respect of the public, its pronouncements will not be valued as they ought to be and in some cases they will not be believed. The surest way to achieve that undesirable result would be for Ministers to interfere in the way that the agency sets about its work, so that it is seen merely as a tool of central government.
  The power set out in subsection (7) appears to be broad. It does not seek to limit or qualify the degree to which Ministers will be able to direct the way in which the agency's functions are performed. So what kind of direction is envisaged here? I think it would be helpful if the Minister gave us some possible examples. The Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee says that the content of any direction is likely to relate to matters of operational detail. We understand that there need to be default powers built into the Bill. But how are we to ensure that default powers are not used as a more regular mechanism for resetting the priorities of the agency or diluting in some way the force or content of its advice?
  We see the same thing in Schedule 1 where, in paragraphs 11 and 13, wide powers of direction are included to enable the Secretary of State to dictate how the agency should conduct its internal business, including such matters as the composition of committees and how much committee members should be paid. There may be circumstances in which the Secretary of State feels the need to take action of that kind, but it is surely generally undesirable. At the very least, we are entitled to ask why he should not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny if he does. The use of directions appears unnecessary in this context.
  The main message is simple. The more that healthcare professionals, management and staff within the agency are made by Ministers to jump through hoops in order to meet politically-based objectives, the worse it will be for us all. If the agency is to be regarded as the champion of the health of the public it deserves to be left alone, as far as possible, to get on with that job.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I rise briefly to support the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I share all of his misgivings about the two subsections. There may well be a halfway position on the matter. There are certainly circumstances which do not impugn the independence of the HPA if a direction is given. The Faculty of Public Health takes that view. There are perfectly legitimate circumstances where the HPA could be directed to carry out work in areas which the Secretary of State feels are currently neglected.
  The trouble with the two subsections is that it is also possible for the Secretary of State to direct the HPA not to undertake work. That seems to be extremely dangerous. If the HPA believes that certain work needs to be carried out and the Secretary of State overrides that, that will damage the independence of the HPA and would certainly cause public concern of the kind that the noble Earl has mentioned. We will consider later the issue of publication of information,
  GC 282
  which is closely allied to the issue of public trust. If we are going to the trouble of setting up the new statutory body in the manner that the Bill intends, we need to get the aspect of independence absolutely right.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I rise briefly to support those comments and to underline that health protection services, both in England and Wales, are the responsibility of the Health Protection Agency and the National Public Health Service for Wales. There has to be an inter-relationship, but there must be openness in what the agency is asked to do or not to undertake.
  Lord Warner: I had an uneasy feeling that we would have this debate when I was reading the papers. Some of my comments will be familiar to one or two noble Lords who joined me in the wee small hours on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003.
  The particular powers that would be deleted are pretty much a standard feature of legislation on many NHS and non-departmental public bodies. Essentially, the argument is that the appropriate authorities under the Bill need that power in relation to the HPA for reasons of accountability. The HPA, like many other bodies that carry out not dissimilar functions, will largely be funded by grant in aid from the appropriate authorities and in particular by the. Department of Health, which currently provides over £120 million of public money for its predecessor bodies.
  We are accountable to Parliament for ensuring that those funds are applied only to the extent and for the purposes authorised by Parliament. Most of us would agree that it is most unlikely that the HPA would propose to use public money for any purpose other than that for which Parliament had voted. Nevertheless, it is normal practice to have in place the mechanisms for dealing with such an eventuality if it were to arise. The devolved administrations have similar responsibilities to their Parliament or Assembly.
  Having the powers of direction and exercising them are not necessarily the same. It does not mean that we shall make frequent use of it. The Department of Health has not stockpiled a long list of activities on which we are aching to give directions to the HPA. The provision is not about micro-managing the HPA. If people had any concerns about that, I hope that they were reassured by my comments at Second Reading about the reduction in the size of the Department of Health. Our capacity to micro-manage and direct agencies will not exist in the way it may have done in the past.
  We are also doing no more in the provision than continuing the powers of direction that were available to Ministers in relation to the predecessor bodies. That applies not just to the National Radiological Protection Board, but bodies like the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Microbiological Research

  GC 283
  Authority. Those reserve powers to ensure public accountability for resources given to NDPBs have been a feature of legislation.
  Effectively, we took a different course in relation only to the Food Standards Authority and the Commission for Health Audit and Inspection. Their functions are quite different, and there were special circumstances in relation to both those bodies. We emphasised that those bodies, because of their nature, should not have these powers of direction in the exercise of their functions. They are different from the HPA, which is much more in line with the reserved powers of direction of other NDPBs carrying out similar functions. That is the basis for this; there is nothing sinister about it. We are continuing the previous practice and are in line with much legislation where there are NDPBs similar to the HPA.
  We do not believe that Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are appropriate. They would control the minutiae of some of the proceedings, which is not the kind of detail that needs to be controlled through the processes involved in those amendments.
  Earl Howe: I am a little surprised to hear that, because there needs to be accountability to Parliament and because of the payment of grant in aid, there needs to be a broadly drawn power of direction in the Bill. One of the trumpeted virtues of foundation trusts was the absence of a power of direction; yet there was no suggestion that parliamentary accountability was absent in the case of those bodies. I do not think that that argument washes.
  If anything, I am less concerned with the clear default power set out in subsection (8) than I am with the unfettered power of direction in subsection (7). I very much take on board the powerful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which, to be frank, I had not thought about in quite the terms in which he put it. Despite the Minister's resistance to the amendment, would he agree to consider whether the power of direction could be tightened up to ensure that it is deployed only when Ministers have a genuine concern that the agency may not be performing its functions properly; namely, that there is a real need for direct intervention? At the moment, it appears to be a carte blanche.
  Lord Warner: Certainly, I am happy to reflect on the debate and to read the remarks made by noble Lords carefully. I shall consider whether we could look at the drafting of this provision in a way that will Find a little more favour among Members of the Committee.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 4, line 23, at beginning insert "Subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29),"
  The noble Earl said: I hope that the Minister will reassure me straight away that Amendment No. 21 is unnecessary. But there is clearly a balance to be struck between allowing the agency to pursue its active
  GC 284
  operational links with local authorities, as it must certainly do, and conferring carte blanche on the agency to disclose confidential patient data to anyone on a local authority's payroll.
  As I read the clause, it is not at all clear whether, for the purposes of Section 31 of the Health Act 1999, or of the duty of co-operation in Clause 5, arguments of expediency with regard to the sharing of information override the accepted norms of confidentiality and data protection as set out in the Data Protection Act. I shall cover Clause 5 in more depth later, but one of the most striking aspects of it is that, apart from local authorities, it does not specify the bodies and organisations with which the agency has a duty to co-operate.
  There will be many such bodies. It is simply not good enough to say, as Clause 4(9) appears to do, that, provided the agency is engaging in this type of practical co-operation, it does not matter what information it discloses, or to whom, and what information is disclosed to it. In some situations there may be a need for such disclosure to take place in the public interest, but not, I suggest, as a routine, unquestioned procedure. I should be grateful if the Minister could throw some light on this provision in Clause 4 and, it is to be hoped, reassure me that we are not entering coach-and-horses territory. I beg to move.
  Lord Clement-Jones: Unusually, I rise to give some support to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Normally, the noble Earl is a hawk in these matters and I am somewhat of a dove in terms of the use of personal information for purposes such as public health and so forth. But the noble Earl has raised an interesting and important point. My bias would be very much in favour of ensuring that patient records and so forth are available in circumstances where there are threats to public health and it is important to trace contacts to determine the origin of an infectious disease or whatever it may be. In general, I am against having too much of a trammel on such exchange of information.
  On looking at the subsection, it is extraordinarily unqualified in the way in which it operates. There is no judgment of proportionality. It may be that the department lawyers would say, "Well, actually, there is a duty of proportionality, a duty of overriding public interest, that is brought in aid in these circumstances. Therefore, whether information is released properly is subject to a set of general principles". I am concerned that I see nothing of that in this provision. It is one thing if information is exchanged for the purposes of preventing epidemics and the transmission of infection in crisis circumstances, but if there is the day-to-day exchange of information, without higher purpose, and disproportionate to the damage that it is trying to prevent, the noble Earl may have a good case.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Perhaps I may briefly put a balance on the spin of this argument. I can see a situation arising where someone may have brought something into the country as part of an illegal activity and in that process introduced either an infection or a noxious substance, resulting in treatment for the

