Sitting of 13 May 2004

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Poverty (South Asia)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing us this opportunity to debate the important issue of poverty in south Asia. When one thinks of Asia, one thinks of a continent remarkable for its history. Ghandi, Nehru, Jinnah and Mother Theresa are four great people who shaped not only Asian politics, but world events. One thinks too of the continent's remarkable and diverse cultures and its stunning beauty—for example, Nepal and northern India. One thinks not only of the great sporting talents that have emerged from Asia—Muttiah Muralitharan and Sachin Tendulkar are two current examples—but, above all, of people who are industrious, hard-working and ambitious on behalf of their nations.
What is often not thought of, and certainly does not consistently make the headlines, is the grinding poverty that scars too many of the nations of Asia. Shocking levels of human development still exist in too many of those countries. When looking behind the headlines, one thinks of the considerable exclusion of many of the poor and most vulnerable from access to some of the most basic services. Perhaps most striking, in terms of the poverty in Asia, is the huge number of mothers and children who die from largely preventable causes.
Worldwide, some 1.2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day, and 800 million of them live in Asia. Some 450 million of those people live in south Asia, and 350 million live in India. There are more poor people in India than in the whole of Africa. Sustained progress on poverty reduction in the six main countries of south Asia—India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal—will determine whether we are able to meet the development goals set in New York at the millennium summit in 2000.
Those goals committed not only the richer countries of the world, but the developing countries' Governments, to a series of specific and measurable targets. The headline challenge was to halve the number of people living in poverty. Other key goals include the need to reduce maternal and child mortality by three quarters and two thirds respectively, and the need to halve the number of people living without access to either safe drinking water or basic sanitation. Perhaps it is useful to flag up the fact that among those goals is the need to get every child of primary school age in front of a teacher.
There are reasons for optimism about the development of south Asia. Increasing numbers of people in that part of the world are being raised out of poverty. In India, poverty has nearly halved over the past two decades; there are good rates of economic
138WH
growth and there is growing investment in education. Whatever the outcome of the Indian general election— results are still coming in—the Indian authorities deserve considerable recognition for the fact that the elections have been democratic and run fairly, without the violence one might have feared in previous times. The use of technology and the organisation of the elections are a tribute to the skill of the Indian people and their commitment to the democratic process.
The benefits of the development in south Asia are undoubtedly extremely uneven. One person in three lives below the poverty line and 80 million people do not have enough food. Many cannot access basic education and basic health care services. In short, progress to meeting the millennium development goals to which I have alluded is mixed. We are not on course to ensure that every child of primary school age is in front of a teacher. Good progress has been made in Bangladesh in such matters, but Pakistan will face a huge challenge to ratchet up progress on education to achieve the millennium development goal.
We are considerably off course from achieving the maternal mortality millennium development goal. There are increasing rates of tuberculosis in south Asia, too. As for HIV/AIDS, prevalence rates are low, but the epidemic has the potential to explode if it is not controlled and Asia would have a far worse epidemic than that which is happening in Africa.
The United Kingdom and, more generally, the international community need to make more finance available for development, as much for Asia as for Africa and the rest of the developing world. Our spending in Asia is increasing; it will reach £800 million by the end of 2005–06—a 45 per cent. increase from the position in 2003. We remain committed to the United Nations target of achieving overseas development assistance of 0.7 per cent. of gross national income and we are proud of our record of progress, increasing the figure from 0.26 per cent. in 1997 to 0.4 per cent., which we believe we shall achieve by the end of 2005–06.
The need for more finance to assist the development of Asia has contributed to the global estimate that, to achieve the millennium development goals, aid must double from $50 billion a year to some $100 billion. That is why the international finance facility proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is supported by the French Government and a host of other Governments of developing and developed countries, offers a further potential source of the funds that are necessary for the development of Asia and other parts of the developing world.
A further reason for optimism about development in south Asia is that we know our aid is becoming more effective. It is making a difference and doing immense good. I shall cite two examples of that progress. First, in Rajasthan, a state in India, United Kingdom money has helped to build more than 1,000 new school buildings with more than 1,700 additional classrooms. The universal enrolment of primary school age children has been achieved in Rajasthan in the project areas that have received funding. Secondly, in Afghanistan, £1 million of support through micro-credit has helped more than 20,000 poor people to launch businesses.

139WH
Given the headlines about Africa and its profile in our media, it is important to remember at a global level that much faster progress is required to achieve the millennium development goals in the south Asian states, particularly India. It is not surprising that our programme in India is our largest. It includes support to tackle HIV/AIDS, improve reproductive health and make quality primary education available to all children. Over the next few years, we plan to spend some £300 million per annum in India.
Afghanistan and Pakistan represent significant challenges, given their turbulent recent histories. Both have been at the centre of the global fight against terrorism. We are trying to work with the Governments of both countries to create an enabling environment for the positive change that is necessary.
Pakistan has some of the worst poverty indicators in Asia. Almost one third of Pakistanis live below the national poverty line and numbers are increasing, which could exacerbate the social and political tensions in the country. In response, the size of our programme in Pakistan is increasing particularly quickly. We are coming in behind the Government's poverty reduction strategy, as well as providing support for basic education, primary health and efforts to bring the Government closer to the people affected by their decisions. For example, we are supporting the Government's plans to employ 100,000 lady health workers nationally.
2.40 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.55 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Thomas: As I was saying, our strategy in Pakistan is to support the Government's poverty reduction strategy and provide support for basic education and basic health care. One aspect of our work programme is to provide support for the Government's plans to recruit some 100,000 lady health workers nationally to step up the quality of, and increase access to, health care for 100 million people in Pakistan.
On the education sector, we concentrate our assistance in Pakistan on two key provinces: North-West Frontier province and Punjab. The number of schools in those two states has doubled since we have given our assistance. As for overall enrolment, the number of children in school has increased by nearly half, and there has been a dramatic 70 per cent. increase in girls' enrolment. A further example of our approach in Pakistan is our funding of micro-finance programmes, which are helping 50,000 people to access the finance that they need to develop businesses.
In this Chamber in January, we debated the future of Afghanistan. The Government made it clear, after the fall of Kabul and the end of the Taliban regime, that we would stand by the people of Afghanistan and work closely with the Transitional Administration to develop the effectiveness, capacity and reach of government, and
140WH
to help in the development of a range of services. We pledged that we would continue to provide significant and increasing financial assistance to Afghanistan.
At the most recent donor conference in Berlin, we pledged that we would increase our assistance in the next five years from some £200 million to £500 million. That donor conference was significant, in that the Afghan Government got all that they wanted from the international community for their budget next year through donor pledges. In total, some $8.2 billion was raised for the next three years, which represents some 70 per cent. of what the Afghan Government say that they need from the international community if they are to continue to make the development progress that we want.
The programme of assistance has already had a considerable impact in Afghanistan. Nearly 6 million children are back at school after the fall of Kabul. Nearly four out of 10 of those children are girls; that figure is up from 5 per cent. in 2001—a dramatic improvement, although there is clearly some way to go. There are now more than 70,000 teachers practising in Afghanistan, a third of them women, and more than 6,500 functioning schools. Also, millions of children have been immunised against polio and measles, which has saved an estimated 30,000 lives.
Elsewhere in south Asia, we are working closely with the Government of Bangladesh, where poverty has been reduced by some 25 per cent. in 10 years. The challenges on which we are working with the Bangladeshi Government are improving the quality of education in Bangladesh and the number of children completing their passage through primary school, and getting into school more of the children who are not attending. We are also working to reduce maternal mortality.
In Nepal, our programme focuses on the provision of direct assistance to the poorest and most vulnerable groups to reflect the serious impact of the ongoing conflict on them. Sadly, some 10,000 lives have been lost as a result of the conflict in Nepal. In Sri Lanka, too, we are working to reduce communal tensions and support the development of the education sector. For example, we are supporting the work of UNICEF in its programme to help children who are affected by the armed conflict.
There are three further key challenges that we as an international community need to address if we want to accelerate the progress out of poverty of the many poor people in Asia. First, one key millennium development goal where not enough progress has yet been made is eliminating the gender inequality in access to education. That is a particular challenge in south Asia, where a far higher number of girls are out of school than anywhere else in the world. At the moment, it is unlikely that the original target will be achieved by 2005. The limited progress that has been made towards getting more girls into school during the past decade has been more than offset by the increasing number of girls in the south Asian population.
It is worth remembering that investing in girls' and women's education is not only essential to producing education outcomes, but a key contributor to other development gains. It is essential to achieving higher economic growth and reduced poverty. We know that

141WH
educating women and girls is one of the best ways to ensure a family's well-being as well as the better education and health of future generations.
The Department for International Development will seek to give a stronger push to the development of girls' education in south Asia. We already have significant programmes to address that issue, particularly in India and Bangladesh. Our total current and planned investment in primary education in south Asia over the next three years amounts to some £200 million. However, we will also be thinking through what else we can do to help south Asia to do even better.
Secondly, I want to highlight the threat that HIV/AIDS poses to the region. A more effective international response to HIV/AIDS is one of our top priorities in DFID. A new Government-wide strategy for HIV/ AIDS in the developing world is being prepared, and we hope to publish it later this year. It will cover what needs to be done, not only in-country, but by the international community. Our commitment on HIV/AIDS in south Asia between 2003–04 and 2005–06 already totals some £90 million.
Inevitably, when one considers the devastation that is caused by HIV/AIDS, one's thoughts turn immediately to Africa. However, there are already some 7.5 million HIV-positive people in Asia. India is second only to South Africa in terms of the number of people infected by HIV. There is already a generalised epidemic—in other words, prevalence of more than 1 per cent.—in five Indian states and major concern over what happens in respect of the spread of HIV/AIDS. At current rates of growth, the number of HIV infections in India is projected to rise to some 20 million by 2010. Unless we can improve the international response to the challenge of HIV/AIDS in south Asia, it is likely that by 2020 Asia will overtake Africa as the centre of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
A particular challenge for Asia is to keep HIV/AIDS prevention at the heart of the response to the epidemic. Treatment and care are important components of the response to HIV/AIDS programmes, but in Asia the priority intervention at the moment is maintaining strong prevention messages. We have a window of opportunity to prevent the spread of the disease on the scale that we are seeing in Africa.
Thirdly, there is the challenge of reducing maternal mortality. Although the causes of maternal death in developing and developed countries are similar, the difference between the two is represented by a woman's chance of surviving the many potential complications. The difference in the risk of dying or suffering major disability between developed and developing countries represents the widest disparity of all human development indicators. In India alone, some 440 mothers die for every 100,000 live births. The equivalent rate in the UK is 13. A poor woman in south Asia is 100 times more likely to die as result of pregnancy and childbirth than a woman in the UK.
Just to compound that, for every death a further 30 to 50 women will survive the same complications but be left with one form of disability or another. Almost all deaths as a result of pregnancy and childbirth can be prevented. We know how to prevent the 20 per cent. of the world's maternal deaths that occur in India and, more generally, the 30 per cent. that occur in south Asia. The key
142WH
constraints on tackling maternal mortality are resources and the political will to do something about the problem.
We are, as a Department and a Government, placing a strong and increasing emphasis on efforts to reduce maternal mortality, in terms not only of the resources that we make available within our country programmes, but of our dialogue with Governments in the region. Although action in the health sector is necessary to do something about maternal mortality, we must recognise the underlying social and political conditions that contribute to the high level of maternal deaths and ill health in Asia. Programmes, such as access to basic education, have to be in place to tackle those underlying conditions.
In highlighting those three development challenges, I do not want to understate the other major challenges that we face in south Asia. They include the deepening conflict in some countries in the region and the implications for the safety and security of development staff, as well as of the people we seek to support. The degradation of the environment and the impact in terms of long-term economic growth are also challenges in the region. Corruption is another major impediment to progress on development.
Asia, and south Asia in particular, is a key priority for the Government and the Department. We will continue to focus on the poorest countries in the region and those that contain the bulk of the world's poor. We will continue to work in close partnership with Governments and those to whom those Governments are accountable. We will continue to put great emphasis on working with and through others. We believe that partnership approaches are critical to the greater development effectiveness that we want to achieve.
The history of development is littered with lost opportunities due to donors not working effectively together. We will continue to work closely with and through non-governmental organisations, and with diaspora organisations based in the UK. I put on record my appreciation of the diaspora groups that have got involved in the consultations on our assistance plans for India and Bangladesh, which are undoubtedly stronger as a result of that engagement.
I hope that I have been able to reflect the importance of support for poverty reduction in Asia and some challenges that the region faces. We must not lose sight of the huge potential for continuing development that Asia represents and the contribution that we can make to achieving the world's development goals by putting support and effort into that region.
3.9 pm
Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Government for bringing forward this important debate today. I am pleased to be able to contribute to it. I should explain to hon. Members that the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), has an unavoidable parliamentary commitment and so cannot be here today.
As the Minister told us, south Asia is home to nearly half of all the people in the world who live on less than $1 a day. The population of south Asia accounts for

143WH
nearly one fifth of the world's HIV infections. As the Minister mentioned, if current trends continue in India, which is the south Asian country most affected by AIDS, India will have some 20 million to 25 million cases of HIV/AIDS by 2010—more than anywhere else in the world.
South Asia is generally defined as the countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. It is important at the start of the debate to be clear about that definition, because I imagine that, if one mentioned south Asia to most people, they would think of the tiger economies of south-east Asia rather than the grinding poverty that is sadly the case in south Asia.
The extent of the poverty can be seen by considering some of the poverty data for the countries concerned. Unemployment is 47 per cent. in Nepal and 40 per cent. in Bangladesh. Infant mortality is 104 deaths per 1,000 births in Bhutan and 142 deaths per 1,000 births—the highest in south Asia—in Afghanistan. Life expectancy is only around 60 years in Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan, whereas in Afghanistan—again the worst country in south Asia—it is a truly unbelievable 46 years. Were I a typical Afghan, that would leave me with only four more years to live.
Literacy rates are also very low, with Bangladesh having a male literacy rate of 53 per cent. and a female rate of 31 per cent., and Afghanistan having a male literacy rate of 51 per cent. and a female rate of only 21 per cent. If the literacy rates are split by sex, generally throughout south Asia women have a literacy rate of around 20 percentage points less than men. That literacy gap, with women achieving rates so much poorer than those of men, is one reason why the millennium development goals are so important. One of those goals is to achieve greater equality of outcome between the sexes. The other goals of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, reducing child mortality, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development are equally vital in eradicating poverty in south Asia and throughout the world.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently told the International Development Committee that, at the current rate of progress, the millennium development goals would not be achieved for another 150 to 180 years. That dreadful prospect must focus all our minds this afternoon. At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the work of all the staff of the Department for International Development in the region, as well as the charity and NGO staff who are working to promote development in south Asia.
The first area that I should like to consider, on which the Minister has already touched, is education. As I said, the lack of universal quality education is a massive problem in south Asia. A recent report by the United Nations educational organisation, UNESCO, says that Asia has the world's largest share of children not receiving an education. Despite increased enrolment rates, 46 million children of primary school age are out of school, equivalent to 45 per cent. of the global population of youngsters not attending school. UNESCO says that Bangladeshi pupils are in the most
144WH
crowded classes, with just one teacher for every 57 pupils and a primary school drop-out rate of around 35 per cent. There are examples in Asia of some classes of as many as 100 children.
A spectacular example of success in improving education is in Bangladesh, and is exemplified by the work of Plan International, one of the world's largest development organisations, founded in Britain in 1937. Plan sets up remedial classes for two hours a day before school. Primary education only lasts for two hours a day anyway in Bangladesh, and as a result of Plan's work 86 per cent. of the children have seen the 12-week course through to the end, which has resulted in a thirtyfold increase in children achieving grade A and a 94 per cent. drop in children obtaining grade D. The district council leader for the area concerned has been so impressed that he is introducing that idea throughout his district. Plan is lobbying the Bangladeshi Ministry of Education to introduce the idea nationally.
We should encourage the work of Plan and similar organisations. My party believes that more aid should be directed through NGOs, charities and the private sector, as such organisations are often more efficient, effective and, sometimes, accountable than the Governments to whom aid is given. Government-to-Government aid is money can mean—not always—the control of how it is spent is lost. The most striking example is the Tanzanian Government; when they were given £3 billion in debt relief to be spent on health and education, they spent the money instead on a new air defence system.
Combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases is vital to south Asia. More than 7.6 million people in south Asia live with HIV/AIDS, comprising nearly one fifth of the world's HIV infections, according to UNAIDS. By the end of 2002, more than 600,000 Indians were newly infected with HIV, increasing the official number of HIV-positive people to more than 4.6 million. If current trends continue, there will be more cases in India than anywhere else in the world. Furthermore, high-risk behaviours and infection rates are growing in most other south Asian countries. Unless vigorous and timely action is taken, those countries' risk of experiencing the devastating social and economic effects of the full-blown AIDS epidemics seen elsewhere in the world will become a reality.
My party has proposed five practical measures to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. The Minister said that a new AIDS strategy would be published shortly. I hope that some of my party's ideas find their way into it. We want a much closer partnership between NGOs, pharmaceutical companies, the UN and the World Health Organisation. Aid to combat HIV should be spent on primary care, sanitation, clean water and education as well as on the necessary drugs. We want a significant proportion of the UN global health fund—the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria—to be spent on anti-retroviral drugs. Given that more than 600,000 infants are infected by their mothers each year, we also want such drugs to be administered to pregnant women, which can be done for as little as 8 US cents per mother.
Does the Minister agree that Africa has something to teach south Asia? The Ugandan Government have managed to change personal behaviour radically with their ABC campaign—that stands for abstinence, being

145WH
faithful and using condoms. Does the Minister agree that President Museveni of Uganda should be commended for giving so much impetus personally to that campaign in the Ugandan media, with the result that the AIDS epidemic has been better contained in that country than almost anywhere else in Africa?
I want to consider also the effects on south Asia of the lack of free and fair trade. That hugely hinders developing countries' attempts to get out of poverty. My party proposes an advocacy fund whereby developed nations provide resources for developing nations to secure representation of equal calibre to that which we send to trade negotiations. That would help developing nations to achieve greater success at World Trade Organisation talks.
United States protectionist tariffs adversely affect Pakistan, which is, coincidentally, one of the most loyal allies of the US. Pakistan has received no increase in US market access for textiles, which are by far its biggest export. A US Administration who believe in free trade should behave better. There is also concern that the US may act to hinder Indian information technology innovation following India's 63 patents in IT registered in 2003 alone. South Asian countries must also avoid putting tariffs on each other's products. As we saw recently, India put pressure on the Nepalese authorities to put a special tax on cooking oil exports, known as ghee, as Nepal can produce ghee more cheaply than it can. India has also severely limited Sri Lankan tea imports to 3,000 tonnes, which is a fraction of the demand for such tea in India. Restraints on free trade exist within the developing world, not just between the developed world and the developing world.
On 25 February this year, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said that
"the trade injustice suffered by the poor is not the result of bad weather, defective infrastructure or a natural disaster. Indeed, it is not an accident at all. It is the knowing, deliberate and calculated policy of governments of the most powerful nations on earth. It is shameless and shameful.
Effective aid requires fair trade … The Conservative Party will be at the forefront of those arguing for the decisive reform of our trading system. A system which is morally wrong, economically counter-productive and politically dangerous has had its day. It should be replaced by arrangements which are morally right, economically beneficial and politically wise."
It is certainly the case that free and fair trade will greatly assist south Asia in combating poverty.
I was pleased that the Minister placed a focus on micro-credit. I hope that we see an expansion of micro-credit in south Asia. Micro-credit is a system of small loans aimed at helping poor people, for example, to buy a cow so that they can sell the milk. It is an incredibly simple and straightforward idea, and where it works it empowers people to look after themselves, rather than making them dependent on aid. Micro-credit has been increasingly targeted at women, with great success. One example of that is the Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation, which has, over the past 10 years, loaned more than $140 million to 180 Bangladeshi micro-finance institutions. They have been able to generate $522 million in loans to the landless poor. Since 1999, the foundation has financed almost 2 million borrowers in Bangladesh, 90 per cent. of whom are women. There have been concerns that the International Monetary
146WH
Fund and the World Bank are not giving sufficient priority to micro-credit work. I hope that the Minister assures us that the Government will be vigilant on that.
Will the Minister join me in saluting the strength of the extended family throughout much of south Asia? Does he recognise that a strong extended family network is an important bulwark against poverty in terms of mutual care and enables many families to join together to start small enterprises?
We should also consider conflict and social exclusion. Conflict makes poverty far more likely, so it is no accident that 20 years of fighting have left Afghanistan by far the poorest country in south Asia. Likewise, internal conflict in Burma, which is on the edge of south Asia according to the strict definition, has led to some 2 million people becoming internally displaced. Those people have little or no access to health care, food, shelter or education. DFID provides no aid to those displaced people in Burma, so I ask the Minister whether DFID would reconsider that policy, as that is urgently required.
The caste system means that 90 per cent. of those living below the official poverty line in India are the Dalits or, as we know them, the untouchables. There are some 260 million Dalits in south Asia, and I pay tribute to the Dalit Solidarity Network for its work in keeping this issue in the public eye. Caste discrimination is a gross human rights violation. What steps are the UK Government taking to make that point to the Indian Government? Does the Minister agree that without the attainment of rights, Dalit poverty is unlikely to be eradicated?
In conclusion, although the Commission for Africa is both welcome and necessary, we must not take our eyes off the needs of south Asia, where nearly half the world's poor live. It is my hope that this debate will play a part in raising the profile of the capabilities and successes, as well as the needs, of south Asia.
3.25 pm
Tom Brake: As is often the case with debates on international development, there is broad agreement among all parties. Indeed, there is even broad agreement on what constitutes south Asia, which is a good starting point. I will not run through the list of countries, although I agree that Burma is on the cusp and will refer to it.
As the Minister has set out, the statistics for south Asia are grim, and I should like to refer to two in particular. First, the proportion of the population whose income is less than half a dollar a day is expected to be 16.4 per cent. by 2015. According to a recent parliamentary answer, that will be the worst percentage apart from that in sub-Saharan Africa. Secondly, the Minister appropriately dwelt on primary education. South and west Asia are the worst performers in the continent for primary school enrolment levels and the ratios of girls to boys in primary school.
On that subject, the Minister will recall a recent debate during which the education of girls in Afghanistan, and their security in particular, was raised. The Minister's response was that the matter would be tackled through improving general security in Afghanistan, but I wonder whether any other developments have been made in the past few weeks

147WH
given that that is a big source of concern in that country. We are also campaigning about the 100 million children who miss out on primary school education. Along with, I suspect, many other Members of Parliament, several of my hon. Friends and I will soon visit No. 10 and No. 11 to deliver some of the posters, letters and other artwork that we were given on our "MPs back to school" visits. Primary school education is clearly significant in the region.
I want to touch on the new DFID strategy for middle-income countries. I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his offer to meet me to discuss it, and I would like to take it up. The covering letter to the strategy states that middle-income countries
"receive more concessional aid than their levels of poverty and MDG-related needs would imply."
There are only two middle-income countries in south Asia—the Maldives and Sri Lanka—but does that phrase indicate that concessional aid to middle-income countries will be reduced? If current aid is more than their needs would imply, one could draw the conclusion that it will be reduced in future.
Mr. Thomas: To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I should say that it is not that aid and concessional loans to middle-income countries need to drop dramatically, but that their proportion of aid needs to be rebalanced to reflect our priority for the poorest countries. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we believe that the overall level of our assistance needs to double if we are to meet the millennium development goals, in both the poorest and middle-income countries.
Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his clarification. I take him to be saying that because the overall envelope is increasing, the level of funds that will be available for middle-income countries will not fall in gross terms, although as a proportion of spending it may be reduced; I understand that. He will be aware of the concerns expressed when a substantial sum had to be redirected from middle-income countries to the reconstruction of Iraq. That is an area that we will be watching closely.
The Minister rightly focused considerably on the issue of HIV/AIDS, as did the spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). In south and south-east Asia about 5.2 million people live with HIV/AIDS. The pattern varies across the continent. I think that one can say that India is in transition towards a major epidemic and that, perhaps, the Government response has not been as forceful as it could have been. Going beyond south Asia, there have been some success stories in Thailand and Cambodia, so things can be achieved if the will is present.
In India, there are about 4.1 million cases of HIV/AIDS, and in Burma there are about 400,000 cases. During the debate that we had a couple of months ago we discussed the level of HIV/AIDS in Afghanistan. As things have moved on, I wonder whether there is more accurate information about that; the security situation does not perhaps allow it. During that debate the fact was highlighted that there were said to be about 30 HIV/AIDS sufferers in Afghanistan; one could almost count
148WH
their numbers on the fingers of one's two hands. Clearly, it cannot be right or possible, particularly given the prevalence of drugs in that country, that there are only 30 cases. There is the potential for a significant increase in months or years to come, because we simply do not know what the starting point is.
It is worth drawing attention to what can happen—and did happen in Asia, but outside the south Asia boundary—when the will to tackle an issue exists. China decided that severe acute respiratory syndrome had to be tackled and that it could not be swept under the carpet. After an initial slow build-up, it was tackled with vigour. That is what we want the south-Asian Governments to do in relation to HIV/AIDS, because there is the potential for the prevalence rate to accelerate much more rapidly than in sub-Saharan Africa. That is possibly because of greater mobility, because of greater intravenous drug use or because of other things that point to a faster acceleration and diffusion of HIV/AIDS among the population in south Asia.
What should one be doing about HIV/AIDS? What should the UK Government try to assist with? We should be trying to help the leaders in the region to appreciate the potential for a significant pandemic, to get the matter discussed openly to reduce the stigma attached to it and, as other hon. Members have said, to ensure that any lessons learned in Africa are applied as quickly as possible in south Asia.
The Minister referred to the UK's contribution to the global fund. Will he say, either now or after publication of the final paper at the end of the consultation on the HIV/AIDS strategy, whether there is any prospect of the UK's contribution to the global fund being increased to match that of other countries, such as France? Various organisations are concerned at the UK Government's financial contribution.
The Minister did not dwell at length on conflict or, more specifically, defence spending. It is interesting to consider such spending in south Asian countries. With the exception of Bangladesh and Nepal, defence spending in those countries is greater than the Asian average, which itself is greater than in a number of continents. In most south Asian countries, defence spending is greater than in the UK; in 2002, UK defence spending was 2.6 per cent of GDP. We need to dwell on the issue of conflict and the UK's role in defence spending and procurement in the region.
Conflicts in the region include those in Kashmir, Sri Lanka—although that may be resolved—and Nepal, and there is a link between drugs trafficking and small arms. How does the sale of small arms affect the ability of countries in the region to deal with the millennium development goals?
Millennium development goal No. 1 is to eradicate extreme hunger and poverty. In rural areas such as Assam in India, local people have found that violence and insecurity have obstructed farming, so there is an impact on that. Clearly, the use of child soldiers, as in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Burma, has an impact on universal primary education. There is an impact on the health MDG; if there are conflicts, and many small arms and light weapons are in use, injuries are sustained and people impose demands on hospital services. There is an impact on gender inequality. Widows in Sri Lanka suffer from particularly bad poverty, because they are unable to work or remarry.

149WH
Finally, on the subject of MDG No. 7, environmental sustainability, armed conflict has facilitated illegal logging in parts of southern India. We need to consider the impact of small arms and the way in which their ready availability can affect the ability of south Asian countries to pull themselves out of the poverty trap. It is also appropriate to consider the UK Government's involvement. They are a regular supplier of arms to many countries in south Asia and, under criterion 8 of the EU code of conduct on exports, the UK must consider whether the selling of arms to a country will have a detrimental effect on its sustainable development. I hope that the Minister will set out how that assessment is carried out.
Presumably the assessment was carried out on the following arms sales, but I would like to understand how. Some £9 million worth of semi-automatic pistols and submachine guns were sold to, Bangladesh; that country is No. 139 out of 173 countries in the human development ranking. There were sales worth £118 million to India, which is at No. 127 in the human development ranking. There are also weapons exports to Pakistan and Sri Lanka. I hope that the Minister will be able to demonstrate to hon. Members that the sale of those arms does not have a detrimental effect on the sustainable development of the countries concerned.
I would also like the Minister to comment on the military gifts that have been funded by the global conflict prevention pool. In 2002, the UK Government bought two MiG-17 transport helicopters as gifts for the royal Nepalese army, which apparently cost just over £4 million. It appears that the source of funding for those purchases was the UK's global conflict prevention pool. Can the Minister tell us the purpose of that purchase and explain how those helicopters were helpful in reducing global conflict? I understand that, in December 2003, Britain agreed to supply two short take-off and landing planes to the Government in Nepal, again with funding from the global conflict prevention pool. Can the Minister confirm whether that is correct and, if so, whether those planes have now been supplied, and whether we will be given the opportunity to debate that matter in Parliament?
In the context of conflict prevention and arms sales, the Government should examine the development of national and regional action plans to tackle small arms. They should ensure that the small-arms issue is considered as part of any development programmes. It is also important that the Government explain—the Minister has the opportunity today—how military purchases can play a significant role in reducing global conflict.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire rightly dwelt on the issue of trade, which the Minister, if he mentioned it at all, touched on only briefly. Will the Minister tell us whether he considers trade to be of the same significance for the south Asian region as it is for Africa, or whether it is a lesser concern?
Debt is a significant issue for sub-Saharan Africa. In south Asia, a number of countries have significant debt. Does the Minister believe that we need to tackle that, or does he believe that the levels of debt in south Asia are sustainable and therefore do not require particular attention by the Government?
150WH
There is broad agreement on the way forward. The Minister rightly highlighted three areas that he felt to be significant: gender inequality, HIV/AIDS and maternal mortality. I hope that the areas on which I have focused are complementary to those. I also hope that the Minister will reassure me that the Government's policies are best designed to tackle poverty in south Asia and are in no respect contributing to that poverty.
3.44 pm
Ms Julia Drown: The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), said that there was agreement between the parties on policies and on the way forward. I wish that that were the case. One would expect that in the face of such desperate poverty, everyone's human response would be, "We need to do more." It seems obvious that more resources need to reach the developing countries and particularly the poorest people in the developing countries.
It seems nasty to bring party politics into the debate but, in a democracy, it is important to outline the difference between the parties. The truth is that this Government have massively increased aid to the poorest countries, and I am proud of that. They have doubled it; they have increased the aid budget from 0.26 per cent. to 0.4 per cent. of national income. We inherited a declining aid budget because, under the Tories, there was a reduction in the amount of money that went to the poorest countries. That is disgusting, and I know that the people of this country do not support it. The Tories talked about the need for better aid and spending it better, but that is no excuse for reducing the amount that we spend. We can afford to give more and, ultimately, it is in our interests to give more. However, the Conservative party does not say that it made a big mistake and that hundreds of thousands of people died.
Tom Brake: I did not want to make a political point, but now that the hon. Lady has opened a window of opportunity, I will state that there are issues relating to the funding levels under the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats support the measures that the Government have taken, and our current commitment is to achieving the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national income within two parliamentary terms.
Ms Drown: I am grateful to hear that. It is an important commitment. However, many Liberal Democrat spending commitments are worthy, but there are often questions about whether their sums add up. Nevertheless, that 0.7 per cent. figure is great. The hon. Gentleman is right that a timetable is needed to achieve the target, and we need to achieve it as soon as possible. Is the Conservative party's position now going to change? That would be nice.
Andrew Selous: It is no secret that my party is carefully examining all areas of expenditure. On the matter under discussion, we are guided by the principle that the money must get through to the front line. We will have more to say by the autumn of this year.
Does the hon. Lady agree that if we are to get broad public support for aid expenditure, it is vital that the public have confidence in the way that that money is