  GC 285
  infection or toxicity. For the Health Protection Agency effectively to trace, it will have to cross some boundaries of confidentiality. One of the difficulties is at what point this can be got right. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that some guidance will be enacted to allow the Health Protection Agency to ferret out problems and to protect the population. We must ensure that its powers are used for that and not potentially abused by over-zealous investigation that goes beyond the boundaries of privacy and, in fact, privacy as outlined in the Human Rights Act.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: This is an interesting amendment. I know that it is a different subject, but in the Soham case, as regards the Humberside police, the confusion was the Data Protection Act. The reason for not giving necessary evidence was that Act. Therefore, it is a serious amendment that needs to be looked at.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Warner: Dealing with the narrow point of the amendment itself, I shall make two separate comments. First, we think that the amendment is unnecessary because it is our clear understanding that there is no reason to think that there would be any need for information of the kind with which the amendment of the noble Earl seeks to deal to be exchanged under these arrangements. As I understand it, we are not talking about that kind of personal information being passed in a non-anonymised form. It is not an issue and therefore the amendment is not necessary.
  However, we have entered the complicated territory of the inter-relationship between the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. At this point I am reluctant to go into a long dissertation on the subject, but I will say that, essentially, parliamentary counsel sees this as a matter where if the information was used against the authority in the Data Protection Act and it was not proportionate, this could bring it within the terms of the Human Rights Act. So the judgment would be concerned with the proportionality of dispensing with the safeguards of the Data Protection Act.
  I am happy to write giving the legal opinion which underpins this argument rather than go into its lengthy detail now. I agree with noble Lords that it is an interesting issue, but it is probably not something for the delectation of the Committee at this hour. However, I shall write to noble Lords with the detail of parliamentary counsel's arguments on this issue.
  Lord Clement-Jones: That would be very helpful. However, I wanted to elicit from the Minister whether he was saying that the usual procedure will be not to use non-anonymised data.
  Lord Warner: I may have forgotten to say the negative.
  Lord Clement-Jones: So they will use non-anonymised data; that is, personal data.
  Lord Warner: I have confused the noble Lord with my negatives. Where this was being used, it would be anonymised data. But there is no expectation that personal, identified data would be passed.
  Lord Clement-Jones: Speaking as a layman in this area, it seems quite extraordinary that that would be
  GC 286
  the case. The whole purpose of tracing would be to lead directly to individuals. Whether one thinks of TB or another disease, one needs to know not only the postcode but the person and their address in order to trace them. That is what gives this debate a particular point.
  Lord Warner: I shall be happy to revisit the point with my experts, but that is my understanding of the position. However, I shall clarify matters and write to noble Lords so that we are not further detained.
  Earl Howe: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that, perhaps unusually, I am completely at one with him. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate.
  The issue is one of proportionality and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made an extremely helpful suggestion when she proposed the issue of some form of guidance or protocol to govern these difficult situations. If it is envisaged that there will be no need to pass on the kind of sensitive information to which I referred, a way should be found to prevent that from happening in the wording of the Bill. Perhaps that is easier said than done.
  The aim of my amendment was not simply to provide a hook with which to raise this issue but to make the point that the Data Protection Act does not prevent the dissemination of personal data when that is necessary in the public interest. The problem raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in relation to that Act was, as I understand it, that the provisions of the Act were misunderstood by the parties involved and that the Act did not prevent the retention and dissemination of the information at issue in that case.
  However, I welcome the Minister's offer to show us the legal opinion he has received. That will be illuminating. Without further ado, I shall withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 4, line 25, after "(5)(c)" insert "or (e)"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Co-operation]:
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 4, line 34, leave out "(including local authorities)"
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 inclusive. In moving the amendment I should like to take a little time to open up the issue of co-operation both by and with the agency, this being the subject covered by Clause 5, and to say something about the issue of accountability in relation to public health protection.
  The work of the Health Protection Agency will be a mixture of the planned and the unplanned. Much of the planned work will be routine. That is not in any way to belittle its importance; it is merely to point out that the agency will have ongoing programmes of

  GC 287
  monitoring and surveillance, the collation of data, and the preparation of advice for Ministers and the public which will comprise its day-to-day, bread and butter work. It will also be involved in horizon scanning and in commissioning and interpreting research.
  From time to time, it will be faced with a local or national emergency to which it will be necessary for it to respond at short notice. Work of that kind is necessarily unplanned, although the agency must be prepared for it. In all these facets of its work, however, the agency cannot act in glorious isolation. There is a multitude of different bodies and agencies, national and local, on which it will depend and which in turn will depend on it to ensure that the public is protected from biological, chemical and radiological hazards in the most effective manner possible.
  Against that background, Clause 5 is a little strange. It alludes in general terms to the nexus of relationships but does not go to the trouble of specifying any of them. The only relationship which it chooses to highlight is that between the agency and local authorities. That interdependency will certainly be of huge importance, but it is not the only one of importance. I have listed some others. The list set out in Amendment No. 26 is not one compiled at random but is taken from the Civil Contingencies Bill, which takes as its starting point the need for proper, structured arrangements for dealing with civil emergencies.
  In that Bill, one of the types of emergency explicitly covered is an event or situation that may cause loss of human life or human illness. Another is damage to the environment from harmful biological, chemical or radioactive matter. A duty is placed on those bodies and individuals listed in Schedule 1 to that Bill to assess the risk of, and plan for, civil emergencies. A Minister of the Crown is given powers to issue guidance to any of those bodies or persons whose duty in turn is to give advice and assistance to the public. There are ministerial powers of direction in the Bill and powers for Ministers to make emergency regulations.
  The first question that we must ask is how the provisions of the Civil Contingencies Bill interrelate with those in this Bill. The Health Protection Agency will have a major role to play in many types of civil emergency, yet the most that is hinted at in the Bill is that it will be obliged to,
  "co-operate with other bodies … which exercise functions relating to health or any other matter in relation to which the Agency also exercises functions".
  The vagueness of that provision is a surprise, not simply in the light of the Civil Contingencies Bill, but because it glosses over one of the key issues in the administration of public health protection—accountability.
  I am not sure how many Members of the Committee will have read the report on public health by the Nuffield Trust that was published last year. If one overriding concern is expressed in that report, bestriding all others, it is,
  "the fact that there is no clear answer to the simple question 'Who is responsible for the control of communicable diseases in these islands?"'.
  GC 288
  The report argues that although we have a Minister for Public Health who is accountable to Parliament, there is no formal framework, however tight or loose, to link Ministers with public health professionals and others working on the ground; nor is there a single body with a duty to monitor and advise on the health of the people of the UK or its constituent parts.
  The creation of the agency may prove to be a step towards creating that framework and single channel of communication. However, one need only look at my amendment and the multiplicity of bodies and individuals with responsibility for one aspect or another of public health protection to appreciate that there is still a very long way to go. Simply to say, as the Bill does, that these bodies, whoever they are, must all co-operate with each other ignores the need for there to be someone or some body with their hands on the key levers for maintaining standards of public health protection and driving them up.
  Where are the formal links, for example, between local authorities, who have many of the legal powers in relation to public health, and the NHS, which is responsible for commissioning and delivering health care? What will be the organisational links between the agency and local environmental health departments? Why will there apparently be no service-level agreements between the agency and local NHS trusts? At a national level, whose job will be to co-ordinate public health issues across government? Who is there whom Parliament and the public could call to account if there were a major failure to protect the nation's health? Unfortunately, the Bill as drafted does not deliver any answers and one could argue that Clause 5, although acceptable as far as it goes, merely serves to muddy the waters further.
  We also need reassurance that the critical work of the agency will actually get done. The Minister will know that there has been considerable anxiety about the absorption of many of the former PHLS laboratories into the NHS. I have no wish to beef about that; it is done, and that is it. But without service level agreements between the HPA and NHS trusts, what confidence can we have that work such as the monitoring of food poisoning outbreaks, or of MRSA, will continue in the way it always used to? What contractual arrangements are in place to ensure that NHS laboratories continue these important programmes? I ask this because we hear worrying stories coming out of the NHS to the effect that some laboratories have proved reluctant to prioritise public health work in the way that the HPA would like, and that this has obliged the agency to relocate the work associated with food poisoning outbreaks. The obvious downside to that is that if suddenly the agency loses its local networks of monitoring and surveillance, the task of determining the geographical extent of an outbreak becomes all the more difficult.
  Against that background, are the Government really telling us that a simple duty for unspecified people to co-operate with the agency, as set out in Clause 5, is a sufficient reassurance that all will be well? I confess that I am extremely hesitant about that proposition. So, although I would not necessarily

  GC 289
  suggest that the kind of elaboration proposed in my amendment is the only way forward, I would like the Minister to consider whether in Clause 5 we need something rather beefier than we have at the moment. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I apologise to the Committee; I should have raised two housekeeping points relating to this group, which I hope are acceptable. If Amendment No. 25 is agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendment No. 26. Furthermore, I am advised that Amendment No. 26 has been misprinted and should read, "leave out", but miss out the word "from". Those two housekeeping points may be of interest to noble Lords as matters of detail; nevertheless the amendment has been moved.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Barker: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 27, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 26. I echo everything said by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about his amendment.
  The brevity of the clause is fine. I have no wish to pre-empt what the Minister will say but no doubt she listened closely to the words of her noble friend when he addressed an earlier amendment and pleaded the cause of a lack of detail allowing greater flexibility. Nevertheless, the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, are valid. A great number of bodies are involved in health protection in its wider sense. There is a case not only for making them more explicit, but for adding to the list the names of the two bodies we have identified in our amendment.
  The first is the Chief Medical Officer. The inclusion of the Chief Medical Officer on such a list goes without saying. Indeed, in the Government's response to the report on fighting infection, on page 31 one finds a most interesting press notice of 9 June 2003 stating that the CMO is to step up the fight against hospital infections. It does not go on to say that the CMO is doing it alone—it suggests that there is a team behind him—hut, nevertheless, it is a small indication of the importance of' the Chief Medical Officer in the whole process.
  I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the concern is not only about the range of bodies involved in health protection, but where the accountability for co-ordination lies and where exactly the buck stops. Quite often the buck stops with the Chief Medical Officer.
  In addition, we have included Defra in the list. I have no wish whatever to repeat the debate we had earlier today on zoonoses—fascinating and grammatically correct though it was—but there is a particular reason for including that department. Within Defra there is now the Drinking Water Inspectorate and quite a number of the infections we are discussing are water-borne. So there is a clear technical reason for Defra to be involved.
  Moreover, as those who have read the report on fighting infection, Getting Ahead of the Curve, will know, at the last count, made when the report was
  GC 290
  published, some 400 diseases could be transmitted from animals to people. I am sure that number has risen by now. No one needs to go over in any depth at all the importance of farming now to public health.
  I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that it is important to state the names of these bodies quite clearly, not least because there is a need for the public to know the range of responsibilities for public health. Part of the reason for that is because the reporting of instances of infectious diseases does not always happen within the health service. People may go to their GPs, but if' they come across environmental infections they do not quite know where to go or what to do. I believe that there is a public education and information role, which is important in a list like this. Those who are in the business clearly are in the know. Those who are not in the business could do with a hit of explanatory help, which is important.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My name is added to the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I have a slight concern about having a list in a Bill such as this. Public health is everyone's concern. Just about every department can be seen to impact on public health. For example, buildings and bad air-conditioning systems lead to Legionnaire's disease. We also know about the impact of bad housing, poor transport and so forth on health.
  While I commend the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for extracting a list of key players, I have a slight reservation that if someone is not on the list, it might be said that public health is not their major concern. I should like everyone to be concerned with public health in every government department. However, the reason I put my name to the insertion of the Chief Medical Officer and Defra obviously relates to zoonosis and the very specific responsibilities there.
  I should also like to draw attention to the bodies established outside the United Kingdom. The relationship for our public health services with their colleagues in the World Health Organisation is crucial to our being able to function effectively. It is not only about the exchange of information, it is also about personal relationships and knowing who to contact very early on when there is an index of suspicion, but long before there is any alert. Those interpersonal relationships have stood us in good stead.
  I remind Members of the Committee that Dr Meirion Evans's work on SARS was commended. He comes from these isles and had a huge influence on the handling of that epidemic. Those interpersonal relationships are extremely valuable. In having a specific reference to bodies outside of the United Kingdom, I hope that the Bill will empower the agency to work more closely with the WHO. When I visited WHO with the Select Committee on Science and Technology, we were concerned that, from the WHO perspective, there was not as much placement of our professionals and expertise on secondment as it would like. We may miss out if that is not increased.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: Only yesterday, with regard to a Question about Munchausen syndrome by

  GC 291
  proxy, the Minister said how important it was for bodies to work together. I am sure that he will be interested in this amendment or Amendment No. 26. One never knows what will be around the corner: one only has to look at cryptosporidium in water, which suddenly appears in different parts of the country. As regards Amendment No. 27, we must consider BSE and what it has done to the country. It has cost billions of pounds. There are so many issues; it is better therefore to have a blanket and have them all there, rather than to leave some out.
  Baroness Andrews: I have enjoyed this debate. It has been about the nature of life and accountability, as well as the nature of legislation and what it can and cannot achieve. In itself, that has been interesting. I am sorry that I shall be addressing a slightly narrower scope than the noble Earl addressed in his wide-ranging speech.
  My noble friend Lord Turnberg pointed out earlier that one could invent all the structures in the world. Ultimately, delivery happens through people cooperating effectively within sensible structures. It is important to keep that in mind.
  The noble Earl raised several specific questions about the nature of those relationships and how they would work in the absence of service agreements; that is, how things would be governed. Perhaps I may reflect on what he said and respond in writing to some of the more specific queries which I cannot address now.
  However, I shall answer his point about civil contingency. The noble Earl made the distinction between the routine work of the agency, which is extremely important in terms of surveillance and the emergency response. Part 1 of the Civil Contingencies Bill is concerned with preparedness for contingencies and covers the HPA, so clearly there is a relationship in place. However, Clause 5 of the Bill before us applies to all HPA activities, thus providing a sound locking-in of the two functions.
  We should not forget that the creation of the HPA in itself addresses some of the major questions raised by the noble Earl. I can say that we appreciate the concern of all noble Lords and we are sympathetic to the intentions behind these amendments. However, the sad fact is that the amendments themselves do not achieve what is being sought in two quite specific ways.
  First, Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 would make the duty of co-operation one-way, which is a contradiction. Here I address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham: we are certainly in favour of co-operation, but co-operation is a two-way street. The agency would be obliged to co-operate, but other bodies would not. That could seriously hamper the agency's effectiveness, so we must be able to ensure that all the relevant bodies are under a duty to cooperate. Special health authorities are already under a duty to co-operate with NHS bodies and local authorities. Section 26 of the Health Act 1999 puts NHS bodies under a duty to co-operate with each
  GC 292
  other, while Section 22 of the National Health Service Act 1977 creates a duty of co-operation between NHS bodies and local authorities.
  Therefore, aside from the difficulties arising from the accidentally exclusive nature of the amendments, is the fact that the Bill is consistent with the way we are used to dealing with the issue of co-operation. We have had several examples this afternoon, not least those cited by my noble friend, of how co-operation operates so successfully in practice. It is due to goodwill and sensible structures.
  Secondly, we have to face the curse of the list. Almost every health Bill provides, with the best of intentions, the temptation to prescribe inclusiveness. The noble Baroness raised a point about public information and education. While I see the aim, would argue whether setting out a list in legislation is the right way to inform people. There are many ways in which we can be open about co-operation and what effects that will have. However, a list set out in legislation is not necessarily the best way to reach people, even when it flags up such august persons as the Chief Medical Officer and brings in Defra. To include such persons and bodies would mean that, technically, we should add to the list everyone engaged in infection control. We would have a very long list.
  I want to address precisely the issue raised by the noble Baroness about the range of bodies that would have to be included. This list, however forbidding in length and complexity and however thoughtful in substance, is not complete. For example, no reference is made to the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland, or to the Northern Ireland health and safety bodies. Moreover, as new bodies are formed, the list would become even more incomplete. Were we to go down this road, how would we keep the list up to date? Who would we include and where are the boundaries of public health? The list would have to be amended by further primary legislation, a point noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
  I conclude by referring to the second point made by the noble Baroness. The amendment would not achieve what I take to be its aim: that is, by identifying by name all the specific bodies affected. I would challenge the notion of vagueness and unnecessarily robust generality here. That is how new international bodies should be able to be included, for example, as well as the WHO, obviously, with which we have worked and continue to work extremely closely.
  For all those reasons, I hope that, bearing in mind what I have also said about trying to answer some of the noble Earl's more specific questions, he will see tit to withdraw his amendment.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: With all their machinery behind them, the Government could find a way to embrace all the bodies so that none is left out, without listing them individually. That would cover them all before the next stage of the Bill's consideration.
  Baroness Andrews: The whole point is that, by not specifying any body, we are free to specify all by

  GC 293
  implication. That is the nature of the inclusivity. Once we start trying to identify bodies, we are by definition bound to leave people out.
  Earl Howe: I completely accept that the amendment is flawed, and I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out the ways in which it is flawed. However, she may want to reflect on the wider points that I sought to make by tabling the amendment, not least on the relationship of the Bill to the Civil Contingencies Bill, because I am still not quite clear whether the Bill will be subject to that Bill once it is enacted. Perhaps she will clarify that when she writes to me.
  I am well aware, as is any other Member of the Committee, of the curse of the list. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, put it, there are always drawbacks in having limited lists. However, my goodness the list in the Bill is limited. It contains only one type of body—local authorities—and I question whether that is appropriate. Perhaps we should reflect on that before Report.
  One issue on which I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments is whether she thinks that there is any overlap between the work of the agency and that of other bodies. For example, we have a Health Protection Agency, a Health Development Agency and a Food Standards Agency. I am sure that each has a mission statement which is different from that of the others, but can we say that their work is entirely distinct and discrete in all respects? If it is not—Clause 5 strongly implies that there could be some overlap between the work of the HPA and other bodies—what questions does that raise for the effectiveness and efficiency of public health protection?
  Without going on too long, I should say that the wider background is of course the position of the UK in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, alluded to that. We cannot as a country act in isolation from others. In future, it is likely that the EU will become a major regulator and legislator in public health. There is to be a communicable disease centre, I understand, in Sweden, which will act on behalf of all member states. In an increasing sense, competency in the area will lie with the EU. Therefore, as we legislate on a national UK agency, it is necessary to bear in mind how the structures that we put in place will enable us to fulfil our responsibilities on the international stage and, where appropriate, to take a lead on that stage.
  The framework of UK law surrounding public health is way overdue for reform. The Bill is one step in that reform, but there are very old laws on the statute book relating, for example, to the role and powers of local authorities, which are completely anachronistic. Legally speaking, local authorities have enormous powers that are hardly ever used, but those powers sit at odds with modern scientific knowledge and with the modern NHS. My point is that, unless and until we have a root-and-branch reform of the law surrounding communicable disease control, we cannot hold our heads up either at home or internationally and state truthfully that we have a UK system that is firing on all cylinders. Reform must define precisely
  GC 294
  the responsibilities and lines of command—day to day and in emergencies—and make clear who is in ultimate control. It is simply not enough to talk about co-operation and to hope, as the clause seems to do, that somehow all will be well; the issue is much wider. I hope that I have left the Minister with some interesting food for thought.
  Baroness Andrews: I wish to reassure the noble Earl about a couple of matters. We will certainly write to him on the specific point about the civil contingencies plan and the intervention with the HPA. Secondly, on overlap, the flip answer would be to say, "For that, we read 'co-ordination'". In fact, the arm's-length body review is looking precisely at areas of overlap and will include—I am sure that my noble friend will ensure that it does—some of the issues on which the noble Earl has touched.
  The noble Earl is absolutely right to say that it is hard to foretell how other EU countries will address the challenging issues of communicable disease, and whether there will be more institutional organisations to do that. That is a very good argument for not being rigid or exclusive in our definitions.
  As regards the reform of structures, it is interesting to hear the noble Earl call for more legislation—I think that that was the call we heard. I hope that we can sort some of those matters out by correspondence.
  Earl Howe: I thank the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 24 to 27 not moved.]
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Publication of information]:
  Lord Fowler Lord Fowler moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 5, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29. With the Committee's agreement and the prior agreement of my noble friend Lord Howe, we wish to decouple Amendments Nos. 32 and 57, so dealing with them immediately afterwards in a separate debate.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 28 is to probe and to understand the limits of this subsection, which concerns the Data Protection Act. To some extent, we have dealt with some of those issues under a previous amendment. My assumption is that information gathered at public expense should be made available to the public. It is important that the public have as much information as possible, for otherwise they have no way of judging what is happening in a number of areas; the dangers to which they are exposed; and, above all, whether the Government's response to the challenges is adequate. I recognise that we must meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act, but, as has already been pointed out, we have had examples in other areas where the requirements of that Act seem to have been misinterpreted. It is crucial that we are clear on what the Act specifies and its impact and effect. In