151WH
spent? It is important to talk about corruption and the importance of ensuring that the money goes directly through to the front line because that needs to be seen to the case if we are to get broad public support. I hope that we share common ground on that point at least.
Ms Drown: The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that the public have confidence in how the money is spent. However, although corruption must be discussed and tackled, we must not use it as an excuse for not doing more. I hope that the autumn announcement to which he referred will mean that all the main parties are committed to achieving the target of 0.7 per cent. by 2008 or sooner. This country can afford that. Until the Tories make that commitment, the people of this country need to know their record; the Tories reduced overseas aid and their current statements suggest that they will reduce it again.
Andrew Selous: For the record, I want to make it clear that my party has stated that it is examining public expenditure options and that our emphasis is on putting the front line first. We have not said that we will cut international development aid.
Ms Drown: I am pleased to hear that, but it does not sit comfortably with the public statements by your overseas development spokesperson that the current limits being given to him involve a reduction and are unacceptable.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair does not have any personal spokespersons.
Ms Drown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I will now move on to some of the issues that I urge the Government to tackle. The grinding poverty in south Asia has been mentioned. It can be difficult to grasp that hundreds of millions of people there are living on less than a dollar a day. Although some poverty reduction there has been effective, it is depressing to think that, over the past few years, poverty has increased in some countries.
Sometimes it is Conservative ideology that growth in such countries will achieve poverty reduction. That is not enough. In south Asia, the economies of some countries have grown. For example, in Bangladesh there was average GDP growth of about 4.8 per cent. in the 1990s. However, the rate of poverty reduction over the same period was only 0.9 per cent. a year in urban areas and 0.4 per cent in rural areas. Of course we must work to achieve growth, but we can attack poverty only if there is pro-poor growth.
There is cause for optimism and it is important always to stress that aid works. Mistakes will always be made and some projects will go wrong, but, overall, projects are undoubtedly hugely effective at saving millions of lives. They also improve the quality of people's lives. For example, adult literacy in Bangladesh has increased in just 10 years from 35 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the population. There is a big difference between the genders, but progress is still being made. Gender
152WH
disparities are real worries, and they are worse in this region than elsewhere. Levels of maternal mortality are among the worst in the world.
Recent assessments of poverty reduction strategy have pointed out that, to achieve what I hope we all want, four factors are critical: pro-poor growth, governance, gender and data availability so that people know where to put resources and where to tackle poverty. In light of the desperate poverty that we are all aware of, it is amazing that in south Asia, three of the most heavily indebted poor countries—Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam—are repaying debts to the richest nations in the world.
Two other countries that are not involved in the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, but that were included in the original Jubilee 2000 list of 52 countries are Bangladesh and Nepal. Bangladesh joined the World Bank in 1972 soon after independence, and the concessional arm of the World Bank—the International Development Association—has since financed more than 169 operations. Bangladesh, which is a desperately poor country, has loans of $9.5 billion and is repaying $790 million every year to the World Bank and rich nations. That is the same as it spends on public health each year. Three quarters of the population live on less than $2 a day. Will anything more be done to reduce the debts of the likes of Bangladesh and Nepal, which have just fallen outside the HIPC initiative? That is clearly important.
As well as urging people outside the Government to continue pushing for more to be spent on overseas aid, I urge the Government to spend more. I am proud of what we have done, but it is immensely important to continue. A comprehensive spending review is ongoing and we need to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP being spent on aid. That target was agreed by the international community more than 20 years ago. We are known to lead the world on debt relief but, on aid, we are in 11th place on the list of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development donors. The target is affordable. If we fulfilled the commitment to reach 0.7 per cent., we would give $3.5 billion extra each year. We must consider what that money would mean for the people, which is what matters after all. We could get another 1.5 million people out of poverty if we spent that sum.
It is important to link the need to reach that target to the international finance facility, as the Chancellor of Exchequer is always keen to do. He is right—if we and many other countries doubled aid, we still would not achieve the millennium development goals. However, our work through the international finance facility is not an excuse for not reaching the target. The payments needed to repay our loans from the international finance facility could rightly come out of the international development budget because they are part of it. Countries could ask, "Why should we support the international finance facility if you haven't delivered on the last commitment to achieve 0.7 per cent.?" The two must run hand in hand.
Let us consider what that would mean in terms of spending. To achieve the target by, say, 2008 would account for less than 2 per cent. of the Government's spending. Given our rate of increase since the 2002 comprehensive spending review, we would be on course to achieve 0.7 per cent. by 2012. Bringing the target back

153WH
to 2008 is not impossible; it is affordable. As Bob Geldof rightly said in the House of Commons recently, "They can't afford for us not to do it."
I am talking about achieving the millennium development goals not only in aggregate terms, but throughout all regions including south Asia. My constituents care about such matters. I receive many letters from them in which they say that such action is right not only morally, but in terms of what we need to do as a country. We must expand our market towards future employment and growth. Such action is also in the interests of security. Given all the debates on security that are rightly taking place, we must ensure that our defence budget is protected at a reasonable level. However, there will come a point at which there will be a debate about defence spending and international aid, at which time I shall say that we have made a commitment and that, ultimately, it is in the interests of our security to make the rest of the world secure. Let us ensure that that is at the top of the agenda.
I shall now touch on a couple of other issues to which I should like the Minister's response. Which economic institutions could be changed to help us achieve the millennium development goals in south Asia? I support other speakers who have called for developing countries to have a bigger voice at the economic institutions, especially the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Their voice is not heard strongly enough. They need a louder voice, but they also need more votes on those bodies. Does my hon. Friend support such a proposal?
Too many actions have taken place behind closed doors. What is being done to open up decision making at such levels to make decisions more accountable? I am referring not only to appointments to key institutions, but to the main decisions that are made at such places. Let us consider the HIPC initiative. Much more could be done for Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam. Ireland has said that it would give 100 per cent. backing not only to bilateral, but multilateral debt, cancellation for all the heavily indebted poor countries that have good poverty reduction plans. However, most of them are struggling to meet the millennium development goals. Will the Government support joining Ireland in that project? It has been calculated that it would cost UK taxpayers only £3 a year for the next 10 years. The Government can afford to join Ireland in that proposal.
The countries exiting the HIPC process must be in a sustainable position. That was the whole idea of HIPC, yet it has not happened. The World Bank accepts that. Let us consider the 20 countries that have already reached the decision point. Four will have higher debt service repayments than they did in the late 1990s, and five countries will pay almost as much in debt service repayments as they did before the HIPC initiative even started. It is clear that something is still going wrong and that a solution must be found. I should be grateful if the Minister could say what more we can do to achieve debt sustainability. Clearly, one issue of concern is the criteria that are being used. Do the Government support completely revising the criteria from the debt to export ratios and to considering achievement of the millennium development goals, which we all care about?
We could become complacent about the millennium development goals, but it would be time for a huge party if we achieved them. However, we would not be able to
154WH
go home after the party, but would have to concentrate instead on what more there is to do. Even if we halve world poverty, we will still have to deal with what is left. Let us achieve our millennium development goals, but I hope that the Minister will respond to my key points about economic institutions.
We know that trade issues for south Asia can outweigh some of the help that they could receive in debt relief and aid. That is important. Non-governmental organisations continue to campaign on the issue of developing countries being forced to liberalise and privatise parts of their economy even though the Government say that that is not so and that those countries can make their own decisions. Will the Minister confirm that this country does not want to force policies on developing countries that do not seem to be in the interests of their poor people? Could we say publicly that we would support any developing country if it were pressurised in negotiations into liberalising or commercialising a sector in a way that was not in the interests of its poor people?
We as a country have said that we will not include UK public services in the negotiations on the general agreement on trade in services at the World Trade Organisation, because we do not want our services to get involved in any of the binding agreements that are made there. Can we not say that we would extend the same support to all developing countries, so that they would not need to include their public services in those negotiations?
Some key sectors, such as agriculture, are important for south Asia and other developing countries. Such sectors deserve protection—for example, to promote food security and to provide sustainable livelihoods. Are the Government pressing the international community to support the right of developing countries to protect such vulnerable sectors to deal with problems around falling commodity prices? Those countries need a desperate turnaround to tackle the over-supply that leads to commodity prices crashing and to promote diversification in those sectors.
Can we have an update on what is happening on common agricultural policy reform? We still need radical CAP reform. Will that be one of the central planks of our presidency of the G8 group next year? We should be working to end all agricultural export dumping and eliminating all forms of domestic agricultural support, some of which acts as hidden export subsidies. We should be doing more—and I hope that the Minister will tell us that we could do more—to get more duty-free and quota-free access for all products from the least-developed countries in south Asia and elsewhere.
There has been some talk about health issues and drugs. There is currently much debate about the trade-related aspects of the intellectual property rights agreement. I hope that the Minister will assure us that we will support the reform of that agreement, so that poor countries can get new technologies for basic medicines and farmers are able to save, exchange and sell the seeds that they need. There should not be developed world agreements that stop the exchange and growing of crops in the poorest countries in the world.
Finally, basic institutional reforms are needed at the WTO. It is unbelievable that several issues are not clear. They include the basic text on which people are to start

155WH
negotiating, the terms of reference for the chair and the friends of the chair, and the procedures for preparing drafts. At the moment, it is not easy for developing countries in south Asia and elsewhere to get different views or options presented on the papers. Until that process is opened up, it is not going to be as easy as it should be for south Asian countries to get their issues on the agenda of the WTO. We need a realistic timetable for the completion of those talks, and developing countries in south Asia and elsewhere need to be involved in discussing and agreeing it.
There are many issues to consider, but they are all about achieving the millennium development goals. There is a need to address the desperate poverty in the developing countries and I hope that the Minister gives us grounds for optimism on further reforms on trade and on more debt relief for the countries in HIPC and those just outside it. I also hope that he does all that he can to push the increase in the aid budget to 0.7 per cent. by 2008 in the comprehensive spending review—or to 0.7 per cent. by 2007, which would be better.
4.4 pm
Julie Morgan: Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate about poverty and south Asia, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to talk about poverty in India because I recently visited that country with an all-women group of Members of Parliament. It is an exciting and exhilarating country to visit, and we were given a tremendous welcome as a group of women MPs.
The fact that we were all women gave a particular perspective to the visit. As we travelled around, we met many women politicians, women entrepreneurs and women living in different communities. We were certainly struck by the growth of the economy and the confidence that there seemed to be in the country. India is Asia's third largest economy and explosive growth has been predicted in the years ahead. Gross domestic product rose by 7 per cent. last year and the economy grew by 10.4 per cent. in the last quarter of 2004. On our trip we had an optimistic, forward-looking view of India, yet today we have talked about the grinding poverty there, too. Obviously, for Indians who live below the poverty line, it is small comfort to know about the surge of growth, unless it is reaching them.
The Minister has already given us the figures on the poor in India. UN figures suggest that nearly 35 per cent. of people live on less than a dollar a day. On our visit we saw visible signs of poverty, such as people sleeping on roadsides in Calcutta and rural hardship. However, we must also recognise the great progress that has been made: poverty has been almost halved in the past 20 years. The Minister said that he was optimistic and, after visiting India, so am I. I felt that great progress was being made.
In India, the poorer a person is, the more rural they are. That issue may possibly account for the results of the Indian election. We do not know exactly what they are yet, but it looks as though the Congress party has had an unexpectedly strong showing.The Guardian has said that its success has been based on a campaign that
"championed the rural poor, who they say have been left out of India's new prosperity."
156WH
It will be interesting to see the final results. The Bharatiya Janata party's "India shining" slogan seems not to have connected with those who feel excluded from India's economic growth.
We are in the middle of getting the results of the elections, so I am not sure about the outcome. However, like the Minister, I pay enormous tribute to India for the fairness of the elections. The Minister referred to the use of technology. Nearly 380 million people voted in the past three weeks, which is a tribute to India; it is a great democracy. It will be interesting to see whether the final results relate to what is going on with the rural poor.
The problem of HIV/AIDS in India has already been mentioned. I welcome what the Minister said about the new strategy that will be announced. I do not know whether he can say any more today about what the proposals will be. It is predicted that India will have more HIV positive people by 2005 than any other country in the world. As has been said, India ranks second for infection after South Africa, with the infected population estimated at 4.58 million. It is big problem in rural communities And 70 per cent. of India's population lives in the countryside. In cities, there is at least some access to information, condoms and HIV tests. The poverty in rural areas means less access to services, which clearly does not help the public health situation.
We need to think of poverty as a human rights issue as much as anything. In India, we met Dr. Justice Anand, chair of the National Human Rights Commission. He said that poverty is the most serious violation of human rights and is destructive of all rights. Poverty means, for example, that people are denied the right to good maternal care, child care, and education. Access to education is so important; it is one of the millennium goals that we most want to achieve. Poverty also means that human rights are often abused, as it leads to child labour, bond labour and human trafficking.
People in India told us that they thought that in 10 years poverty and its accompanying problems would be eradicated. With the huge surge in growth in India we hope that that will be true, but it seems optimistic when one thinks of the numbers involved. However, the UK, particularly the Department for International Development, has done an enormous amount to help eliminate poverty in India, which is the Department's biggest partner state. It receives more UK development assistance than any other country and the £100 million programme, which is managed by the Department, is trebling in the year 2004–05.
The Department works with four partner states, one of which is West Bengal. When the people I met there heard that I was a Member of Parliament from Wales, they said, "Oh, you have lots of doctors from West Bengal in Wales, so we are doing a lot to help you." When we discuss aid and assistance it is important to acknowledge what we have received from India. From his background, the Minister will appreciate that, because the valleys of south Wales have depended on doctors from West Bengal to keep the health service going. It was interesting that people made that point strongly.
When I asked if people resented doctors going to the UK, they said, "Certainly not." They said that they often came back with skills that they had acquired in this

157WH
country. There was no resentment. People felt that it was a two-way process. Given my Welsh background, I was very interested in what they told me. We must remember in this debate what we receive from countries such as India.
One of the highlights of the trip was a visit to the DFID Calcutta slum improvement project, which is a model scheme—one of the really good, progressive ways to deliver development. It illustrates how a small amount of money can make a huge difference to people's lives, especially by empowering women. Its participatory nature means that the people living there are partners in the project and that improvements in the physical environment result in the development of a community.
When we visited we were mobbed by a huge crowd of children. It was mainly women who talked to us, telling us what they had been able to achieve. The money that the Department had provided and the work of its officials had undoubtedly made a huge impact on empowering people, especially women, who showed us the types of work that they were doing.
The project focused on sanitation, personal hygiene practices, nutrition, training on income generation activities, credit programmes and literacy. Until I visited the project, I was not aware of how powerful relatively small amounts of money could be when invested sensitively or that such excellent results could be achieved. The end-of-project report referred to the impact of the project and the increase in women's self confidence and their awareness of health and hygiene. It also mentioned how the communities function and people's increase in awareness about laws and rights relating to women in the household, as well as within the community. One result of the project was that women started to increase their family income by getting work and developing within the community.
The interests of women are addressed in the Indian constitution and initiatives, such as the 2001 national policy for the empowerment of women in India, are to be applauded. In all the development work we are involved in, it is essential to ensure that women's interests stay in the foreground and that women obtain all the services that they need.
As has been mentioned, there is a problem with maternal death in India. The DFID points out that maternal deaths during childbirth are estimated to be well over 300 per 100,000 live births, compared with 7 per 100,000 in the UK. Those huge inequalities throughout the world cannot be tolerated. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown): it is an issue that we must use all our powers to tackle because it is our duty to do all that we can to reduce such inequalities.
The White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood points out that in India one woman dies every five minutes from a pregnancy-related cause. As the Minister said, deaths and pregnancy-related problems can be solved by medicine. However, we must have well-directed resources. Some 130,000 women in India die every year from complications in pregnancy and childbirth, almost all of which could be prevented. Progress is needed here. I compliment the Department on its work, although we still want more action. We must continue to support its projects, such as the one
158WH
that we saw in Calcutta, where there was a participative element and where people are working in partnership and being empowered.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon that it is important to reach the target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP that is recommended by the UN. Many European countries have already reached that target: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Luxembourg have achieved it, and Ireland, Belgium and France have set clear timetables to achieve it by 2007, 2010 and 2012 respectively. We are one of the richest countries in the world and we must set a timetable to reach that target. It is the least that we can do. I hope that the Minister will use all his influence to persuade the Government to set a timetable, so that we know exactly where we are going and when we will reach the 0.7 per cent. target. It is intolerable that inequalities exist across the world.
I support calls for greater debt relief and the international finance facility that the Chancellor has introduced. The Government have an excellent record, which is appreciated and understood by many people. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned the back-to-school day. I took part in it and went to one primary and one secondary school. Primary school children understand the global economies and the importance of tackling their problems. I probably receive more letters and cards about international development and the issue of unequal resources than almost anything else. As Members of Parliament, one of our greatest duties must be to ensure that our prosperity in this country is spread throughout the world.
To return to our visit to India, I felt tremendously optimistic. We felt the sense of friendship with the UK, as well as the economic strength of a vibrant and thriving nation, although it sat alongside grinding poverty. One of our greatest aims must be to share prosperity throughout the world.
4.20 pm
Ross Cranston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on opening the debate. He set out clearly our commitment to the millennium development goals and identified the three special features of the work in Asia by the Department for International Development, which relate to education for children at school, the HIV epidemic and maternal mortality. He has long had an interest in these issues, and as chair of Labour Friends of India did a magnificent job of coalescing concern on the Back Benches. I imagine that, on a day such as this, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who is sitting behind the Minister, regrets having taken on the job of Parliamentary Private Secretary, because if anyone is qualified to contribute to the debate, he is. I know his commitment to the subject.
I shall take a different tack from other hon. Members by raising the issue of institution building in south Asia, especially involving the financial system, and its contribution to reducing poverty. I do so because, for the 10 years before I was elected to Parliament in 1997, I worked as a consultant for international financial institutions such as the World Bank. I hope that that

159WH
does not condemn me in the eyes of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). I started in Sri Lanka in 1988, spending about five years going back and forth to that country and helping it to develop the laws to achieve a properly operating financial system. I then worked with the person who is now the dean of the national law school in India. Perhaps the most interesting project involved drafting a law in Bhutan. Coming from that background, I suggest that institution building is crucial to addressing the problem of poverty.
A story in the Financial Times several years ago entitled "Gandhi and the Milk of Indian Self-Reliance" started by focusing on Mrs. Parmar, a landless labourer in Gujarat. She was 35, had two buffalo and earned 20 rupees from selling the milk every morning and evening. That was crucial for her: she was a widow with three children to raise and, apart from the milk money, her only source of income came from working in the fields during the planting and harvest seasons.The Financial Times quoted her as saying:
"I can get credit from the shop owner on the basis of this milk money."
Effective credit allocation and recovery are therefore central to the proper functioning of an economy, and their achievement can be measured in terms of the goals of economic efficiency and social justice. One can see other dimensions to social justice in the credit system. For example, there should be no discrimination in decisions about credit allocation. I shall return to that.
There can, of course, be disagreements over the type of system that one should construct for credit allocation and debt recovery. Our system has worked on the assumption that the most economically efficient course is for creditors to have a legal right to recover their money relatively straightforwardly when someone defaults. We assume that, if a creditor chooses to exercise that right, the money, or at least some of it, can be recovered and allocated to someone else. In a way, the traditional money-lending system in villages in south Asia also worked on that basis.
Essential to a proper credit system is a range of provisions, several of which I shall mention. One is an effective bankruptcy law. Recently, the Asian Development Bank produced a report on the importance of insolvency law to an effective and efficient economy. There can be disagreements about how that insolvency law will operate, and one example is the effect on employees. We have always said that the employees should have some preference, such as in relation to unpaid wages. I would certainly defend that.
For many years in India there has been something called the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, which was passed in 1985. When a company got into financial difficulty it could go into this special category of being a sick industry. There has been a lot of controversy over whether that is the most efficient way to deal with insolvent businesses. Employees argue strongly in favour of that Act because they say that it enables a period of respite in which a business might be able to recover itself. I do not deny that there are disagreements over how credit systems ought to be cast, but an efficient credit system, such as I referred to in the example of Mrs. Parmar, can be important in dealing with the very poorest.
160WH
Let me move from the credit system more generally to the banking system. Again, the viability of banks and other credit providers such as development banks is crucial. In the Asian economic crisis in the late 1990s, which mainly affected south-east Asia, the problem of banks with an enormous portfolio of bad debts was uncovered. That also affects some banks in south Asia, in particular state banks. The problem is that where there is large portfolio of bad debts, the credit providers—the banks—may become more risk averse. They may not want to tackle innovative schemes whereby credit can be provided to the poor.
Traditionally, in the economic literature the argument would be that credit providers would turn to Government bonds because they are an extremely safe bet in terms of investment. Getting the banking system right and ensuring that it operates effectively and efficiently is crucial. One aspect of that is tackling the portfolio of bad debts, although there are other particular challenges. Pakistan has committed itself to adopting Islamic law in the banking sector. That is a challenge because it has to overcome the problem of interest-based Riba transactions.
Effective regulation of the financial and securities markets is needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) described the sense in India that the economy is booming, and the financial system seems to have worked very effectively in the past couple of years. None the less, there has been concern about whether there has been adequate supervision of the financial sector and whether there has been a failure properly to address and monitor some financial risks. One could talk of a range of institutional remedies or solutions that might be posited. For example, one study in India suggested that the lack of separate collection departments in banks was a problem. Banks did not have proper workout departments to address the problem of borrowers who got into difficulty.
There is a political dimension to the way that financial institutions operate. Let me give one illustration. From 1967, India adopted the system of priority sectors, the reasoning for which was perfectly sound. Until that time, the bulk of bank advances had gone to large and medium-sized business, mainly because they could provide security. That meant that the agricultural sector and small-scale industries did not receive sufficient finance, so India introduced the system of priority sectors. That meant that loan money went from state banks to rural business, which had many important ramifications. For example, it meant that state banks had effective branch networks throughout the country.
There has been criticism of that policy, which has been liberalised in recent years. One argument was that lending was often done without a proper evaluation of the causes being funded and without proper monitoring. Some empirical evidence in India suggests that borrowers in rural areas, such as farmers, were under the impression that credit was being made available as a political handout and did not have to be repaid.
Another aspect of the political dimension is a problem that a prominent lawyer in Pakistan drew to my attention several years ago. He told me that there was a group of large borrowers who could use their political influence to get loans in the first place and then to forestall and divert recovery proceedings. He described a small group of wilful defaulters who obtained their

161WH
loans fraudulently and who were not above using threats of violence, blackmail and other mafioso tactics to obstruct effective recovery. He was describing the situation in the early 1990s. In so far as such practice was possible, it meant that money did not reach other causes that would address poverty.
On an institutional point, a problem has been identified in a recent report by the Asian Development Bank entitled, "Secured Transactions Law Reform in Asia: Unleashing the Potential of Collateral". If people cannot provide collateral, they will not always get finance, and certainly not from established financial institutions. They may get it from moneylenders, but not banks. If a person owns land, that is fine because they can provide collateral. However, we are talking about a large number of landless people.
The Asian Development Bank report said:
"Private creditors in all countries … worry about getting their loans repaid. Everywhere, when the debtor can offer them collateral for a loan, private creditors offer larger loans, at lower interest rates, payable over longer periods of time. Compared to a debtor who cannot offer good collateral, one with such collateral can anticipate receiving six to eight times more credit, taking two to ten times longer for repayment, and paying interest rates 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. lower."
One might argue about those figures, but the point about collateral remains the same. Institutionally, registration systems can be introduced to address that issue. The Asian Development Bank report argues for a comprehensive registration system for security. We do not have that in this country; we have a patchwork of registration systems for collateral. However, there is an institutional goal that would facilitate more credit being advanced. It might enable people such as Mrs. Parmar to raise more money. Collateral could be not just property, but other things such as crops. A small tenant farmer might be able to raise more credit on the basis of a crop that he will harvest at the end of the season. Although such considerations seem rather esoteric and far removed from the aim of poverty reduction, I believe that they have an important role to play.
I want briefly to mention the realisation of security when things go wrong. In most cages, lenders will not anticipate things going wrong, but if they do one must realise the security impact. That was why I was in Sri Lanka in 1988, because my report for the World Bank addressed that problem. As long ago as 1977, the banking laws committee in India recommended more extra-judicial powers in respect of security as a method of making the system more efficient. In 2002, the Indian Parliament passed an important ordinance on the reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interests, which also addressed that problem.
The final institution that I want briefly to mention is the courts, in which I take a particular interest because of my legal background. All international financial institutions now say that unless a country has an efficient and effective court system, it will not achieve maximum economic growth or, I would add, achieve the goals of implementing human rights. A well-functioning court and legal system is indispensable to a successful economy and to maintaining a system that recognises and enforces human rights.
As in all such matters, we do not have all the solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North talked about how Wales has benefited from what
162WH
was done in India. There is a great fashion in our legal system for alternative dispute resolution, but that has been done for years in India. More recently, on the initiative of the Chief Justice of India, we have seen a system involving so-called lok adalats, in which judges go out to villages to address the disputes of ordinary people, such as family, property or accident disputes. The system seems to have worked effectively, and we can learn from that. The Supreme Court of India, with its decisions on public interest matters, has been looked to from around the world. We do not have all the answers, and we can use some answers from south Asia to our benefit.
There are problems in the court systems. Some have enormous delays, which undermine the efficiency of their operation. The international financial institutions have recognised the importance of court systems and have provided aid to them. Some aid has been fairly simple—to buy books for judges, refurbish courthouses or provide judicial training. Simple provisions can have beneficial effects.
The problems that have to be addressed were recognised a long time ago by the Law Commission of India. I have already mentioned delays in the system, and more recently the Asian Development Bank spoke about the procedural obstructions that lawyers can use. Paragraph 293 of its report states:
"Dilatory defenses to slow the court process were identified in several of the countries. These included, in Pakistan for example, denying notice was received, filing unnecessary applications, and calling for adjournments because lawyers are not available, witnesses would not be properly notified, or government agencies (and others) have not produced documents. These defenses could delay by many months. India … reported similar tactics."
The former Chief Justice of India said that the problem is not necessarily with the procedures, but how they are operated. He suggested that judges had to be much tougher in getting a grip on cases and dealing with obstructive tactics by lawyers.
In opening debate, my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the problem of corruption. Unfortunately, one comes across petty corruption among court registry staff, for example, which means that files go missing and dates for court hearings do not eventuate.
The world community has an enormous issue to address. There are huge inequalities, poverty and the mortality associated with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said, there is enormous concern in this country. I, too, participated in the back-to-school day and found that the children at Bramford primary school regard this issue as a real problem. It is a moral problem that we must address. This is a matter not simply of money being spent on these important issues, but of ensuring that the institutions are right too.
4.41 pm
Mr. Thomas: With the leave of the House, this has been an excellent debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who is representing his party for the first time at the Dispatch Box, so to speak. Similarly, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member

163WH
for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston). I will try to do justice to their contributions by picking up on a number of specific questions.
I should like to thank hon. Members who have praised officials working for the Department for International Development. I join them in highlighting and praising my officials, particularly those who work in difficult environments, such as those officers in Nepal and Afghanistan whose security can, on occasions, be under threat. We owe them a debt of gratitude for their work. Similarly, I want to place on record my recognition of the considerable quality of work that is done by many NGOs operating in the region. We have heard a number of examples of the excellent work that they do.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire referred to the ongoing debate about whether more money should be put through NGOs or government institutions. I think that it should go through government institutions. There is a case for putting more money through NGOs, but one needs to recognise that although NGOs can help in particular areas and help particular groups of people, they never have the reach of government machinery. A key role for the development community is to strengthen the capacity of Governments to help all their citizens in their countries and deal with poverty in that way.
One way in which we work with Governments is to address the issue of corruption and the effectiveness of institutions. That is brought most starkly into relief in Afghanistan, where after 25 years of internal conflict, government by the end of the Taliban regime was completely ineffective. A key job of the international community and the Transitional Administration is to develop the capacity of government, not only in Kabul but in the regions, so that basic services can be provided. NGOs are helping to bridge the gap, but they cannot plug it. In the end, it is only government that can deliver services to all the people. That is why we seek to work through Governments, while also recognising the contribution that NGOs can make. That is a telling point in the light of the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North on institution building in developing countries being a necessary part of the work DFID does and should continue to do.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire alluded to work by UNESCO, highlighting that Asia has the largest number of children who are excluded from access to primary school education. In January, I took some delight in being able to go to Bangladesh to announce a UK commitment of £100 million to support the primary education development programme of the Government of Bangladesh. That will help to ensure that over the next six years 17 million more children each year will have access to the kind of quality education that we take for granted.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire and other hon. Members alluded to the threat of HIV/AIDS in Asia. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North talked about her visit to West Bengal with other members of a Labour Friends of India delegation, and she will be pleased to learn that we are giving £123 million to support the national AIDS control
164WH
organisation in India to develop effective responses in the fight against HIV/AIDS. I also went to West Bengal, where I visited a clinic in a brothel in the Sonagachi slum. In discussions with a number of people receiving care and support at the clinic, I learned of the huge amount of stigma and discrimination that surrounds HIV/AIDS. That problem is as big in Asia as it is in Africa. I pay tribute to those who work in the clinic for what they are doing for the sex workers in that brothel by helping to get out information on how to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. Prevention work must be an essential part of our continuing fight against HIV/AIDS. Although I cannot give my hon. Friend details about what will be in our strategy on HIV/AIDS, I hope that I have given her a reasonably big clue that prevention is of continuing importance.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire rightly highlighted the importance of political leadership in the response to HIV/AIDS. He paid tribute to President Museveni of Uganda. Other places where political leadership has made a difference include Senegal and Brazil. Scaling up the response of politicians in south Asia and working with them to deliver an effective response in the fight against HIV/AIDS must be a continuing priority for the Department.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked whether I could announce new funding for the global fund. I think he asked that with his tongue slightly in his cheek because he knows that I cannot do that yet. However, I will take that on board in our consultations and as we prepare our strategy. I know that the hon. Gentleman would want me to point out that we have increased sevenfold our funding for HIV/AIDS in general terms throughout the developing world since we came to power in 1997, but I accept that we need to do more. That is why we are putting together the HIV/AIDS strategy.
The Member for South-West Bedfordshire asked about Burma and the issue of internally displaced people. As he rightly said, we have not so far supported programmes providing for internally displaced people across the Thai-Burma border, as much as anything else because we do not have access to the areas in which such people live and we are not able to assess their need, nor monitor and evaluate the use of funds. However, we are reviewing our policy on cross-border assistance as part of the overall review of what we are doing in that part of the world. I will consider the point that the hon. Gentleman made in that light.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the work of the International Dalit Solidarity Network. I join him in praising its work and I look forward to addressing its annual conference in June. Caste, and social exclusion more generally, is part of our dialogue with Governments in the region. We look to support networks for the socially excluded, including the International Dalit Solidarity Network.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about security in Afghanistan. Since the debate in January, further forces have been committed to increase the sense of security in Afghanistan. There are 12 provincial reconstruction teams in place, a further six are planned and the UK is considering sending a second provisional reconstruction team. I do not wish to imply that such action will resolve the security issue. The continuing attacks on and recent murders of aid

165WH
workers have brought graphically into relief the threat that faces not only our soldiers in Afghanistan, but those working in the development community. However, the roll-out of the provincial reconstruction team process and our significant support to help the development of an Afghan army and police force will, in time, bring the security benefits that we all want to see.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the split between the assistance given to middle-income countries and low-income countries. I come back to remarks I made at the beginning, which were picked up by other hon. Members: if we are to achieve the millennium development goals, we have to achieve a doubling of international aid levels from $50 billion to $100 billion. In that context, we need to aid both middle-income and low-income countries. However, when like is compared with like, the middle-income countries receive proportionally more aid than low-income countries. That is one of the reasons why we have decided to put 90 per cent. of our aid resources into low-income countries. That is the right decision.
Tom Brake: The Minister seems to have moved on from Afghanistan and HIV/AIDS. Will he respond to the points on the prevalence of HIV/AIDS and on whether, given the security situation, it is impossible to get any more information on what the level of that prevalence might be?
Mr. Thomas: That links back to institution building and improving the capacity of organisations in Afghanistan. It is clear that the data in Afghanistan are not brilliant. We are giving support to the Afghan transitional authority to help it develop data systems to track not only HIV/AIDS prevalence, but a range of other issues. HIV/AIDS is a potential threat to the Afghan people. The prevalence is relatively small at the moment compared with other countries in the region, but we cannot be complacent about that at all.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon raised the issue of trade. He again trotted out his party's commitment to the idea of an advocacy fund. I would gently point out that we have been providing support to developing countries to help them negotiate effectively in an international arena, such as the World Trade Organisation, since 1998. To give just one example, in Pakistan we have provided £1 million to the Ministry of Commerce to enable it to participate and to prepare for the WTO negotiations, to provide training for officials and non-governmental stakeholders, to provide assistance for research in key policy areas and for the developing dialogue between the public sector and business civil society in those areas.
Andrew Selous: Does the Minister not agree that at the previous WTO trade round talks at Cancun many countries from the developing world were not properly represented and could not afford the sort of legal and financial support that other hon. Members have talked about? The commitment that was mentioned is an additional one from my party to do something about those particular countries.
Mr. Thomas: We have provided significant funding to a range of countries that are participating in the WTO
166WH
negotiations. I gave the example of Pakistan, but we have also provided assistance to a number of non-governmental organisations that are being used by developing countries for the same purposes—for research, to help prepare negotiating papers and so on. We must continue to keep in view what more we need to do to support those countries and help them prepare for other negotiations.
One of the most positive things that occurred in the Cancun talks was that the voice of developing countries was heard. Clearly, one would have wished for a successful conclusion to those negotiations and I regret that that did not occur. In the UK we are doing everything that we can to get those talks back on track. The voice of developing countries, organisations such as the G20 and the least developed country bloc came across clearly. There are definite signs of them getting organised and having strong and effective positions in those talks. I welcome that process.
Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal are all members of the WTO. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon rightly pointed out, implementing many of the agreements that have already been included across the WTO, such as trade-related aspects of the intellectual property rights agreement, will be a significant challenge for those countries. Part of the assistance that we need to provide is to help their Governments have the capacity to implement international trade rules. For example, in India we are providing £5.5 million to help the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, in tandem with the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, do exactly that. That is another example of the support that we are providing in those areas.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked me about conflict issues—
Andrew Selous: Before the Minister leaves the issue of trade, will he comment on the examples that I gave of India's setting up tariffs as far as Nepalese cooking oil and Sri Lankan tea are concerned? Does he agree that it would be a worrying precedent were it to spread within south Asia and other developing regions and were protectionism and tariffs to grow up between developing countries?
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In terms of tariffs and subsidies, not only are there significant north-south issues, to which a number of hon. Members have alluded, but there are significant south-south issues. The examples that he referred to are an illustration of that. Just as we must address the subsidies and tariffs of the European Union and of America, to give two well-known and well-considered examples, developing countries equally need to consider how they can reduce tariffs between each other, the better to generate trade across the areas.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked me about the issue of conflict. I hope he will be pleased to know that we are working to achieve a UN convention on small arms and light weapons, as one tool in the work to reduce the number of those weapons available and the scope for conflict that they provide. We are also providing funding through the global conflict prevention pool to a series of countries to help to reduce the prevalence of small arms and light weapons.