  GC 295
  essence, I want the Minister to give a clear explanation of the kind of information that, in the Government's view, contravenes the Data Protection Act, and that would not be published under this provision.
  Amendment No. 29 continues on very much the same theme. Again, I would work on the presumption that information gathered should be published, because these are important health issues; and, most importantly, that published information is the only way that the Government can be held to account for the policies that they pursue. We can judge whether the Government's response is adequate only if we know the full picture. If information is withheld, that process clearly becomes impossible. That certainly would not be in the public interest.
  Subsection (2)(c) provides that if the publication is not in the public interest, it can be withheld. I am concerned to know what information can be withheld on that basis. Is information gathered already that is withheld from publication? If so, what kind of information is that? If not, what information is it envisaged will be withheld that is already published? Above all, what I really want to know from the Minister is who actually decides what is in the public interest. Where is the decision made? How is it processed?
  My belief is that, generally, publication is in the public interest for holding governments—any government—to account; informing the public of the dangers; and advising them on the action that they may take. In essence, I really want to know from the Government what kind of information can be banned on public interest grounds; by what process that decision is made; and how it can be challenged. How can it be challenged if information is withheld on public interest grounds? How are we to know and challenge the idea that it is not against the public interest?
  We do not want a position in which any government can withhold information on the grounds that it may be embarrassing to that government. That is the temptation—that governments intervene and say, "This information is embarrassing to us; we believe on public interest grounds that it should be withheld". I do not define that as the proper public interest, and I want reassurances on those crucial points in the public health debate. I beg to move.
  Earl Howe: I support my noble friend in all that he said. On the question of public interest, I was trying to think what circumstances might arise in which it would be unwise or unhelpful to allow information into the public domain. As my noble friend said, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some possible examples.
  On the whole, I hope that the Minister will agree that public confidence is engendered by maximum transparency. To insert a provision, as in the Bill, to allow information to be suppressed on the grounds that its release would not be in the public interest begs the question of who makes that judgment and on what grounds the judgment is made. If it is Ministers who
  GC 296
  make it, that needs to be spelled out. If it is the agency itself, we need to know whether it will be operating under any sort of guidance in that and, if so, what that guidance will say.
  I have considerable sympathy with the two amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. They would effectively prevent the agency taking the decision to suppress information on anything other than a carefully considered basis, as it would be obliged to account for its actions if it did so.
  Another fear that runs parallel to that is that consultants in communicable disease control will effectively become civil servants, and that as such they will be debarred from speaking out when they feel it necessary. Healthcare professionals should not be put in that position. They should be able to speak their minds publicly in appropriate circumstances because, unless they can, public confidence in the agency will be diminished. Can the Minister tell us whether those consultants officially hold their positions within the agency as civil servants?
  Lord Clement-Jones: We have had a very impressive double-barrelled approach on Amendments Nos. 28 and 29, and I suspect that the Minister may get an equally impressive double-barrelled approach on Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. They are slightly different, but the underlying concern is exactly the same.
  I shall not go into the murky depths of the Data Protection Act, but shall stick to Amendment No. 30. However, I sympathise very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said in probing Clause 7(2)(a). The key question arises with paragraph (c). As both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, have emphasised, it is: what constitutes the definition of "public interest"?
  As the agency's remit includes fairly sensitive areas—health threats from bioterrorism and radiological sources, to name but two—understandably some information handled by the HPA will need to be kept confidential. But the agency—and, indeed, the Secretary of State—should not be able to use "public interest" as a blanket device to prevent the publication of information without a proper process to check and justify a decision not to release the information. Not only ourselves but the Faculty of Public Health, which is well versed in this area, and many others have asked who decides whether or not publication is in the public interest.
  We on these Benches have carried out research on other Acts of Parliament to see whether there were any precedents for this kind of approach. We have looked at the Food Standards Act, the Data Protection Act and the NHS Act 1977 to see how legislation defined or used the term "public interest" in relation to publishing information and advice. The Data Protection Act does not contain a working definition. The most useful comparison that can be made is the approach taken in the Food Standards Act, which states:
  "Before deciding to exercise that power"—

  GC 297
  that is, the power to publish advice and information in such manner as it thinks fit—
  "the agency must consider whether the public interest in the publication of the advice or information in question is outweighed by any considerations of confidentiality attaching to it".
  It is not perfect, but at least it gives a mandatory process through which the Food Standards Agency must go.
  I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, have said. I prefer our approach, which is that if the Health Protection Agency is to use public interest as justification, it should bear the burden of showing why it wishes to suppress information.
  I shall leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to deal with Amendment No. 31, which adds an extra safeguard.
  We are all in some difficulty in discussing this group of amendments. When we met the Minister on 20 January, he said that he would undertake to provide a working definition of "public interest" and the underlying definition that would be used by the Secretary of State and the HPA in such circumstances.
  The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is absolutely right that this is not a trivial matter; it is a key matter of public confidence. If there is any suspicion that information is being suppressed for the wrong reasons, the credibility of the HPA will instantly be called into question. Teasing out the precise nature of "public interest" in these circumstances is of great importance.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: The amendments go right to the heart of the issues of open government and professional freedom. Such decisions are extremely difficult in terms of any information that is withheld.
  I concede that there could be a situation where it would be deemed to be in the interests of national security for some information to be withheld to avoid panic, particularly where safe disclosure is planned, or to avoid impeding security investigations at a delicate point or even while verification of some data occurs. So there may be situations where extremely sensitive data emerge from the agency.
  However, we must ensure that a sound process in regard to the reasoning behind such a decision—similar to the one outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in regard to the Food Standards Agency—is in place. This is the time when the board comes into its own in taking responsibility. The non-executives on the board have a crucial role. They must be informed. It would be incredibly dangerous for suppression to occur at any layer below board level. The board must be able to question, work through and understand the issue and why something must be withheld. So the processes of the debate must be minuted. Those minutes can be kept confidential, but they must be available for scrutiny later, if that is felt necessary.
  It will also be important for the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of State to be kept in the information loop. The board should have a
  GC 298
  responsibility to report its decisions and actions. Of course, it will be up to the Secretary of State to inform Ministers in the devolved administrations about such decisions and how they have been taken. That would allow decisions to withhold information to be relatively impartial, not subject to political expediency. It would ensure that full responsibility was taken at board level for withholding information and that it was truly in the public interest, not a political interest.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: In public health, tracing is vital—if possible; sometimes people just disappear. There are so many dangerous conditions—SA RS and Ebola being examples. This is surely an opportunity for the Committee to lead other departments in sorting out the issue of the Data Protection Act 1998 and Human Rights Act 1998. When tracing people, it is possible to use code names or numbers rather than names.
  Lord Warner: I am extraordinarily nervous about the challenge thrown down by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in her last remarks. Brave man as I am, I am not sure that I want to lead the Committee down the path of sorting out the Data Protection Act.
  Perhaps I may start by putting the matter in context and work my way through the arguments about each of the amendments. Let me say at the outset that we are absolutely at one with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on the importance of making information available to the public. There is no disagreement between us on that.
  Clause 7(1) provides a clear path for the agency proactively to publish advice and information. As far as we have been able to establish, such a power does not exist in the founding legislation of any other body, apart from the Food Standards Agency and, to some extent but in more limited form, in the HPA as a Special Health Authority. That is the position from which we start. The agency's power to publish information is stronger under the Bill than it was as a strategic health authority. We have strengthened that power and, as the Bill is currently framed, the discretion of judgment in Clause 7(1) is left with the agency, subject to the caveat in Clause 7(2). So there is a clear responsibility on the agency to make that judgment.
  I shall now go through the caveats in Clause 7(2), to which the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, relate. Clause 7(2)(a) and (b) simply make it clear that the power to publish granted by subsection (1) does not override other legislation in which Parliament or the democratic institutions in Scotland and Northern Ireland have set out prohibitions on publication. Similarly, the power in Section 19 of the Food Standards Act for the Food Standards Agency to publish its advice and information is,
  "subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998",
  and may not be exercised if publication is,
  "prohibited by an enactment".

  GC 299
  So those constraints in Clause 7(2)(a) and (b) pretty much reflect the constraints placed in the Food Standards Act.
  I hope the noble Lord will accept that reassurance. As I said on an earlier amendment, I will set out the legal position on the Data Protection Act in relation to the Human Rights Act as it touched on our previous discussions. I do not want to go over that ground again because I have undertaken to write to all Members of the Committee with our legal opinion.
  I shall pick up on other points raised along the way by the noble Lord. I turn to paragraph (c) of Clause 7(2) which has also caused concern. I shall check my sources, but my understanding of the "public interest" is that it tends to be defined in terms of case law when challenges are made in the courts. I believe that the words mean what the dictionary definitions say they do, but there is case law on what determines the public interest. Under the terms of this legislation, that judgment is to be left to the HPA.
  I turn now to the relevant point about the interaction between this legislation and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Seekers of information about public bodies will be able to do so from January 2005. That Act will bite upon the HPA as a public body when, as is likely and assuming that the legislation goes through, it becomes an agency under the terms of this legislation in April 2005. When it comes into being, it will have to conform with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, which is an important consideration.
  Let us reflect for a moment on what the agency will need to do to conform with freedom of information legislation and any request to release information. Under the FOI Act, for the first time there will be a statutory general right of access to all types of recorded information held by public authorities. It will mark our move away from a culture of secrecy. The Act includes provisions governing the limited circumstances in which access to information can be refused. The agency, along with other public bodies, will need to maintain an audit trail showing how it has dealt with requests for information. In particular, under the terms of Section 17 of the Act, if it refuses a request to release information it will need to tell the person asking for that information whether it is withholding the information sought and, if so, under which exemption in the Act. The legislation therefore deals with situations where the agency reacts to requests to release information.
  However, there is a pretty clear expectation that all public bodies—when they know that these demands can be made—will themselves have to reflect on the way they release information more generally rather than having it, so to speak, dragged out of them. So the FOI will impact on the behaviour of public bodies because the ability to get at information will be on the
  GC 300
  statute book and operational. We have to hear that in mind because it introduces another dimension to the way Clause 7(2) would operate.
  Lord Fowler: Can information now be withheld on public interest grounds? In other words, was information withheld under the old Public Health Laboratory Service, or is the provision entirely new? As I understand it, the Minister says that the decision is made by the agency. In the real world, if information is withheld, will that not be an issue of some importance? Will not the agency be in contact with the Government through the Department of Health? I would be very surprised if it was not.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Warner: Absolutely right. I was going to come to the circumstances in which it is highly likely that particular types of information, both now and in future, would not be put in the public arena. The HPA is the possessor of much sensitive information—not sensitive in the sense of embarrassing to Ministers, but in the sense of security issues of one kind or another. I shall name a few.
  There is the whole area of radiological protection information, some of which is very sensitive. Some information relates to bioterrorism, the planning to anticipate it and how the HPA would work in terms of some of the mechanics of emergency planning in such circumstances. On the whole, one does not tell one's enemy the response mechanisms and detail. A similar example is that of matters such as the details of where stocks of vaccine are held. Those are the kinds of issues on which the HPA would have information that would clearly not be in the public interest. Indeed, it would probably be restrained by other legislation in terms of its ability to put such information in the public domain. Such constraints exist now and will exist in future.
  I shall respond as openly as I can to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, about the relationship between the HPA and government. There will be areas where the HPA, for good and legitimate reasons, may be uncertain in its own mind about whether it is crossing the line. In those circumstances, it would no doubt wish to consult government lawyers about the rights or wrongs of making information available. The noble Lord has been in government; he knows how the system works. There would have to be some degree of interchange, privately, in such circumstances. One is not trying to disguise that that would be the case.
  This statute places very clearly a responsibility for thinking such matters through on the agency itself. That is a difference in many ways. It is a very clear statement, as with the Food Standards Act, of where the responsibilities lie.
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which were argued for very persuasively by Members of the Committee. Amendment No. 30 puts the "onus of proof' on the agency if challenged to demonstrate why information should not be made public. There is a good deal of overlap in the amendment with what I said about the Freedom of Information Act. The noble

  GC 301
  Lord needs to reflect on the extent to which his needs are actually met by the provisions in that Act. Many of his concerns are dealt with by that legislation and the codes of practice around it.
  Amendment No. 31 would require any decision to be reported to the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of State. They will no doubt be flattered that they have been singled out for such special treatment, and I understand the intention and the need for an audit trail. I sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, but I hope that I can persuade Members of the Committee that it is not necessary to add it to the legislation.
  Let us consider first the situation where the agency needs to react to a request to release information. As I said, under the FOI Act, there is a set of rules by which it has to deal with that. There will have to be an audit trail. Ultimately, in these cases, there is a right of appeal to the information commissioner. So there are processes under the legislation.
  However, it would be bureaucratic in the extreme to write into the legislation a requirement on the agency to go through the processes envisaged by Amendment No. 31, which assumes that it would only ever be the board that would take a decision not to publish information or advice—that is, that such a decision could never be delegated to the agency's officers. That is undesirable. Where information falls into categories that should not be published—for example, personal medical information—there is no need for a decision not to publish to be referred to the board. Those kinds of decisions are not made on public policy issues; they are matters of interpretation and can be left to officers, I suspect.
  The amendment would require any decision not to publish to be reported to the Secretary of State, and reports would need to go to him every time the agency complied with the requirements by not publishing personal medical information. That is a pointless exercise. For the reasons I have given we believe that such a requirement on the agency is not necessary. I hope that when noble Lords reflect on my arguments they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I shall leave the thunder to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I found what the Minister said about the Freedom of Information Act of great interest. However, as he acknowledged, it needs careful consideration.
  The problem is not to do with the clear issues of public interest that anyone would regard as falling within the definition—for instance, the issues that he and I raised about bio-terrorism, radiological warfare and so on. But a problem could arise if, for instance, a survey which embarrassed the Government—which perhaps did not come up with the right conclusions—was carried out by the agency and was withheld on the grounds that it was not a matter of public policy for the agency to publish it. There are many more grey areas. One is not looking at obvious public interest matters but at the interface between the Freedom of Information Act and what it defines as "public interest".
  GC 302
  It worries me that under the Bill the procedure is mandatory. It does not state that the agency shall consider whether or not something is in the public interest; it simply states "is not in the public interest". It is not on all fours with the procedure contained in the Food Standards Act, which is more about weighing issues and the way in which the FSA comes to a conclusion. There would be great merit in translating that to reflect these circumstances.
  I am not totally convinced. There is considerable food for thought under the Freedom of Information Act. There is one other major flaw, but I am not quite sure how to get out of it. It is a Catch 22 situation. How can you ask for information if you do not know it exists? That is the great conundrum of government versus individuals that we encounter in this area. It is the knot that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was trying to untie. It is not quite untied but we are certainly some way towards doing so. It is an issue with which we shall all continue to wrestle.
  Lord Warner: Perhaps I may clarify one point for the noble Lord. I should have mentioned earlier that we went to parliamentary counsel and asked whether there was a legal difference between this wording and the wording in the Food Standards Act. He said that the outcome was exactly the same. But I am happy to come back to him if it is believed that there is some merit in the way it is framed in the Food Standards Act. I agree that it is different legislation, but his argument was that the wording is essentially the same.
  Lord Clement-Jones: That is a helpful offer because, certainly in governance terms, the FSA duty has a wholly different flavour from that of the duty here. I accept some of what the Minister has said about the levels at which these decisions are made, but with something like this—a question of whether the public interest is outweighed—such a decision may go to a higher level precisely because of the FSA-type wording rather than the provision as currently set out in the Bill.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Perhaps I may raise one concern. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to it when he looks at this matter again. Will he consider the role of the board in relation to any information being withheld? I am concerned that the decision to withhold information should not be taken only by the executive officers of an agency. The non-executive officers on a board have a specific responsibility at board level and that responsibility should be exercised. I should be grateful if the Minister would look into that point and get back to me.
  Lord Fowler: The fact is that we shall all want to look carefully at what the Minister has said and almost certainly we shall return to the issue on Report. This has been an important debate. At times I was reassured, but as the discussion continued, I was rat her less reassured. I thank the Minister for the reply and for his words about the Data Protection Act. I dunk that it was the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who said that this is a grey area. At times it became even

  GC 303
  greyer. We learnt, for example, that the agency makes the decision, but who is the agency that makes that decision—is it the board or is it the executive?
  The Minister referred to my experience in government. In my time, if an agency such as the former Public Health Laboratory Service had something that was extraordinarily sensitive, it would come to the Secretary of State. It might not result in a formal decision, but a decision would be reached one way or another. I think that the Government will be involved in this and therefore it will repay us to look at this matter and the Minister's reply rather more carefully.
  I am very attracted to the argument put by my noble friend Lord Howe. Confidence in the agency will be diminished if it can be suggested that information is being unnecessarily withheld. Moreover, while I accept that security, bioterrorism and stores of vaccine are matters about which, prima facie, publication should be prevented, I still do not have a reply to the question I put about how we can check on this. I am unclear about how the public, Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords will know what information is being withheld. There are some big questions here.
  I thank the Minister for his courtesy, but I should say that we shall want to examine his reply, to think about it carefully, and to come to it on Report. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 29 to 31 not moved.]
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 5. line 27. at end insert—

  "(4) The appropriate authority must respond as soon as is reasonably possible to any advice that it receives from the Agency.

  (5) The appropriate Authority must publish any such response unless—

  (a) publication would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29) or an express restriction contained in any other enactment; or

  (b) it considers that it is against the public interest to do so."