167WH
The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically about Nepal and the gift of helicopters and short take-off and landing aircraft to that country. Helicopters were given last year. They are not being used for offensive purposes. Similarly, the STOLs will not have an offensive capability. A minute has been laid before Parliament on the STOLs and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, he has a variety of ways to explore the issue further if he wishes to do so.
On the issue of resources, I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, who chairs the all-party group on heavily indebted poor countries. We strongly support the continuing process of full implementation in respect of HIPC. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have also written off 100 per cent. of our bilateral debts to HIPC countries. On giving further debt relief to HIPC countries, we must recognise that there is a danger of just recycling moneys between countries. If we were to see the write-off of debts to institutions, such as the World Bank and other international financial organisations, it would prevent money from being available for other poor countries. We need to keep the issue under close review and if further funding becomes available, perhaps through the international finance facility, my hon. Friend's argument would have particular strength.
Ms Drown: Many of the HIPC countries will not achieve millennium development goals without further help. Lots of work is done to show that debt relief is more effective than aid. If we really want those countries to achieve the millennium development goals, which I know the Government want them to, it is clear, as the World Bank itself said, that more debt relief is needed. I hope that the Government will concentrate on that and deliver sufficient debt relief and aid to ensure that those countries can achieve the millennium development goals.
Mr. Thomas: We keep the issue of debt relief under close review in all the countries that we work in. My hon. Friend will be aware that on occasion we have pushed for further topping-up assistance, for example, to help to ensure that debt sustainability can be achieved for the poorest countries. We will continue to have a dialogue about these issues.
My hon. Friend was supported by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North and the hon. Member for Carshalton and
168WH
Wallington, in raising the issue of progress towards the 0.7 per cent. target. What came across in the debate is the considerable passion of many Members for progress towards that target. The Government remain committed to achieving the 0.7 target and, in making progress from 0.26 per cent. to 0.4 per cent., we are showing evidence of our commitment. As my hon. Friend rightly says, a comprehensive spending review process is under way.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon did a service to the House by gently highlighting the inconsistency in the spending commitments that have been made by Her Majesty's Official Opposition. It is extremely disappointing that they should have pledged to freeze development spending if they come to power, because that would mean a cut in real terms in our international aid. Given the scale of challenges with regard to poverty and HIV/AIDS in particular, that is a disturbing decision.
Andrew Selous: I respect the Minister as an honest and decent Minister, and I am therefore sure that he would not want to mislead the House or anyone else about my party's position. I stated our position earlier but, for the record, will restate it. We have said that, other than in health and education where we have a clear commitment to increase spending, in all areas we intend to keep spending broadly equal. However, we are looking to make savings in some areas which may be released to other areas. We have not identified any specific areas for cuts. The Minister has therefore misrepresented our position.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has made a distinction that did not need to be made. I said that his party's position amounts to a cut in real terms and that that is disappointing. In his intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, he referred to a position statement that he expects his party to make sometime in the autumn. I shall look at that statement with great interest.
This has been a good debate on the challenges facing south Asia and the need for more progress in achieving the millennium development goals. I welcome the interest of so many hon. Members in this important issue and look forward to continuing to work with them on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Fraudulent Compensation Claims
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affiairs what procedures exist to prosecute fraudulent farmers who make claims for compensation from the European Union for sheep destroyed during the foot and mouth crisis. [172488]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: Ordinarily the Investigation Branch of DEFRA would investigate such an allegation and pass the evidence gathered to the Criminal Advisory and Prosecution Division of DEFRA. Prosecution lawyers in that Division would review the evidence and if there were a realistic prospect of conviction and it were also in the public interest to prosecute DEFRA would commence criminal proceedings in the criminal courts.

  In the event of a conviction the prosecution would seek a compensation and/or confiscation order to compensate the loser for the financial loss and deprive the convicted person of the benefit from the offences proved.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies she has undertaken to evaluate the risk of additional transportation of hazardous waste as a result of the closure of hazardous waste treatment centres. [168373]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government recognise that with the expected reduction in the number of landfill sites taking hazardous waste from July 2004, hazardous waste could travel further in the short term. Nevertheless, it is recognised that even under the present system significant amounts of special waste travel across the country. In 2002, 42 per cent. of hazardous waste crossed a regional boundary. Government have not commissioned any specific studies to evaluate the forthcoming changes on this specific issue. Clearly in the longer term, the implementation of the Landfill Directive requirements will see an increase in treatment costs, which in turn will provide a greater incentive for hazardous waste minimisation and the use of more sustainable treatment technologies.

  British Wildlife
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the health of Britain's wild animals. [169863]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The broad stewardship of wildlife and specific policies on conservation and biodiversity are managed as part of Government's broader remit for the 472W
  environment. In addition, through the UK Veterinary Surveillance Strategy launched last year, we will develop a better overview and understanding of the health of the health of Britain's wildlife in relation to its impact on public health and other animals.

  Government, through its developing Animal Health and Welfare Strategy, recognises that there are a number of diseases of livestock where wildlife may act as a reservoir or a source of infection. Government has a role in science, research, intervention in some specific cases, and ensuring advice is available.

  The Veterinary Surveillance Strategy provides a framework for ensuring the potential risks posed by wildlife to public health (through zoonotic disease) or to farmed livestock (for example from migrating birds) are effectively identified and managed. The Strategy will also cover the impact of disease control policies for farmed livestock on wildlife and certain welfare issues involving the protection from cruelty.

  Where naturally occurring disease affecting animals in the wild occurs, Government have a role to ensure appropriate action is taken to monitor and manage the situation in accordance with the principles of the animal health and welfare strategy.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 25 March with regard to Jenny Edwards; [172263]

  (2) when she will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 25 March, with regard to Jenny Edwards. [170703]

  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied on 10 May.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 5 April with regard to Mr. Ian Boddison. [172264]

  Alun Michael
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 8 May.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the production of her Department's latest annual report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [171140]

  Alun Michael
  The DEFRA Departmental Report 2004 cost Defra £66,070. This cost was for designing, typesetting and proofing of the report.

  The Stationary Office Limited handled the printing of the document. They bore the full cost of printing and publishing of the document.
  473W
  DEFRA does not have information on how many copies were printed and sold. The Stationary Office is not obliged to give us this information, and so soon after the Reports publication it does not yet have details of the number of reports sold. However they have been able to provide us with the numbers for the 2003 report, where they issued 514 copies.

  DEFRA has purchased and distributed 600 copies of the 2004 Report for its own use. The bulk of these have been made available to the Senior Civil Service and other staff on request. In addition copies were sent to Parliament and the Forestry Commission.

  The report is also freely available on the Department's intranet, which all staff can access. It is also available on DEFRA's website at: http://www. defra.gov.uk/corporate/deprep/default.htm.

  Fisheries
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 861W, on fisheries, which member states have (a) an historic entitlement and (b) an entitlement without an historic track record to fish within the UK six to 12 miles zone; and whether those entitlements are transferable to any fishing vessel from that nation state. [172459]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  France, Belgium, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands have a historical entitlement to fish in the UK six to 12 mile zone. No other member states have access to this zone.

  Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-regional Strategy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans(a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency have for new water and sewerage infrastructure to serve the Aylesbury area in the context of the draft Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-regional strategy; and what the (i) time scale for and (ii) cost of such works will be. [172162]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that all the growth areas are equipped with the water and sewerage services and infrastructure necessary to guarantee the long-term health of these communities. To achieve this, we recognise the importance of involving the respective water undertakers and environmental regulators at an early stage in the development of proposals.

  The Environment Agency has previously (June 2003) provided companies with draft breakdowns of the indicative housing numbers by sub-region and company area, to assist in draft Water Resource Plans work. But given the varying and quickly evolving extent of information available, the Water Resources Planning Guideline (issued by the Environment Agency to companies on how they should produce their water resources plans) is not prescriptive about how companies should take account of the sustainable communities plan. However, the Environment Agency report
  474W
  "Securing water supply" (November 2003) states that it will work with companies to understand the implications and that:
  'Where appropriate companies should ensure that they have included the latest proposals in the sustainable communities initiative in their plans'.

  The Environment Agency expects the water companies supplying the Milton Keynes/South Midlands area to provide their best available estimates of the impacts of the sustainable communities programme on their supply demand balance contained in their water resources plans. However, it is recognised that the next periodic review will have access to more definitive numbers.

  Woodcraft Folk
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether any of the Department's(a) present and (b) previous staff are members of the Friends of the Woodcraft Folk. [170753]

  Alun Michael
  There are no records of staff being members of the Friends of the Woodcraft Folk. Staff are not required to register their private interests, such as membership of clubs or societies, unless these bring them into direct conflict with their official duties. In these cases, staff must declare their interest to senior managers, who will determine how best to proceed on a case-by-case basis.

  DEFRA's staff are subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Code. This requires them to act with integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity in carrying out their duties and to conduct themselves in such a way as to deserve and retain the confidence of Ministers.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions have been held between her officials and Chichester district council about the Woodcraft Folk. [170755]

  Alun Michael
  The only discussions I am aware of relate to a campsite operated by the Woodcraft Folk in Lurgashall for which an approach was made for a camping exemption certificate. DEFRA has responsibility for camping exemption certificates under section 296 of the Public Health Act 1936. There were objections to the application and correspondence was received from the constituency MP and from MPs representing users of the campsite.

  My officials held a meeting with members of the Woodcraft Folk, Chichester district council and Lurgashall parish council on 9 June 2003 to discuss the Woodcraft Folk's application for a camping exemption certificate.

  The discussions demonstrated that there were differences of view regarding past usage of the site so I agreed to DEFRA's commissioning an independent mediator to facilitate a further discussion between the Woodcraft Folk and the two councils on 3 and 4 February 2004. In the light of the mediator's report, I agreed to issue a camping exemption certificate to the Woodcraft Folk for one year, subject to further discussion between the parties to resolve outstanding issues.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Early Retirement
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Leader of the House how many employees in his Office took early retirement, and at what total cost, in the last financial year. [172186]

  Mr. Hain
  In the last financial year no staff in my office have taken early retirement.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the United States Administration, and with whom, on the cases of abuse that have taken place against Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [173075]

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes to the(a) political and (b) military strategy in Iraq are being considered by the (i) UK Government and (ii) US Administration as a consequence of the International Committee for the Red Cross report in February 2004. [173219]

  The Prime Minister
  Both President Bush and I have made clear that any abuse of human rights, torture or maltreatment of civilians in Iraq is wholly unacceptable and all cases will be dealt with.

TREASURY

  Children's Fund
  Tim Loughton
  To ask The Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on his intentions for future funding for the children's fund. [172723]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement that the children's fund will be continued to 2008 to allow a smooth transition to new children's trusts, which will be focused on preventative work and developed and delivered with the full engagement of the voluntary sector.

  Tax Burden
  Mr. Jack
  To ask The Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on the distributional impact of the tax burden projections contained in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. [172724]

  Ruth Kelly
  The tax projections are based on macroeconomic assumptions set out in the Budget 2004 report. Estimating the distributional impact would require many more assumptions, which are unnecessary for our projections.

  World Debt
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask The Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he held with international Finance Ministers on tackling world debt at the spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank. [172725]
  476W
  John Healey
  At the spring meetings of the IMF and World Bank, the Chancellor had various discussions with Finance Ministers. In addition to continuing to support countries in making progress through the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, it was recognised that there was an urgent need to support countries as they emerge from conflict and progress towards participation in the initiative.

  It was also recognised that it was important to take forward work on the debt sustainability framework that the IMF and World Bank have proposed, in order to support long-term debt sustainability for poor countries.

  However, debt relief alone is not sufficient. All HIPC countries will need additional aid to meet the millennium development goals (MDGS). That is why the UK's proposal for an international finance facility is so important. It can provide the much-needed substantial increase in resources—in the form of grants, concessional loans, or further debt relief—needed to attain the MDGS.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what preparations he is making for discussions at the forthcoming meeting of the G7 Finance Ministers on tackling world debt. [172732]

  John Healey
  At the meeting of the G7 Finance Ministers, the Chancellor will be calling for the full implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative, including additional relief to be provided to countries that have suffered economic shocks, in a full and timely manner. The Chancellor will also be calling for the HIPC initiative to be extended to ensure that eligible countries—many of which are in the process of exiting from conflict—are able to benefit from debt relief.

  However, debt relief alone is not sufficient. All HIPC countries will need additional aid to meet the millennium development goals (MDGS.) The Chancellor will press the UK's proposal for an international finance facility, demonstrating that it can provide the much-needed substantial increase in aid—in the form of grants, concessional loans, or further debt relief—needed to attain the MDGS.

  International Finance Facility
  16. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with EU partners since 1 April regarding the international finance facility. [172726]

  John Healey
  The IFF proposal was discussed at the 8 April conference on Financing for Development which the Chancellor co-hosted with French Finance Minister Sarkozy, attended by representatives from over 55 countries including many of our EU partners. At the conference France reiterated its strong support for the initiative. We continue to build on this support with other EU countries in other fora.

  17. Ross Cranston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on the international finance facility as a result of spring meetings with the IMF and World Bank. [172727]
  477W
  John Healey
  Good progress has been made in taking forward the IFF proposal at the Spring Meetings with a number of countries expressing their support. Following the developing country statement at the 8 April conference, both the G24 and African Governors endorsed the IFF and called on donors to implement the proposal. The World Bank's interim paper on Financing Modalities found that the IFF is technically feasible and concluded that frontloading of aid holds considerable attractions. Communiqués looked forward to reviewing the on-going joint World Bank and IMF work on aid effectiveness, absorptive capacity and, results-based measurement mechanisms, such as an IFF, at the Annual Meetings in September 2004.

  House Prices
  19. Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic instruments are available to him to moderate the rise in house prices. [172730]

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

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

  As recommended in the Barker Review, the Government are implementing a programme of change to the planning system and to the delivery of development, consulting with stakeholders as necessary. The Government accept the case for releasing more resources to boost housing supply, improve affordability and lock in macro-economic stability, and will make a start in the forthcoming Spending Review.

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

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning his proposed increase in fuel duty. [172731]

  John Healey
  Treasury Ministers receive a wide range of representations about all areas of taxation policy, both in the run-up to and after the Chancellor's annual Budget statement.

  Financial Services Authority
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) consultation papers and (b) other documents issued by the Financial Services Authority in each of the last five years, broken down by number of pages. [172901]
  478W
  Ruth Kelly
  The matters raised in this question are the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), whose day-to-day operations are independent from Government control and influence. The Chairman of the FSA has offered to write to the hon. Member shortly, addressing the matters raised. Every FSA consultation paper can be found by year of publication on the FSA's website, together with other FSA documents.

  Insurance Mediation Directive
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on implementation of the EU Insurance Mediation Directive(a) in this country and (b) elsewhere in the EU; [172839]

  (2) what new regulations will be required on insurance brokers in order for them to meet Financial Services Authority guidelines for the introduction of the Insurance Mediation Directive; [172938]

  (3) if he will reduce the fee structure for the Insurance Mediation Directive; [172840]

  (4) on what date the Financial Services Authority required authorisation of brokers under the Insurance Mediation Directive and whether this is common to all EU countries; [172937]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the impact on the number of insurance brokers of the introduction of the Insurance Mediation Directive. [172939]

  Ruth Kelly
  The UK has the largest insurance industry in Europe. Implementing the IMD is a key step in completing the single market in financial services, and will enhance consumer protection in an important sector of financial business. The UK market for selling insurance is competitive with many players giving customers wide choice, and this will continue in the new regime. Already thousands of firms have applied to the FSA for authorisation for the new regime.

  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 requires the FSA to publish a cost-benefit analysis of its proposed rules and guidance. The FSA has published cost benefit analysis in each of its consultation papers, which includes analysis of the market impact on firms. These state that regulation might result in some reduction in the number of firms selling insurance. In particular they stated that some businesses for whom selling insurance was a marginal activity may withdraw from the market once subject to statutory regulation. However there will be thousands of firms in the market providing consumers with a wide choice. The FSA have estimated that around 20,000 new firms will come into regulation as a result of mortgage and general insurance regulation and the vast majority of these will be involved in general insurance business.

  The Government have consulted widely on the regulatory regime, publishing a public consultation document including draft regulations and a draft regulatory impact assessment in October 2002. Following analysis of the responses to the consultation, Parliament approved legislation on 24 June 2003. The activities to be regulated are: introducing, proposing or carrying out other work preparatory to the conclusion of contracts of insurance; assisting in the administration

  479W
  and performance of such contracts, in particular in the event of a claim; and concluding contracts of insurance. In drawing up its rules for insurance mediation, the FSA has carried out extensive public consultation on its rules. Further information is available from the FSA's website, www.fsa.gov.uk.

  FSA regulation of insurance brokers will commence from 14 January 2005. This date is two years from the publication of the directive in the Official Journal of the European Communities. All member states have to implement the directive by this dare.

  In implementing the directive the Government and the FSA have worked closely with the industry to design a regulatory regime that takes account of market practice, and does not load the industry and ultimately the consumer with unnecessary costs. Both the Government and the FSA have been concerned to minimise the impact on smaller firms and sole traders.

  The fees charged are a matter for the FSA. Application fees for insurance intermediaries have been set following consultation with the industry and are based on the volume of business undertaken. Up to 50 per cent, discount is offered for an early application together with further discount if the application is made electronically. Smaller intermediaries seeking authorisation could pay a fee of only £500. If a firm is already authorised by the FSA for other regulated activities, the application fee it would pay for IMD activities is halved. The periodic annual fee which will be charged by the FSA for on-going supervision of authorised intermediaries following the commencement of regulation has not yet been set and will be the subject of a forthcoming consultation this summer.

  Monitoring the implementation of the IMD across the EU is a matter for the Commission. The UK has focused its efforts on the implementation of the IMD in the UK market. We do however have informal working level contacts with other member states.

  Labour Statistics (Bootle)
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in tourism-related jobs in Bootle on the latest date for which figures are available. [173145]

  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. Joe Benton, dated 13 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about tourism-related jobs in Bootle. I am replying in his absence. (173145)

  The latest available data, from the 2002 Annual Business Inquiry, shows that the total number of jobs in tourism related industries in Bootle Parliamentary Constituency was 1,700. This total is obtained by combining figures for those working in the following industries, as identified by Standard Industrial Classification 2003:

  hotels

  restaurants

  bars

  activities of travel agencies

  480W

  libraries, archives, museums etc.

  sporting activities

  other recreational activities.

  Military Expenditure
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers have sought to divert or withhold the proportion of their contribution going to military expenditure in the last three years. [167871]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations entitled 'peace tax returns' have been received by the Treasury. [167872]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have no central record of the number of representations received entitled 'peace tax returns'.

  National Insurance
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the current unneeded surplus is in the national insurance fund. [172728]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to table two on page six of the report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2004 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2004 (CM6117).

  Any surplus contributions are used to buy gilts on behalf of the fund.

  Norwich Union
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Association of British Insurers in the last 12 months in relation to the service provided by Norwich Union to its policy holders. [173223]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals as part of the process of policy development and analysis. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings, as provided for under Exemption 7(b) of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information". Treasury meetings are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code, as appropriate.

  Pensions
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the cost would be to the Exchequer under its proposed reform of pension taxation of imposing no annual limit on pension savings in the year 2006–07 and each of the subsequent three years. [172126]

  Ruth Kelly
  The annual allowance protects against large payments being made into a tax privileged pension scheme that might then be removed from the scheme without the imposition of tax. So there would therefore
  481W
  be a cost attached to having no annual allowance under the proposed simplified pension regime—even if the lifetime allowance were retained.

  The size of this cost depends upon behavioural effects and any estimate of cost would inevitably be very broad-brush. However, given the potential additional pension savings from those in the top 1 per cent. of the earnings distribution, plus the possibility of the additional scope for tax avoidance or evasion, the cost to the Exchequer could be up to several hundred million pounds over this period.

  Stability and Growth Pact
  Mr. David
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made in discussions at a European level about the stability and growth pact. [172729]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government continue to emphasise the need for a prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact, taking into account the economic cycle, sustainability and the important role of public investment.

  The Government published alongside Budget 2004 a discussion paper comparing our British fiscal framework with the rules of the European Union's stability and growth pact, examining the principles, based on our experience, which should guide the evolution of fiscal policy.

  Statistics (Stockton, South)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in Stockton South have benefited from the 100 per cent. tax exemption for the purchase of computer and internet equipment. [171467]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) on 5 May 2004,Official Report, column 1505W.

  VAT
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce VAT on devices which improve safety in the home. [171886]

  John Healey
  Member states are permitted only to introduce reduced rates of VAT from the prescribed list of goods and services as set out in Annex H of the EC Sixth VAT Directive. There is no general provision in Annex H for devices which improve safety in the home.

  But Annex H does allow a reduced rate for certain works to housing and the Government have used this to introduce a reduced rate of VAT for the grant-funded installation of certain security measures (for example window and door-locks and smoke alarms), when installed at the same time as energy saving materials or central heating systems also paid for by a qualifying grant. Qualifying grants are targeted at people aged 60 or over and those receiving specified benefits, so the related reduced rate is similarly well targeted at those who need help most.
  482W
  The UK's existing zero rates also cover a number of measures that contribute to safety in the home, such as burglar alarms and security lights, but only if they are installed in new homes at the time of construction.

  A review of the reduced rate provisions is currently under way in Europe and the Government have made clear in these negotiations that we will not agree to the removal of any of our zero and reduced rate VAT derogations.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Historical Papers
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether all the documents relating to the murder of Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson MP in 1922 are now in the public domain; and if he will make a statement. [170548]

  Mr. Leslie
  Records kept by several Government Departments relating to the murder of Field Marshall Sir Henry Wilson in London in June 1922 are available for public inspection in the National Archives. A search of the National Archives' electronic catalogue did not reveal any documents unavailable for public inspection.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether all official documents relating to Rudolf Hess are now in the public domain; and if he will make a statement. [170549]

  Mr. Leslie
  A search of the National Archives' electronic catalogue provides details of records relating to the career of Rudolf Hess originating from several Government Departments and now kept at Kew. All of this material appears to be available for public consultation. Since Mr. Hess did not die until 1987, it is quite possible that more material relating to him is still held in Government Departments, in accordance with the 30-year rule and other provisions of the Public Records Acts.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs which documents relating to the late Duke of Windsor are withheld from public inspection in the Public Records Office, broken down by category; and if he will make a statement. [170541]

  Mr. Leslie
  Many public records relating to the Duke of Windsor, including some concerning his career after the Abdication in December 1936, were made available to the public for the first time on 30 January 2003. Further information about these and other records relating to the Duke kept at the National Archives can be obtained from its electronic catalogue on the internet at http://catalogue.pro.gov.uk. A search of the catalogue has not revealed any reference to the Duke's career which is not available for public consultation.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether all the documents relating to the death of the late Duke of Kent in 1942, with particular reference to
  483W
  the itinerary of his final projected journey, are now in the public domain and available for inspection; and if he will make a statement. [170544]

  Mr. Leslie
  The National Archives holds some correspondence and papers relating to the Duke of Kent's fatal air crash in Caithness in August 1942, mainly among the Air Ministry records. It is not aware of any significant body of material concerning this matter in other public archives.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs which documents referring to personalities and events relating to the conflict in Ireland between 1919 and 1923 are withheld from inspection at the Public Records Office; and if he will make a statement. [170545]

  Mr. Leslie
  There is a considerable amount of material relating to the conflict in Ireland during this period, mainly but not exclusively among the historical records of the Cabinet Office, the War Office, the Colonial Office and the Home Office, now kept at the National Archives. It is not possible to supply a definitive answer concerning the availability of all this material without incurring disproportionate cost, but initial searches in the National Archives' electronic catalogue indicate that only a very few of the relevant files are not now open to public inspection.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs which documents relating to the Irish plenipotentiaries who negotiated the Treaty of 1921 with the United Kingdom Government are withheld from pubic inspection in the Public Records Office; and if he will make a statement. [170546]

  Mr. Leslie
  There is a full official record of the negotiations between the British Government and the Irish plenipotentiaries, which resulted in the Treaty of 6 December 1921, among the Cabinet Office records now kept at the National Archives, in particular series CAB 21, CAB 24, CAB 27 and CAB 43. These records are open for public consultation.

  The Royal Irish Constabulary's file on Michael Collins, one of the leading plenipotentiaries, covering the period 1916–1920, is also publicly available (reference: CO 904/196).

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs which documents that relate to Anthony Blunt are withheld from public inspection in the Public Record Office, broken down by category; and if he will make a statement. [170547]

  Mr. Leslie
  An initial search of the electronic catalogue relating to public records kept by the National Archives does not reveal any records relating to Anthony Blunt which are not open to public inspection. However, since he remained a prominent public figure until his death in 1983, it is quite possible that some material relating to him held by Government Departments has yet to be transferred to the National Archives, in accordance with the 30-year rule and other provisions of the Public Records Acts.

  British-Irish Council
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the role of the British-Irish Council is in monitoring and co-ordinating the implementation of the provisions of the Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. [168815]

  Mr. Lammy
  The British-Irish Council does not have a role in monitoring and co-ordinating the implementation of the provision of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. This is a matter for the Council of Europe and each of the Charter's ratified signatories. (Out of the BIC Members, only the UK and Ireland are members of the Council of Europe, and the UK is the only ratified signatory to the Charter.)

  The British-Irish Council however has a sectoral working group looking at Indigenous, Minority and Lesser-Used Languages, led by the Welsh Assembly Government. The work of the BIC in this area will complement current UK initiatives in respect of the Charter.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 25 March with regard to Mr. Martin Rathfelder. [172259]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor wrote to the right hon. Member on 4 May in response to his letter of 25 March.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the dispute with the Bar over legal aid in criminal trials. [169800]

  Mr. Lammy
  Very high cost criminal cases (VHCCCs) represent around 1 per cent. of all Crown court cases but take up (currently) around 51 per cent. of Crown court expenditure (£250–300 million). Over the last three years the percentage increase in the cost of the most expensive 1,000 criminal cases in each year has been 14 per cent. The new contracting scheme, which now applies to all these cases, introduces greater control and works on the basis of fixed rates for both barristers and solicitors. Cases are paid for as each stage is completed. That is an advantage from the lawyer's point of view over the former system where cases are on average paid two years after their start.

  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and I are concerned about the refusal by barristers to take on some very high cost criminal cases (VHCCCs) under the contracting regime which now applies to all cases. We have therefore set up a Review Committee with the Bar and Law Society to examine the VHCCC regime and report by 28 May 2004. The committee also includes the Legal Services Commission, the Treasury and the Crown Prosecution Service. I am pleased to note that

  485W
  the Chairman of the Bar has written to his members to help ensure that the essential public interest priorities are met pending the outcome of the review.

  The VHCCC Review Committee met for the first time on 26 April, under the chairmanship of Ian Magee CB (Second Permanent Secretary at the Department of Constitutional Affairs, and Chief Executive, Operations with responsibility for legal aid). There was a useful exchange of views between the Bar, the Law Society, my Department and the Crown Prosecution Service and a programme of rapid work has been agreed, which should enable a full report to be prepared by 28 May.

  The Review Committee's terms of reference are:
  "To examine the workings so far of the very high cost criminal case regime and to make recommendations on how its procedures and structures might be improved to provide a better service to clients and a better system for those working within it.

  The Review should consider:
  the management and bureaucracy of the Scheme, including the balance between cost management and professional judgment;
  whether there are opportunities to rebalance payments in the scheme to address anomalies;
  the validity of the categories;
  whether there would be advantage in extending the upper threshold of the graduated fee scheme (i.e. whether the graduated

  The Review is to report on 28 May, unless parties agree to extend.
  There is no commitment on the part of the Government to fund any measures, which would have the effect of increasing overall legal aid expenditure. But if the length of cases reduces overall, this may be reflected in increased rates."

  Legal Aid (NHS Cases)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) patients and (b) patients' families have received legal aid support for disputes with NHS trusts in the last five years. [166692]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is not directly available. The Legal Services Commission's computer systems do not record the status of the person receiving legal aid nor do they indicate who the dispute is against. However, the Commission is able to provide figures for the number of funding certificates where the Commission has granted Legal Representation for actual or potential clinical negligence proceedings. The figures are not necessarily reflective of the number of individuals involved:

  Number

  1998–99

  7,867

  1999–2000

  7,375

  2000–01

  7,329

  2001–02

  7,309

  2002–03

  6,307

  The Commission has figures for the pre-representation legal advice and assistance stage only from April 2001. These are as follows—again the figures are not necessarily reflective of the number of individuals involved:
  486W

  Number

  2000–01

  4,550

  2001–02

  4,903

  2002–03

  4,554

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Solicitor-General which areas will be covered by the new anti-social behaviour prosecutors; and what mechanisms are in place for spreading best practice in combating antisocial behaviour. [172930]

  The Solicitor-General
  The twelve Areas covered by the new anti-social behaviour prosecutors are: Northumbria, Lancashire, South Yorkshire, Merseyside, Manchester, West Mercia, Birmingham, South Wales, Avon and Somerset, Sussex, Kent and London (North Sector).

  The specialist prosecutors will be responsible for prosecuting anti-social behaviour cases and seeking orders on conviction.

  Best practice is shared on a regular basis via a central project team and a dedicated Crown Prosecution Service intranet bulletin board. The expert prosecutors will be holding regular meetings with the Attorney General where they will circulate local good practice and feed back practitioner impact.

  Those CPS Areas not included in the scope of the current project have now appointed lead anti-social behaviour prosecutors.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Regional Tourism
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding for tourism has been made available to each regional development agency (RDA) in the current year; and how much of this funding each RDA passed on(a) to its regional tourist board, (b) to local authorities, (c) to local and regional businesses and (d) for use for marketing. [172389]

  Mr. Caborn
  In 2004–05, the RDAs will receive £3.6 million specifically for tourism as follows:

  Amount (£)

  Advantage West Midlands

  252,000

  East of England Development Agency

  543,000

  East Midlands Development Agency

  252,000

  North West Development Agency

  713,000

  One North East

  333,000

  South East Development Agency

  744,000

  South West Regional Development Agency

  403,000

  Yorkshire Forward

  360,000

  This money is ring-fenced for the Regional Tourist Boards until the end of 2005–06. Those regions which no longer work with an RTB have sought the Department's approval to pass the money to other designated tourism

  487W
  delivery bodies. The RDAs will determine what objectives and targets the RTBs or other organisations should meet in return for the funds, working as appropriate with local authorities and businesses.

  In the North East, ONE has taken over the core functions of the former Northumbria Tourist Board, and will retain the funding on the basis that it is ring-fenced for this purpose. In the North West, the NWDA has established four destination management organisations to take over the role of the former NW Tourist Board.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Disabled Facilities Grant
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been carried out of the effectiveness of abolishing the Disabled Facilities Grant means test for children in Northern Ireland. [172874]

  Spellar
  The abolition of the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) means-test for parents of children with disabilities came into effect from 16 February 2004. It is therefore too early for any assessment of effectiveness to be carried out. The working group which was set up to look at the matter considered the potential impact of the abolition in terms of cost to the Government and numbers who could be helped by the abolition. It was estimated that 25–30 applications for DFG are withdrawn each year due to the high contribution.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) homeless and (b) other people living rough there are in Northern Ireland. [171798]

  Mr. Spellar
  The exact number of people "living rough" is unknown. However, a survey early this year estimated that between 20 and 30 people who frequently use Housing Executive funded Outreach services could be regarded as "living rough". The survey did not, however, attempt to determine whether they were statutorily homeless or not. This is a very small percentage compared the number of households on the Housing Executive's waiting list registered as homeless which at 31 March 2004 stood at 5,287.

  Sports Grounds
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the status of the Safe Sports Grounds funding made available for essential health and safety work to stadia in Northern Ireland; and how much funding has been made available(a) in each of the past three years and (b) since January for this purpose. [170249]

  Angela Smith
  The Interim Safe Sports Grounds Scheme ended in March 2003 and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland is currently planning development of a new Sports Grounds Development Programme, the main purpose of which is to address the long-term health and safety deficiencies of major sports grounds in 488W
  Northern Ireland. Government funding made available for the health and safety work to Northern Ireland stadia in each of the last three financial years.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Amount made available

  2001–02

  0.5

  2002–03

  1

  2003–04

  Nil

SCOTLAND

  Chernobyl
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farms in Scotland, comprising what land areas and in what locations, have restrictions applied to them in respect of land use as a result of the residual radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. [169878]

  Mrs. McGuire
  This is a devolved matter within the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, who are advised by the Food Standards Agency. However, the following table from the Food Standards Agency shows the number of farms in Scotland, their location and area of land covered by restrictions on the movement of sheep as a result of the residual radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. There have been no restrictions on land use as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

  Restrictions in Scotland at 30 April 2004

  Number

  Number of Farms

  14

  Land Area (hectares)

  16,300

  Location

  1—

  1South West and Central Scotland.

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [169103]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date the Office has spent the following on hospitality and entertainment:

  £000

  1999–2000

  110,638

  2000–01

  41,638

  2001–02

  25,789

  2002–03

  41,782

  2003–042

  25,969

  1Part-year cost.