  The noble Earl said: I see that my noble friend Lord Fowler and I have been thinking along similar lines as regards the kind of leverage which the agency will be able to exert in practice. The agency may do its job superbly well, but unless there is a duty on Ministers to deliberate and act upon the advice that they receive, the effects of the agency's good work may not be felt to the fullest extent.
  When the Government receive advice from the HPA, surely they have a duty at some stage to tell us what they are doing to address the issues which the agency has highlighted. Preferably they should be obliged to do so before the publication of the agency's annual report, because that might well be 18 months down the road from the submission of a particular paper. I am deliberately talking about the Government, rather than
  GC 304
  any single Secretary of State. Many public health concerns impact on several departments. The response therefore needs to be co-ordinated across government. If there is neither a requirement on Ministers to act on the advice that they receive nor an obligation to publish the action that they have taken—or the lack of it—the successive reports of the agency will begin to resemble so many others that are put on the shelf and quietly left to gather dust.
  Derek Wanless remarked in his recent report that that is exactly what has happened to every public health policy report for the past 30 years. I hope, as he does, that his thoughtful report breaks that mould, but the brutal fact is that there is no requirement on the Government to do anything at all in response to it if they choose not to.
  One obvious answer is to have the agency report directly to Parliament, and for Parliament then to instruct the Government to consider the recommendations, to act on them appropriately and to report back at a suitable level. I am attracted to that idea, but another answer is to approach the issue in the manner attempted through the amendments. Either way, a central point is at issue. We must recognise that the protection of the public is, in the end, down to elected Ministers—a point already made by my noble friend Lord Fowler. The public have a right to know what policies and initiatives those Ministers are putting in place to fulfil that obligation.
  I can detect no sense in the Bill that the Government recognise that element of the public health equation. That is a decided shortcoming that should be remedied. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Fowler: I shall speak to Amendment No. 57, which stands in my name. The question is what follows the collection of information; that is the point. What action will be taken? I shall again concentrate for a few moments on HIV/AIDS and sexual disease as an example of what I have in mind. My major concern is that the collection and the analysis of information on sexually transmitted infection is excellent, but it is not some theoretical exercise; it must be accompanied by statements of action on how the problems are to be remedied.
  What concerns me—and my noble friend Lord Howe—is that the Bill places many duties on the agency. All kinds of duties are placed on the agency—that it must produce an annual report and send it as soon as possible to the Secretary of State, and it must provide the Secretary of State with such other information and report as he directs. There is no question about the emphasis from the Government. But no duty is placed on the Secretary of State to respond to any reports, however serious, that reach him. That is what is lacking.
  We had a short debate on another amendment when the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the issue of whether there was a crisis in sexual health. The Minister said twice that there was no crisis. I must say that that is not my view but, much more importantly,

  GC 305
  it does not seem to be the view of many people in the field. It is certainly not the view of the House of Commons Select Committee, which stated:
  "We have been appalled by the crisis in sexual health we have heard about and witnessed during our inquiry. We do not use the word 'crisis' lightly, but in this case it is appropriate".
  There is also the letter from Professor Michael Adler, who, as the Committee will know, is a world expert in the area. He wrote to the Times in December:
  "The Department of Health's desire to shift the balance and devolve responsibility to primary care trusts … means that no one takes responsibility for sexual health … The time has come for strong central political leadership and recognition that we are dealing with a major public health crisis".
  The Minister does not gain much by denying what is the widespread view of most experts on the ground. On 12 February, the Health Protection Agency produced a press statement to accompany its monthly board meeting, in which it stated that newly diagnosed cases of HIV had increased by 20 per cent between 2002 and 2003, and that, although the figures will rise further as late reports are received, 5,000 new diagnoses have so far been reported for 2003, compared to 4,204 at the same time last year.
  According to indications, the rate of new diagnoses in 2003 will have been the highest ever—there were more than 7,000. Exactly the same position applies with sexually transmitted diseases. The figures on chlamydia, for example, are horrifying—a 141 per cent increase since 1996 and a 14 per cent increase over the previous year—and there are similar figures for gonorrhoea. The biggest increases of all have been in infectious syphilis.
  I do not think that one needs to underline the point that there is a crisis; therefore, it is important that in policy terms we have some means of tackling that crisis. We are getting the information; there is no difficulty about that. I pay tribute to the staff, because in this country we get excellent information to guide policy. The trouble is a lack of policy. I am trying to tackle that issue through this amendment.
  I do not claim that by placing a duty on the Government—or any duty on any government—to respond to the Health Protection Agency's report we will solve all the difficulties, but I certainly believe that it would help. I notice that the agency's own report of November 2003 contained 10 specific proposals, ranging from reducing waiting lists at clinics to increasing prevention efforts directed at gay and bisexual men. Again, what is lacking is the fact that the Government are not responding to those reports.
  The point that I make in my amendment, which is in the same spirit as that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is that after a report has been published, there should be a requirement on government to respond and to say what they are going to do. That is the big deficiency in our defences at present. There is a crisis, and the Government should wake up and respond to that crisis.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, so eloquently said in his introduction to Amendment No. 57. The concept of the Secretary of
  GC 306
  State being obliged to respond was one of the most useful things said at Second Reading. We are all still reading our way through the Wanless report, whose serious nature is apparent for all to see. It is excellent that it has the profile—and, no doubt, the Treasury backing, which will be helpful in future—to promote public health, which historically has had a fairly lowly position compared to acute care and secondary care. Preventive care, public health and so on are now firmly moving up the political agenda.
  If we set up those bodies, they may be rationalised in due course, as mentioned in the Wanless report. But if we are to set up powerful bodies, particularly in the areas for which the HPA will have responsibility, we must ensure that there is a political response. There cannot just be one-way traffic; the HPA cannot simply be expected to submit endless reports without having a proper reaction from the Secretary of State. After all, when the Health Select Committee publishes a report, we expect the Government to produce a response in a reasonably timely fashion, which allows us to have a debate on it.
  We need to make sure that the HPA has, in a sense, the entitlement to have that equal level of attention paid to its recommendations. For me, a very important perception came out at Second Reading that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has enshrined in an amendment. It has considerable merit.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: Last year I suggested that there should be a national service framework for sexually transmitted diseases. I wish that the Government had listened because, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has said, the numbers are going up. The people on the ground are in a desperate situation. I repeat: there is a crisis. We would not say that had we not been told it by the people working on the ground. I hope that we can do something to stimulate the Government into doing more in the Bill about that very serious situation.
  Lord Warner: I shall respond to a number of remarks about the Wanless report, which has been flourished during the afternoon. It is worth bearing in mind that it was the Government who commissioned Derek Wanless to produce that report; it has not come out of the blue. We will consider it very carefully and we will take many of the ideas forward in the public consultation on public health that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced fairly recently. We hope that that process of consultation will result in a White Paper on public health.
  I did not mean to imply that we were complacent about HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections. I was quibbling a little about the word "crisis", but we take the matter very seriously. I did not mean to imply that we did not. We are taking some pretty strong action in this area. I want to put that clearly on record.
  Amendment No. 32 is about responding to advice, whereas Amendment No. 57 is about responding to the annual report. On Amendment No. 32, I am not sure whether Members of the Committee appreciate

  GC 307
  quite how frequent the contact is between the Department of Health and the HPA in terms of what could be called "advice". I certainly do not have a count of the number of contacts but there is a very large amount of contact in which the agency responds to questions from the department. The Government may, in writing material to put in the public arena, ask for information and advice from the HPA.
  There is frequent contact in very sensitive areas of the kind that we discussed earlier, of which information is not put in the public arena, with advice coming from the HPA. There are large amounts of informal advice. Frankly, the amendment would be unworkable. The other amendment is more workable but, if we are trying to use a term such as "advice" and to require the Government to respond to every piece of advice that they may get from the agency, it is not a practicable proposition to enshrine that in legislation. I ask the noble Earl to think about that.
  Amendment No. 57 contains a very specific proposition—that is, to take the focus of the annual report and require a response within two months. I cannot use the same arguments I did in relation to Amendment No. 32, and even I would not try to do so.
  I ask the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, to reflect on the fact that it is not standard practice to get government departments to respond to annual reports either as a standard practice or within that type of timescale. I am not in any sense trying to get the noble Lord to feel sorry for us. He would say that it was self-inflicted, but he played his part in some of that in a previous incarnation. The department now has more than 30 executive agencies, NDPBs and special health authorities, a large number of task force and ad hoc groups, and about 50 advisory NDPBs. A large number of people give us their thoughts on their work for annual reports.
  We would say that the position has existed for a very long time. The reports are in the public arena. They are available to Parliament. There is a parliamentary process with parliamentary Questions, Select Committees, and debates, which hold Ministers to account on whether they have responded to those reports. Amendment No. 57 is unnecessary. It is not necessary to take the HPA annual report out of that context and have a special set of arrangements. We try to make those kind of responses fit for purpose when there is a parliamentary occasion or the public interest requires.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Fowler: Perhaps I may respond further to what the Minister has said. If the Minister does not mind me saying so, basically, it is a weak argument. All he has said is that it is not standard practice in Whitehall to do so. Perhaps the answer to that is that if it was standard practice in Whitehall we might get rather better government—I do not particularly criticise just this Government. I see absolutely no point in the HPA and its skilled staff collecting information in the detail that it does and putting forward the important policy
  GC 308
  proposals that it does, if then, somehow, the whole thing just vanishes and, as I think that my noble friend Lord Howe, said, simply gathers dust.
  We do not want some bureaucratic reply. We do not want page after page of text. We want a succinct statement of government policy saying what they are going to do and how they intend to respond. That is what we want. This particular area is not really a matter of enormous party politics—at least, I hope not. What we want is some action. It seems to me that the amendment could trigger such action. Again, this is an issue to which we should return on Report.
  Earl Howe: In the interests of time, I shall not say much except to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, which has been extremely important. It has provided us with an opportunity to discuss a major point of principle and practice in the delivery of the public health agenda. I am prepared to concede that my noble friend's amendment is much more workable and practicable, but I make no apology for having tabled mine. It enabled Members of the Committee, as did my noble friend's amendment, to focus on this very important area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Transfer of property and staff etc.]:
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 5, line 29, leave out "one or more schemes" and insert "one, or more than one. scheme"
  The noble Earl said: This is a very simple amendment designed to address what I perceive to be a grammatical infelicity in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness Andrews: France has the Académie Francaise and we have the parliamentary counsel. There is some disagreement between those grammarians about what is grammatically correct. All I would say is that we will consider it further.
  Earl Howe: I am most grateful. I am very surprised that there is any disagreement that "one schemes" constitutes good English. But, in the light of the noble Baroness's undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
  Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 6, line 11, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
  "(a) any provision of or instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament;"
  The noble Baroness said: We have had problems with Greek already today; now we have problems with English. Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 would provide greater clarity, with a consistent definition of the word "enactment" throughout the Bill. The term is also used in Clause 7(3). I commend the amendments to the House for their scrupulous nature. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Directions]:
  Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 6, line 17, at end insert—

  "(2) A direction under section 2(2), (3) or (4) must be given in regulations made by statutory instrument.

  (3) A statutory instrument making regulations giving a direction under section 2(2)(a) or (3) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Commencement]:
  Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 7, line 28, at end insert—
  ( ) Enactment includes—

  (a) any provision of or instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

  (b) Northern Ireland legislation."

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Health Protection Agency]:
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 8, line 7, leave out "of the Agency"
  The noble Earl said: This again is an extremely simple amendment designed to apply Occam's razor to what may be some unnecessary words in paragraph 1. I beg to move.
  Baroness Andrews: I am delighted to accept the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 8, line 9, at end insert ", one of whom is an employee of the equivalent public health organisation in Wales"
  The noble Baroness said: I do not wish to detain the Committee for long. I am most grateful to the Minister for indicating that we might discuss this issue further outside the Committee. I should like to record that the relationship between the specialist services in Wales and the specialist services in England is so inter-related and so complementary that for the working and development between the two to occur smoothly, a great deal would be gained if we were to have an executive as well as a non-executive director from the service in Wales. I beg to move.
  Baroness Andrews: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. She will appreciate that we have not had an opportunity to discuss the amendment with the National Assembly for Wales, which we intend to do. However, I have to flag up that we have some reservations, because it would require the HPA executive members to include an employee of the equivalent public health organisation in Wales—in effect, the National Public Health Service.
  GC 310
  Rather than go through all our reservations, perhaps I can write to the noble Baroness and explain some of the issues. I hope she will be happy with that.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Fowler Lord Fowler moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 8, line 11, at end insert "and after public advertisement and subject to independent checks on political impartiality'
  The noble Lord said: Now that the Minister is accepting amendments and making encouraging noises, perhaps I may commend these amendments to her. They are entirely non-controversial and are intended to be helpful to the Government.
  The purpose of the amendments is very simple. I should add that there is nothing personal in what I say about former or present chairmen of the Health Protection Agency. In the business world, much concentration is being placed at the moment on the issue of corporate governance. Attention is paid to the process by which non-executive directors are appointed and, in particular, to the independence of non-executive directors. Some very detailed rules have been laid down and recruitment is by nomination committees—probably set up with the help of independent head hunters. All this is designed to establish independence and independence of judgment.
  That is strongly supported by the Government. The Government, Ministers and the Department of Trade and Industry lose no opportunity to say how important it is that that should be so in the private sector. My sole purpose therefore is to check whether the Government are following their own rules in that regard. Clearly, they would be open to some criticism if they were not.
  Secondly, and more importantly, the case for independence is important in its own right. We do not want political placemen on the board of an important organisation of this kind, whether they are chairmen or directors. People who simply do the bidding of the Government are not independent in what will be quintessentially an independent organisation which will be judged by the quality of the independent information that it provides. So, basically, I need to be convinced by the Minister that the procedures used by the Department of Health meet that test. She may prefer simply to accept my amendments, and we can all go home happy. I beg to move.
  Earl Howe: My amendments, Amendments Nos. 42 and 43, are grouped with those of my noble friend. They relate to an issue that appears to be acquiring the status of a hardy perennial in the flower bed of House of Lords Committee amendments—at least for health Bills. That is the issue of independence—in this case, the extent to which the independence of the agency may be unnecessarily compromised by the ability of the Secretary of State to appoint the chairman and an unspecified number of the non-executive directors.

  GC 311
  These days, as the Government handsomely conceded when we debated the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 in the previous Session, there is seldom a need for Ministers to make such appointments themselves, especially where a perception of political bias could do considerable harm. The NHS Appointments Commission has been established precisely with a view to avoiding that trap; we warmly welcomed that step. It is inconsistent for the Welsh Assembly to be given power to delegate its appointment function to the NHS Appointments Commission but for there apparently not to be a similar power accorded to the Secretary of State—unless it is by virtue of another statute. My amendment would redress that inconsistency.
  Baroness Barker: I shall speak to Amendment No. 56. I merely observe that the duel over the preceding amendments ought to be fought between parliamentary counsel and the noble Earl, with copies of Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots and Leaves at 50 paces.
  We return to familiar territory for health Bills, as the noble Earl said. Although it may not appear so, my amendment also concerns the independence of the agency. Various bodies that have commented on the Bill have had at the root of their concerns the independence of the agency. I understand the genuine difficulty for government, in that the functions of the agency are so specialist that it is sometimes difficult to apply the normal rules of open appointment to it. None the less, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is right: specialism cannot override due process in appointment.
  The purpose of my amendment is to require an outline strategic plan to be published by the HPA. The reason for that is to establish that it is a proactive agency—albeit one that must behave from time to time in reactive fashion to emergencies. One strength of the current set-up has been the strategic way in which the existing body has worked in developing models and planning. It has been sufficiently expert at that to export them to other organisations overseas. The publication of a strategic plan would facilitate not just the agency's accountability to Parliament but its independence from the Chief Medical Officer. That would be a wise thing for the Government to do to maintain public confidence in the body, much of the work of which can never be made fully public. Therefore I believe that a strategic plan would be a valuable document for that body to produce.
  7.45 p.m.
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I do not wish to detain the Committee for long. I simply wish to emphasise that my amendment refers to an outline strategic plan. It uses the word "outline" because it recognises the commercial sensitivities there may be around issues that are to be developed but that there is a place for openness regarding the overall direction in which the agency would wish to go. It allows for an audit trail in the commissioning that will then occur. If there is inadequate funding for developments that the agency
  GC 312
  feels are important to public health, that information can be recorded because it will have been laid down ahead of time. It will not be a retrospective "We would have liked to have done something" but a justification of the reason for a bid.
  Baroness Andrews: First, I shall deal with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I wish I could accept them, but if I explain why not I am sure that he will agree with me.
  Amendment No. 40 would write into primary legislation a requirement to advertise publicly the post of chairman. We are already committed to following the guidelines issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. There is already such a requirement, so I am sure that, with that reassurance, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 would both write into the primary legislation a requirement for "independent checks" on the "political impartiality" of the chair and non-executives. Our problem with that is that it goes further than the current position, which concerns political activity. We have taken advice from the OCPA about the matter and it shares our concerns. If we go down that road we will be looking at the voting preferences of applicants, and the concepts of politically impartiality are very sensitive. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we do not want people who lack views, but we need people who are there because they merit the appointment.
  The current position is that OCPA guidelines require that applicants for public appointment should answer a standard question about political activity, which has been designed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments after consultation. That question would concern whether people have canvassed, stood for office, donated funds and so on. The information is not considered by appointment panels but is used for monitoring purposes.
  We have some interesting statistics. For example, in 2002–03, 18.6 per cent of those taking up public appointments declared that they had undertaken political activities. So we are on our way to a true understanding of the extent of that.
  As to the noble Lord's comments about the comparison between the corporate sector and the public sector, I would point out that the creation of the NHS Appointments Commission was set up to resolve the kind of problems that he identified. To some extent it has done so and we are looking at having fewer people now who are politically active than there were in 1999–2000. I would be happy to write to the noble Lord because there is some interesting background on the matter.
  As to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I am sorry, but he will also have heard this before. They are not necessary, because under the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 the Secretary of State already has the power to delegate appointment functions to a special health authority. In