  2Estimate.

  Note:

  Expenditure for 2004–05 is expected to be of a similar order to 2003–04.

  Nuclear Power Plants (Air Security)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of the breach of the air exclusion zone around the Chapel Cross nuclear plant this year; and what steps have been taken to improve air security around the plant. [171650]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  My officials have discussed this matter with the Ministry of Defence, who have confirmed that no breach of the air exclusion zone at the Chapel Cross nuclear power station has taken place.

  Telephone Costs
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department's expenditure on(a) fixed and (b) mobile telephones was in each of the last five years. [165967]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date the Office has spend the following on telephone costs.

  £000

  Fixed lines

  Mobile telephones

  1999–2000

  136,622

  16,760

  2000–01

  85,483

  14,275

  2001–02

  86,697

  11,850

  2002–03

  81,756

  7,216

  2003–042

  82,131

  6,646

  1Part-year costs.

  2Estimate.

  Note:

  The costs in 2000–01, 2001–02 reflect the additional expense of purchase mobile telephone equipment.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department plans to contribute financially to the establishment of the second phase of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [167617]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Environment, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 10 May 2004.Official Report, column 31W.

TRANSPORT

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Transport Police officers have been assaulted while on duty in each year since 1997. [171902]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information on officers assaulted while on duty in each year since 1997:
  490W

  Number of Officers assaulted

  1997–98

  187

  1998–99

  184

  1999–2000

  194

  2000–01

  227

  2001–02

  227

  2002–03

  213

  2003–04

  267

  Car Sharing
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research his Department has conducted into car-sharing schemes; and if he will place copies of such research findings in the Library; [172290]

  (2) what plans his Department has to provide guidance for local transport plans relating to car-sharing schemes. [172291]

  Mr. McNulty
  Research into the effectiveness of car sharing and other travel plan measures was published in 2002 in "Making Travel Plans Work: Research Report", copies of which were placed in the Library.

  Last year, the Department commissioned research into the influence of soft factors on travel demand. The final report, which will include a chapter on car sharing, is expected to be completed shortly and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Following a commitment made in the Government's Response to the Motorist's Forum Report on car sharing and car clubs on 3 December 2002, Official Report, column 72WS, the Department has commissioned research into best practice in setting up formal car sharing and car club schemes in closed communities. From the research, we will provide new guidance for local authorities, schools and employers on the effective implementation of car share schemes. The research and guidance is expected to be completed in October and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the locations of high occupancy vehicle lanes are; and how long each lane is. [172293]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes operating in two local authorities in England: two lengths of HOV lane in Leeds totalling 1.5 km and four lengths totalling 1.9 km in South Gloucester.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has collated on the effectiveness of high occupancy vehicle lanes. [172294]

  Mr. McNulty
  The HOV lanes on Stanningley Road in Leeds are included as one of the case studies in the Bus Partnership Forum's Resource Pack "Bus Priority—The Way Ahead" published by the Department in September 2003. This reports the results of an evaluation of the HOV lanes carried out by Leeds City Council.

  Dual Carriageways (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the construction of the A46 dual carriageway improvement between Newark and Widmerpool in Nottinghamshire to begin. [171518]
  491W
  Dr. Howells
  The future programme depends on funding and how quickly the various statutory processes can be completed but we currently expect that start of works will be in 2007 with the road opening to traffic in 2009.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the construction of the A453 dual carriageway improvement between Clifton in Nottinghamshire and Kegworth to begin. [171519]

  Dr. Howells
  The future programme depends on funding and how quickly the various statutory processes can be completed but we currently expect that start of works will be in 2008–09 with the road opening to traffic in 2011.

  East-West Rail Route
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the proposed Western Section (Oxford to Bedford) of the East-West Rail route. [172170]

  Mr. McNulty
  The East-West Rail Consortium (a group of local authorities along the route, working in partnership with the regional assembly and the regional development agencies) has now put forward an updated business case for the Bedford to to Bletchley section of the East West Rail Link. This proposal involves upgrading and re-opening the line between Oxford and Bedford. Officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are considering the updated business case, particularly in light of the potential impact of the scheme on the delivery of the Sustainable Communities Plan. The Strategic Rail Authority is also considering the Bedford to Bletchley business case. Any appraisal will need to be considered against other priorities — and in the context of the financial constraints on the industry at the present time.

  Light Rapid Transit
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make an announcement of his decision on the Light Rapid Transit project between Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth. [172376]

  Mr. McNulty
  A decision will be announced in due course.

  London Underground PPP
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which management consultants undertook work for(a) his Department and its predecessor and (b) London Underground in respect of the London Underground Public Private Partnership; and if he will list the total payments in each management consultancy company. [171222]

  Mr. McNulty
  During procurement of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) the Department and London Underground made joint use of external advisers wherever possible to keep costs to a minimum. Management consultants used on the PPP were PricewaterhouseCoopers, Arthur Andersen, PA Consulting, KPMG, Hornagold & Hills and Ernst & Young. The value of work done by individual consultants and advisers is commercially confidential.492W
  London Underground's total expenditure for all external advice on the PPP— including management consultancy legal, financial, engineering and operational advice— was £103.5 million. The Department had separately spent £1.5 million on external advice.

  MOT Computerisation
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the testing of the MOT computerisation system by VOSA and Siemens Business Systems. [172132]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Siemens Business Services have fully completed four cycles of Main System Test and are in the process of completing a fifth. Trial stage 1 (VOSA Acceptance Testing) is due to begin on 21 June 2004.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the planned two-month volunteer MOT trial at 50 garages. [172133]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Trials at 45 stations are due to begin on 2 August 2004.

  Volunteers have been sought and applicants are being sifted. Those who have been selected to conduct these initial trials will be notified shortly

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the MOT computerisation programme will be installed in 1,000 MOT garages as planned; when the service is due to go live; and when it will be rolled out to other MOT garages. [172134]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The service is due to be rolled out and trialled in 1,000 MOT stations from, 27 September 2004 onwards. These stations will trial the service in parallel with, operating the current test administration protocols.

  The service is due to be rolled out to all MOT stations, and go live, from 29 November 2004.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the planned series of MOT computerisation seminars will take place; and what these seminars are planned to do. [172135]

  Mr. Jamieson
  VOSA runs a series of national MOT seminars each year. The subject of the 2004 round of seminars was MOT Computerisation; they took place between January and April. The seminars facilitate two-way communications between VOSA and the trade on issues relating to MOT testing. No further seminars are planned before roll-out starts to all stations.

  Productivity and Costs
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is for(a) increasing the productivity and (b) cutting the costs of (i) his Department and (ii) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [172182]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 10 May 2004,Official Report, columns 148–49W. The Department for Transport has been working on proposals to meet the Chancellor's efficiency target. These proposals will be finalised as part of the 2004 Spending Review.

  Public Transport (Wirral, South)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of investment in railway improvements over the next 10 years upon residents of Wirral South. [172693]

  Mr. McNulty
  Merseyrail which operates local services in Wirral, South is a consistently high performer. Residents of Wirral, South will also benefit from the West Coast Main Line upgrade and the new TransPennine Express franchise to make fast inter-city journeys out of Liverpool. The TransPennine Express franchise, which commenced in February secures investment of around £260 million, which will include the introduction of a new fleet of 100 mph diesel trains leading to increased capacity, improved service quality and performance across the region.

  Railway Crimes
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crimes of a sexual nature were committed on the railways in each year since 1997. [171910]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information on how many crimes of a sexual nature were committed on the railways in each year since 1997:

  Total number of offences recorded

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  1997–98

  719

  37

  1998–99

  1,185

  29

  1999–2000

  1,079

  34

  2000–01

  1,009

  31

  2001–02

  1,020

  34

  2002–03

  1,003

  29

  2003–04

  1,120

  36

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many arrests have been made by the British Transport Police on railway property in each year since 1997. [171911]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information on arrests made on railway property in each year since 1999; information is not readily available for earlier than 1999.

  Total number of arrests

  1999–2000

  6,393

  2000–01

  6,788

  2001–02

  7,049

  2002–03

  7,434

  2003–04

  8,151

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many arrests have been made by the British Transport Police in each year since 1997 for suspected crimes committed on property other than the railways. [171912]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information on arrests made for crimes committed on property other than the railways since 1997.
  494W

  Arrests made for other forces including Scottish forces

  Total number of arrests

  1997–98

  1,119

  1998–99

  1,513

  1999–2000

  1,174

  2000–01

  1,175

  2001–02

  1,000

  2002–03

  760

  2003–04

  1,224

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many stations are not served by at least one train in each direction on one or more weekdays each week; [171941]

  (2) which stations are not served by trains on

  (a) Saturdays and (b) Sundays; [171942]

  (3) which stations are served by one train a week in each direction; [171943]

  (4) which stations are served by fewer than 14 trains a week. [171944]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost because it would involve very detailed analysis of the National Rail Timetable, table by table.

  Railway Travel Bans
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many individuals have been banned from travelling on the railways in each year since 1997. [171905]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) has only had the power to apply for ASBOs (antisocial behaviour orders) since December 2003. Since then the BTP have successfully applied for 52 orders. There are also presently 30 suspects who have football banning orders that stop people from travelling on the railway on certain match days.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the numbers of (i) rural bus services and (ii) rural bus passengers during the last five years. [172518]

  Mr. McNulty
  We monitor annually the number of services supported by local authorities with funds provided under the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) scheme and the number of passenger journeys made on these services. In 1998, the year the grant was introduced, it provided 850 new and enhanced services, rising to over 2,100 services in 2002–03. In 2002–03 26 million passenger journeys were supported in England through RBSG.

  We have commissioned research into the impact of the Department's two funding streams for rural bus services, RBSG and the Rural Bus Challenge. A report is on the Department's website
  495W
  We also monitor the accessibility of rural communities to bus services through the National Travel Survey. The latest Survey published in December 2003 shows 48 per cent. of rural households to be within a 10 minutes walk of an hourly or better bus service compared to 39 per cent. in the 1997–1999 Survey. This shows the position for all bus services, including those supported by RBSG.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Government funding has been provided for rural bus services in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [172519]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following table shows specific rural bus funding provided by Government since 1998 the year each of the funding schemes concerned were introduced:

  £ million

  Countryside Agency grants1

  Rural Bus Challenge2

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  Total

  1998–99

  2.3

  11.4

  24.1

  37.8

  1999–2000

  3.3

  16.8

  32.0

  52.1

  2000–01

  4.8

  21.2

  32.3

  58.2

  2001–02

  7.5

  20.5

  41.2

  69.2

  2002–03

  13.5

  20.0

  47.3

  80.8

  2003–04

  35

  20.3

  48.4

  103.7

  1 Countryside Agency Grants 1998–2000 Rural Transport Partnership (RTF) and Rural Transport Development Fund, since 2001 RTF and Parish Transport Grant.

  2 Rural Bus Challenge funding awarded for projects typically lasting 2–3 years

  In addition local transport authorities use some of their general funding to subsidise socially necessary local bus services in rural areas, and Bus Service Operators Grant is paid to bus operators and community transport providers.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the expected level of subsidy for rural bus services for future years. [172520]

  Mr. McNulty
  As announced in the 2003 Budget, Rural Bus Subsidy Grant will continue until April 2006. Allocations to local authorities for 2005–06 will be announced in due course. Decisions on the grant beyond that year, and on the future of the Rural Bus Challenge scheme, will be announced following completion of the current review of bus subsidies and the Government's Spending Review.

  Shell Haven
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the risk relating to explosives remaining on the SS Richard Montgomery in the Thames from the possible operation of Shell Haven Port; and if he will make a statement. [172560]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The main Yantlet shipping channel is over 2 km from the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery, and is separated by the extensive Nore Sands sandbank. This whole area lies within Port of London Authority jurisdiction, and they have undertaken a risk assessment of the whole London 496W
  Gateway Project. This suggests that there would be no additional risk from vessel movements which could not be handled by the Vessel Traffic Services.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many special advisers and political advisers were employed by his Department and its predecessors in each year since 1997. [171962]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following table states the numbers of special advisers employed in the Department for Transport and its predecessors since 1997.

  Title of Department

  Number of special advisers in post

  2004

  Department for Transport

  1

  2003

  Department for Transport

  2

  2002

  Department for Transport

  2

  2001

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  2

  2000

  Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions

  1

  1999

  Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions

  1

  1998

  Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions

  2

  1997

  Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions

  2

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cameras at legacy sites meet the Government's criteria for the siting of speed cameras; and if he will make a statement. [171892]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These safety camera sites were established before the current criteria for location of new safety cameras, under the guidance contained in the 1992 Circular 'Use of technology for traffic enforcement: Guidance on deployment', which asked highway authorities to base sites on systematic analysis of accident statistics, but did not set quantified criteria.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money raised through speed cameras has been returned to the Treasury in each year since 2001; and if he will make a statement. [171893]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Safety Camera Partnerships operating within the cost recovery scheme returned £6,281,051 of their receipts resulting from fixed penalty fines to the Treasury in 2001–02. The figures for 2002–03 will be available shortly. All fine receipts resulting from safety cameras operated outside the cost recovery scheme accrue to the Treasury. I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that information on the amount of these receipts relating to convictions from safety cameras is not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many legacy camera sites maintained cameras with film in them on 31 March. [171921]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Any safety camera housing may have a camera operating in it at any time, deployment of cameras around safety camera sites is a police operational matter.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department plans to contribute financially to the establishment of the second phase of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [167619]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Agri-Environment on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 31W.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Department is taking to implement the aid and assistance work it is undertaking with regard to the Second Primary Education Development Programme in Bangladesh in other countries(a) within South East Asia and (b) in the rest of the developing world. [172501]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Second Primary Education Development Programme (PEDP2) in Bangladesh is distinctive in that it is part of a sector wide programme supported by all donors. It thus replaces all previous separate education projects funded by donors. It is Government led, with donor inputs coordinated by a joint donor office headed by the lead donor, the Asian development bank. DFID is one of the largest donors having approved £100 million over six years. The programme is focused on improving access and quality in primary education.

  PEDP2 is in the early stages of implementation. As the programme progresses we will disseminate lessons learnt to other parts of South East Asia and other developing countries where primary education is a priority sector. Harmonised support for sector wide programmes in education is DFID's preferred way of working and similar programmes are currently running, or being developed in, many of the over 30 developing countries, mostly in South Asia and in sub-Saharan Africa, where DFID supports primary education for all children.

  Burma (EU Sanctions)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the impact of EU sanctions on Burma. [171692]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The EU Common Position was strengthened last year, in response to the violent attack on and subsequent detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and other members of the National League for Democracy (NLD). DFID considers that the effect of EU measures do have a real impact on the military regime. They signal how seriously the EU takes the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) breaches of international standards of behaviour and helps to provide support for the pro-democracy forces.

  The EU Common Position aims to apply targeted sanctions against the regime to persuade the SPDC of the need for political progress, but as far as is possible, to avoid measures which hurt the ordinary Burmese people.
  498W
  In keeping with the EU Common Position, DFID spent £3.4 million during 2003–04 on initiatives largely focussed on HIV/Aids and health services for the poor and on refugees. DFID's future focus will be on these areas, as well as on food security, and quality basic education for poor people. DFID has consulted with the NLD about our approach and focus.

  Child Mortality (Pakistan and India)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the latest under five mortality rate is in(a) Pakistan and (b) India. [172455]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The World Bank 2003 Development Indicators records the following for under five mortality:(a) 109 per 1,000 live births in Pakistan in 2001, and
  (b) 93 per 1,000 live births in India in 2001.