  GC 313
  practice the NHS Appointments Commission is that body. We expect to delegate NHS appointment functions.
  The noble Earl drew attention to the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly has a power to delegate its appointment functions under the Bill—and it is for the Assembly to decide whether to make use of that power—but the Bill does not give the other devolved administrations the power to delegate their appointment functions. Both we and they are content with that. The guidance published by the Commissioner for Public Appointments will apply to all non-executive appointments to the HPA boards, whoever makes them. I hope that that will partly satisfy the noble Earl.
  Government Amendment No. 44 would enable regulations made by the Secretary of State on the conditions to be satisfied before a person is appointed as a non-executive member to apply to the chairman also. The chairman is referred to expressly in Clause 8(1)(3) and Clause 10(1), but in paragraph (a) reference to the chairman was inadvertently omitted. We are putting that right. The best of men can forget sometimes.
  I shall now respond to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the point raised about the strategic plan. I understand the intention behind the amendment. I wish to clear up two points. First, it is important to make the distinction between information about the strategy and information in general that is available. The amendment would ensure that information about the agency's future plans and past activities is put into the public domain. However, perhaps the amendment confuses the two types of information and is not the best way of ensuring that information is put into the public domain—it links the publication of information about the future to the publication of information about the past. The end of the financial year, when one produces an annual report, is perhaps not the best point in the year at which to set out future plans.
  My second point relates to the strategy. The amendment implies that a strategic plan should be produced each year, and can be seen as a contradiction in terms. Obviously, there is a strong case for producing strategies less frequently, making them more strategic.
  Thirdly, writing into the legislation precisely what the agency should include in its annual report could be seen as a sort of micro-management, which possibly we should try to avoid. But I assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Finlay, that we expect the agency to publish information about future plans as a matter of good practice. I have been deeply impressed by the extent to which the HPA already puts information into the public domain, both in writing and on the web; there has been extreme openness. For example, it published its first five-year plan last August, and it operates a very powerful code of openness. The hoard meetings are open and the papers
  GC 314
  that it considers are placed in the public domain. I am very confident that those who want to find out what the HPA is doing will have access and opportunities to do so, and not just to comment on strategic plans. We have every expectation that the agency that is to be established will carry on that very good tradition.
  Lord Fowler: I am very disappointed that the Minister has not accepted all of what I said. However, from what she said, I felt that we were on the same side in principle. My concern is that we should have people of independent judgment, which was, I think, very much the Minister's concern also. She offered to write to me on what she described as the interesting background to all of this. I accept that offer with alacrity; it will enable me to bring back a better-drafted amendment on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
  Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 44:
  Page 8, line 35, after "appointed" insert "as chairman or"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 not moved.]
  Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 11, line 34, leave out "it" and insert "the Department"
  The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 58 and 59. The amendments are designed to correct what I perceive to be ambiguities in the wording. I beg to move.
  Baroness Andrews: I understand that the amendments are intended to improve the drafting of the Bill. I am advised by parliamentary counsel that there is no real risk of confusion arising, and that we should retain the current style of the Bill.
  Earl Howe: I am truly astonished by that. We may have to discuss the matter outside the Committee, because it seems that there is a fundamental point that the agency could exploit to its advantage, if it chose to do so. I shall not detain the Committee further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 52:
  Page 12, line 20, at end insert-
  "( ) The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland must lay a copy of the accounts and of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report before the Northern Ireland Assembly."
  The noble Baroness said: The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland asked for the amendment, which will require it to lay a copy of the agency's annual accounts and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General before

  GC 315
  the Northern Ireland Assembly. There is already an equivalent requirement, where appropriate, on the other authorities. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 53 to 55:
  Page 12, line 26, leave out "may" and insert "and the Auditor General for Scotland may each"
  Page 12, line 30, after "Wales" insert "and the Auditor General for Scotland"
  Page 12, line 31, leave out "he" and insert "each"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 56 to 59 not moved.]
  Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Transfer of Property and Staff, etc.]:
  Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
  Page 14, line 24, leave out "XI" and insert "XII"
  Page 14, line 28, at end insert "or Order"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Amendments]:
  [Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
  Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 16, line 38, at end insert—
  "9A (1) The Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.1. 1978/1039 (N.I. 9) is amended as follows.
  (2) In Article 18(2) (consultation before approving code of practice). in sub-paragraph (a) for "the National Radiological Protection Board" there is substituted "the Health Protection Agency".
  (3) In Article 46(3) (consultation before submission of proposals for regulations), in sub-paragraph (a) for "the National Radiological Protection Board" there is substituted "the Health Protection Agency"."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 69:
  Page 17, line 2, at beginning insert—
  "( ) The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is amended as follows."
  Page 17, line 2, leave out from "4" to end of line.
  Page 17, line 5, at end insert—
  "( ) In section 21(2) (bodies in respect of which schemes may be made for meeting certain losses and liabilities) before "but a scheme under this section" there is inserted the following paragraph—
  "(d) the Health Protection Agency,"."
  Page 17. line 14, leave out "(da)" and insert "(db)"
  Page 17, line 16, leave out "(db)" and insert "(dc)"
  Page 17, line 23. leave out sub-paragraph (4).
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 70:
  Page 18, line 19, at end insert—
  "( ) In subsection (4)(d)—

  (a) after sub-paragraph (ii) omit "or";

  (b) after sub-paragraph (iii) there is inserted "or (iv) the Health Protection Agency.""

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
  Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 71:
  Page 19, line 7, at end insert—

  "Health and Safety at Work etc.

  Section 77"

  Act 1974 (c. 37)

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock.

  Belfast Agreement
  Belfast Agreement
  Chad: Sudanese Refugees
  Chad: Sudanese Refugees
  Uganda
  Uganda
  Numeracy
  Numeracy
  Armed Forces: Pilots Shortfall
  Armed Forces: Pilots Shortfall
  Armed Forces: Compulsory Drug Testing Results
  Armed Forces: Compulsory Drug Testing Results
  Government Cars: Ministers
  Government Cars: Ministers
  Ten-Year Transport Plan
  Ten-Year Transport Plan
  Alcohol Excise Duty
  Alcohol Excise Duty
  Lord Chancellor: Cabinet Meetings and Attendance in House of Lords
  Lord Chancellor: Cabinet Meetings and Attendance in House of Lords
  Vocational Rehabilitation
  Vocational Rehabilitation
  Confederation of British Industry
  Confederation of British Industry
  Genetically Modified Foods
  Genetically Modified Foods
  Community Punishment Orders
  Community Punishment Orders
  Prison and Probation Services: Cognitive Skills Programmes
  Prison and Probation Services: Cognitive Skills Programmes
  EU Accession Treaty: Employment in UK
  EU Accession Treaty: Employment in UK
  Civil Partnerships
  Civil Partnerships

  Afghanistan: Election Registration Funding
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Gareth Thomas) has made the following Statement.

  Ensuring the legitimacy of the Afghan Government within the timescale set down by the Bonn agreement is an important part of the Government's strategy for Afghanistan.

  Elections are due to take place later this year and the Government have already provided £1 million from the Department for International Development (DfID) and £2 million from the joint DfID/FCO/MoD Global Conflict Prevention Pool towards the UN's programme of voter registration in Afghanistan. So far just over 1.2 million of an estimated 10.5 million electorate have been registered.

  DfID will now be providing an additional £6 million to the UN to support the registration process. Combined with a US pledge of 12 million dollars, this takes the total funding from 48 million dollars to 71 million dollars out of a total budget of around 98 million dollars. This will allow registration to continue while we work with other donors to fill the remainder of the shortfall, and help to ensure the success of Afghanistan's first free and fair elections.

  S4C: Independent Review
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Following a request from the S4C Authority, I have commissioned an independent review of S4C, to be carried out by Roger Laughton, head of Bournemouth University Media School. Mr Laughton will be assisted by Meurig Royles as Welsh language assessor to the review.

  The terms of reference for the review are: 1) to assess, in light of the Communication Act's reaffirmation of S4C's status and remit, (a) the efficiency with which S4C utilises the resources made available to deliver its statutory responsibilities, (b) the extent to which other sources of funding, including
  WS 56
  efficiency savings, could make a greater contribution alongside that which S4C receives as grant in aid, and (c) the extent to which S4C's latest strategic plan provides an effective basis on which to plan for the future; 2) to examine the particular implications for S4C of the Government's proposals on the future of digital broadcasting.

  The review will include: (a) consultation with a wide range of interests, including organisations representative of those sectors where the role of S4C is of particular significance; and (b) consideration, to the extent that the reviewer judges appropriate, of the outcome of and evidence generated by S4C's recent internal review process.

  In addition to the consultation outlined above, there will be an opportunity for members of the public to make representations to the review team, via a website set up by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  The Government remain committed to the provision by S4C of a high quality, diverse Welsh language television service forming a key part of the public service broadcasting landscape. I was therefore pleased to agree to the S4C Authority's request for a review which could address some of the important challenges S4C faces as it approaches analogue switch-off. The authority has already completed its own internal review and Mr Laughton will be able to take its conclusions into account.

  Ofcom's statutory review of the fulfilment of the public service broadcasting remit will also provide an opportunity to consider S4C's contribution to that wider remit. The relationship between S4C and the BBC will in addition be considered in detail as part of BBC Charter review.

  I have asked Mr Laughton to report back to me at the beginning of May.

  Cash Ratio Deposits: Treasury Review
  Lord Davies of Oldham
  My right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  Cash Ratio Deposits are non-interest bearing assets deposited with the Bank of England by banks and building societies. They are used by the bank to finance its unremunerated activities, in particular its sterling liquidity operations and its efforts to secure price stability and the stability of the financial system in general, from which these institutions are key beneficiaries. The Cash Ratio Deposit Scheme was placed on a statutory basis when the Bank of England Act became law in 1998. In February 2003, the Paymaster General announced by Written Statement a review of the operation of the statutory scheme in its first five years.
  WS 57
  In a Written Statement of 18 September 2003 in the House of Commons (Official Report, col. 63WS), the Government set out the review's conclusions, one of which was that the minimum threshold for making deposits should be raised from £400 million to £500 million, freeing 18 institutions from the scheme and benefiting all remaining contributing institutions by reducing the level of their deposits by £150,000 each. This proposal would require a change to secondary legislation under the Bank of England Act
  WS 58
  1998. HM Treasury has therefore consulted publicly about this change and invited views on the review's other recommendations.

  The Government's response to this consultation exercise was published yesterday. Given the general support among respondents for the proposal set out above, the Government are today laying before Parliament a draft statutory instrument designed to increase the threshold for making deposits under the CRD scheme from £400 million to £500 million, scheduled to come into force on 1 June 2004.