  Commission for Africa
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the budget is for the Commission for Africa, broken down by(a) staffing costs, (b) consultancy costs, (c) communication costs, (d) expenses and (e) other available budget headings. [172562]

  Hilary Benn
  The budget for the Commission for Africa will not be finally agreed until Commissioners have drawn up their work plans in consultation with the Commission for Africa Secretariat. This will take place over the coming month. Following these discussions the overall budget may increase and the allocation between budget headings change. The current breakdown over 14 months is:

  (a) staffing costs (including salaries, staff travel, training and office costs): £1,115,000;

  (b) consultancy costs: currently there is no budget heading covering consultancies, but we plan to use the £700,000 originally earmarked for Commissioners' staff for this purpose;

  (c) communication costs: currently there is no budget heading covering communication costs, though we have allocated £20,000 for the production of the final report;

  (d) expenses: staff travel is included within the staffing costs budget heading. The allocation for Commissioners' travelling expenses is £144,000;

  (e) Consultation meetings across Africa and elsewhere on the work of the Commission: £1,200,000;

  (f) Commission meeting costs (venue hire, meal booking, press conference costs, transcription, vehicle hire, security): £240,000.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many people the Commission for Africa will employ when it is fully staffed; [172563]

  (2) how many people the Commission for Africa employs. [172561]

  Hilary Benn
  The Secretariat to the Commission for Africa currently consists of 14 full-time members of staff and is looking to recruit up to six more people over the next month, which will bring the staff total to 20. More staff may be recruited over the coming year to undertake expert analysis.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the outcomes were of the discussions that the Minister had with President Kabila, Vice President Ruberwa, Vice President Bemba and Foreign Minister Ghonda on his recent trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo. [172503]

  Hilary Benn
  I visited the DRC recently to discuss the transition process with the President and Vice-Presidents. We agreed that the TNG and the international community needed to focus on making the transition work by addressing the critical security issues and establishing the necessary stable environment for the elections planned for next year.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by his Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170803]

  Hilary Benn
  All procurement decisions are taken on grounds of value for money. Crockery, cutlery and glassware for our staff restaurants are purchased by our catering contractors, who have operated our current London staff restaurant for 2½years. All of the crockery and cutlery purchased was manufactured in Great Britain. Glassware is of French origin. Information regarding procurement by our previous contractors is not readily available and could be obtained only by incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Early Retirement
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many employees in his Department took early retirement, and at what total cost, in the last financial year. [172176]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  In the last financial year there were 19 early retirements from DFID. One retirement was on medical grounds with the remainder on compulsory terms.

  The total cost of these early retirements will be £1,609,274.97 of which £935,024.79 was paid during 2003–04.

  Education Workers (Overseas Recruitment)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department's overseas offices offer to UK-based recruitment agencies in the recruitment of education workers from overseas; and how many staff in his Department were involved in offering such assistance on the latest date for which figures are available. [171500]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID overseas offices have not offered such assistance.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports he has received concerning the adequacy of firefighting outfits used by Iraqi firefighters; what assessment he has made of the 500W
  asbestos-lined suit they use; what plans he has to provide urgent and direct aid to upgrade the quality of the firefighters' outfit; and if he will make a statement. [172278]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has received no information on, nor undertaken any assessment of, the adequacy of Iraqi fire fighters' suits. Our plans for assistance to Iraq do not include the upgrading of fire fighters' suits.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what arrangements are in place for accountability of the Coalition Development Fund for Iraq; what demands for accountability have been made by the Independent Monitoring Board; what the policy is of(a) the UK Government and (b) the Coalition Provisional Authority on each demand; what has happened to the £7.6 billion surplus from the oil-for-food programme which was transferred to the Coalition Development Fund; and if he will make a statement. [172280]

  Hilary Benn
  All funds in the Development Fund for Iraq are subject to audit by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB), created under UN Security Council Resolution 1483. The role of the Board is to ensure that the Development Fund for Iraq is used in a transparent manner for the benefit of the people of Iraq, and that export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas from Iraq are made consistent with prevailing international market best practices. The Board consists of representatives of the UN, the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

  DFID is unaware of any specific demands for accountability from the IAMB. As recorded in the statement following their 23 April meeting (www.iamb.info) the IAMB continue to work closely with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and others in the achievement of their objectives.

  Surplus funds received from the oil-for-food programme, above those required to complete existing contracts, are paid into the Development Fund for Iraq. Like other funds, including oil revenues, seized and vested assets, their allocation is decided by the CPA Programme Review Board. These allocations are then subject to IAMB oversight.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Iraq. [172295]

  Hilary Benn
  In spite of continuing security problems, there is no widespread humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Iraqi Ministries, United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, NGOs and Iraqi citizens have been working together to assist people affected by the recent fighting in Falluja, and have made preparations for the provision of emergency humanitarian assistance, if required, in other parts of Iraq. An Emergency Co-ordination Group has been established to ensure the effective coordination of emergency assistance in Iraq. Its membership includes UN agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and NGOs.

  US$32 billion in grants and soft loans was pledged for the reconstruction of Iraq at the Madrid Donors' Conference in October last year. DFID has committed

  501W
  £278 million to humanitarian and reconstruction work in Iraq since the beginning of 2003. Over the last year, Iraqi Ministries, together with the Coalition Provisional Authority and aid agencies, have made significant progress in restoring essential services, maintaining the Public Distribution System for food rations, reopening hospitals and schools and beginning the process of longer-term reconstruction.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations he has received about the current humanitarian situation in Iraq. [172465]

  Hilary Benn
  I receive representations from many sources about assistance to Iraq. Since the 2003 conflict, most of Iraq's requirements have been for reconstruction rather than for immediate humanitarian assistance. At the Madrid Donors' Conference in October last year, the Government pledged a total of £544 million in assistance to Iraq for the three years from April 2003. DFID has so far committed £278 million in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq since March 2003.

  Primary Schools (Pakistan and India)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the ratio is of girls to boys enrolled in primary school in(a) Pakistan and (b) India. [172456]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas: The World Bank 2003 Development Indicators record the following for the ratio of girls to boys enrolled in primary school:
  (a) 58 per cent. for Pakistan in 2000
  (b) 83 per cent. for India in 2000.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what reasons there has been slippage on his Department's public service agreement target to increase the tuberculosis case detection rate above 70 per cent. [172452]

  Hilary Benn
  The target to detect 70 per cent. of (smear positive) Tuberculosis (TB) cases globally by 2005 was set by the World Health Assembly and forms the basis for DFID's public service agreement target. Much progress has been made. In 2002 an estimated 37 per cent. of estimated new smear positive cases were notified under the internationally recommended control strategy for TB (DOTS), an increase from 27 per cent. in 2001 and halfway towards the 2005 target.

  However, even with these encouraging recent trends at current progress the case detection rate will only be 50 per cent. by 2005. Concerted international action is needed to overcome challenges to scale up effective TB programmes in high burden countries, including strengthening political commitment, health systems, human resource capacity, primary health care provision, private sector and corporate sector contributions and working with poverty reduction strategies. DFID is committed to playing its role in accelerating progress towards the 2005 target as an active member of the Stop TB partnership.
  502W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what the latest tuberculosis cure treatment rate is in each of the countries covered by his Public Service Agreement target. [172454]

  Hilary Benn
  The cure rates for tuberculosis in 2001, measured by Directly Observed Treatment Short-course (DOTS) treatment success rate in countries where DFID has a Public Service Agreement are listed in the 2004 World Health Organisation (WHO) Global Tuberculosis Control report. Figures for 2002 are not yet available.

  country

  Internationally recommended control strategy for TB (DOTS) treatment success rate (Percentage)

  Africa

  Ethiopia

  76

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  77

  Ghana

  42

  Kenya

  80

  Malawi

  70

  Mozambique

  77

  Nigeria

  79

  Rwanda

  161

  Sierra Leone

  80

  South Africa

  65

  Lesotho

  71

  Sudan

  80

  Tanzania

  81

  Uganda

  56

  Zambia

  75

  Zimbabwe

  71

  Asia

  Bangladesh

  84

  China

  96

  Pakistan

  77

  India

  85

  1 in 2000–01 figure not yet known

  Turkey/Armenia Border
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Department's assessment is of the economic development effects of the opening of the border between Turkey and Armenia for(a) Turkey and (b) the Caucasus states. [172505]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has not made a detailed assessment of possible economic benefits of the opening of the border between Turkey and Armenia. In general, the opening of borders between states tends to lead to improved trade and economic growth. DFID's bilateral programme for the region promotes good-governance, conflict reduction and pro-poor economic growth. Successful implementation of these programmes will have a positive impact on the wider issues of cross border co-operation and trade.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Department's most recent assessment is of the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. [172499]

  Hilary Benn
  There have been significant humanitarian needs in Zimbabwe for nearly three years as a result of the Government of Zimbabwe's misguided economic policies, including the poorly implemented
  503W
  fast track land programme. These needs are exacerbated by the effect of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and erratic rainfall.

  The current Emergency Operation of the World Food Programme and the general distributions by NGOs whom we fund directly are beginning to wind down as this year's crop is now being harvested. The harvest should temporarily make food available to the majority of the population.

  The Government of Zimbabwe have cancelled the joint crop assessment with WFP and FAO, claimed that they will produce 2.4 million MT of maize, and declared that international food aid will not be needed this year. The UK and other donors do not believe that the Zimbabwean Government's crop forecast is credible and regret the cancellation of the joint crop assessment which would have provided an internationally accepted basis on which to plan for humanitarian operations later this year. The UN and the rest of the international community have consistently made clear to the Zimbabwean authorities that their lack of transparency in dealing with humanitarian issues, including their plans to import food, makes it more difficult for us to respond effectively. We and other donors will nevertheless continue to work with the UN and other agencies to monitor the humanitarian position in Zimbabwe. Households most likely to be in need of assistance will be those with no access to land or income that are also affected by HIV/AIDS or include orphans, disabled children and the elderly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 28 April 2004,Official Report, column 1151W, on business regulation, how many regulatory impact statements have been issued by her Department in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [171595]

  Nigel Griffiths: This information could only be obtained by a manual sift.

  The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) is a paragraph that can be included in the Cabinet paper or ministerial letter to colleagues seeking collective agreement to a proposals that impacts on business.

  Call Centre Industry
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of future employment prospects in the UK call centre industry. [170284]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department published on 6 May a report of the study we commissioned to look at the competitiveness of the UK call and contact centre industry. The study which covers a wide range of call centre issues forecasts that the UK industry is to gain around 200,000 jobs in the next three years, directly employing over a million people by 2007.

  Energy Supply
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the governments of(a) Russia, (b) Algeria, (c) Qatar and (d) other countries, in connection with securing supplies of gas for importing to the UK; and if she will make a statement. [172545]

  Mr. Timms
  Chapter six of the Energy White Paper clearly lays out our policy with regard to the security of gas supplies for the UK. Para 6.5 states:"Our role is to continually monitor developments, and to create a competitive market place, including through good international relations, within which liberalised markets will deliver energy reliability."

  To this end my Ministers and officials have over the past year held a number of meetings with representatives of foreign governments.

  On June 26 2003 during the State Visit of President Putin of Russia we held the "Russia UK Energy Conference: Long Term Partners" bringing together politicians, officials and the private sectors from both countries to discuss possible areas for energy cooperation. The event culminated in the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding in which the UK and Russia agreed to work closely together on the North European Gas Pipeline. During the visit I met with Deputy Prime Minister Kudrin and discussed a wide range of matters.

  This event was followed up by a UK Russia Energy Roundtable held in London on 3 March 2004 at which the public and private sectors of both the UK and Russia came together to share perspectives on the development of Russia's hydrocarbon reserves.

  On 2 October 2003, I announced the agreement of the key principles of a Framework Agreement with Norway which will among other things govern the building of a pipeline to supply Norwegian gas from the Ormen Lange field to the UK. It is anticipated that the agreement itself will be complete by the end of 2004 and the pipeline will become operational by 2007.

  On Thursday 26 February 2004 I met with Mr. Khelil, the Energy Minister of Algeria. The BP/Sonatrach joint venture aimed at bringing new supplies of LNG to the UK was among other matters discussed

  On Wednesday 10 March 2004 I met with the Qatari Minister of Energy H.E. Abdullah Hamad Al Attiyah. The possibility of Exxon Mobil supplying Qatari LNG to the UK on a long-term contract was amongst other matters discussed.

  I will lead a British Government delegation to the International Energy Forum to be held in Amsterdam from May 22 to 24 2004. This is a major opportunity for discussion on oil and gas security issues both on a bilateral and multilateral basis with representatives of key producing states.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in agreeing the future financial governance of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [172733]
  505W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  ECGD's governance arrangements have recently been strengthened with the creation of the new position of Chair of its Management Board, to work alongside the Chief Executive. Both these positions have recently been filled by appointees from the private sector, who will bring valuable commercial experience to ECGD. Further changes to financial governance will be put in place with the establishment of a Trading Fund; Ministers are presently considering the arrangements for this and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Invest-UK
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the resource budget of Invest-UK was in each year between 1999 and 2002. [171593]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The resource budgets of Invest UK (and its forerunner the Invest In Britain Bureau) for financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 were as follows:

  1999–2000
  £17.8 million, of which £11.1 million was allocated to grant in aid for Regional Development Agencies; £4.1million to Invest UK promotional expenditure, and £2.6 million to local running costs.

  2000–01
  £20.9 million, of which £12.2 million was allocated to grant in aid for Regional Development Agencies; £6.1 million to Invest UK promotional expenditure, and £2.6 million to local running costs.

  20011–02
  £21.0 million, of which £12.4 million was allocated to grant in aid for Regional Development Agencies; £5.7 million to Invest UK promotional expenditure, and £2.9 million to local running costs.
  12001–02 was the first year that departmental Resource Accounts were prepared on an accruals basis.

  Miners' Compensation Scheme
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average number of coal health compensation claims settled each month was in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales since the scheme began; how many claims are awaiting settlement; and what the timetable is for settling outstanding claims. [170873]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of 6 May 2004 the figures for Respiratory Disease are as follows:

  Month settled

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Total

  1996

  January

  2

  —

  3

  5

  1996

  February

  10

  1

  14

  25

  1996

  April

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1996

  May

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1996

  June

  3

  —

  —

  3

  1997

  September

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1997

  October

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1997

  December

  2

  2

  —

  4

  1998

  January

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1998

  February

  2

  1

  2

  5

  1998

  March

  12

  1

  2

  15

  1998

  April

  10

  —

  2

  12

  1998

  May

  18

  1

  1

  20

  1998

  June

  21

  —

  2

  23

  1998

  July

  36

  —

  4

  40

  1998

  August

  10

  —

  1

  11

  1998

  September

  5

  —

  37

  42

  506W

  Month settled

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Total

  1998

  October

  14

  1

  1

  16

  1998

  November

  12

  —

  —

  12

  1998

  December

  12

  —

  2

  14

  1999

  January

  10

  1

  3

  14

  1999

  February

  2

  —

  1

  3

  1999

  March

  28

  —

  3

  31

  1999

  April

  16

  —

  7

  23

  1999

  May

  22

  2

  18

  42

  1999

  June

  20

  —

  4

  24

  1999

  July

  46

  —

  13

  59

  1999

  August

  41

  —

  11

  52

  1999

  September

  91

  5

  93

  189

  1999

  October

  120

  21

  76

  217

  1999

  November

  157

  78

  63

  298

  1999

  December

  120

  36

  38

  194

  2000

  January

  344

  50

  63

  457

  2000

  February

  345

  13

  110

  468

  2000

  March

  346

  13

  104

  463

  2000

  April

  252

  23

  54

  329

  2000

  May

  161

  48

  48

  257

  2000

  June

  274

  50

  47

  371

  2000

  July

  253

  11

  61

  325

  2000

  August

  217

  17

  30

  264

  2000

  September

  190

  14

  31,235

  2000

  October

  140

  2

  19

  161

  2000

  November

  352

  19

  56

  427

  2000

  December

  794

  6

  100

  900

  2001

  January

  830

  16

  109

  955

  2001

  February

  779

  234

  79

  1,092

  2001

  March

  1,199

  164

  80

  1,443

  2001

  April

  623

  41

  58

  722

  2001

  May

  619

  46

  88

  753

  2001

  June

  441

  31

  90

  562

  2001

  July

  808

  47

  145

  1,000

  2001

  August

  717

  53

  125

  895

  2001

  September

  936

  41

  107

  1,084

  2001

  October

  1,091

  79

  128

  1,298

  2001

  November

  826

  86

  384

  1,296

  2001

  December

  645

  58

  208

  911

  2002

  January

  1,009

  70

  303

  1,382

  2002

  February

  1,179

  74

  452

  1,705

  2002

  March

  1,148

  66

  529

  1,743

  2002

  April

  1,272

  80

  520

  1,872

  2002

  May

  1,447

  85

  711

  2,243

  2002

  June

  1,033

  90

  981

  2,104

  2002

  July

  1,836

  138

  695

  2,669

  2002

  August

  1,386

  92

  653

  2,131

  2002

  September

  2,302

  143

  1,303

  3,748

  2002

  October

  3,066

  277

  1,836

  5,179

  2002

  November

  3,497

  383

  1,365

  5,245

  2002

  December

  2,167

  340

  1,211

  3,718

  2003

  January

  3,768

  277

  1,229

  5,274

  2003

  February

  3,472

  236

  1,172

  4,880

  2003

  March

  3,594

  273

  1,000

  4,867

  2003

  April

  3,091

  283

  910

  4,284

  2003

  May

  2,943

  302

  741

  3,986

  2003

  June

  3,159

  366

  1,007

  4,532

  2003

  July

  3,580

  256

  818

  4,654

  2003

  August

  3,164

  191

  992

  4,347

  2003

  September

  3,571

  347

  888

  4,806

  2003

  October

  4,254

  402

  906

  5,562

  2003

  November

  3,025

  366

  920

  4,311

  2003

  December

  3,006

  283

  670

  3,959

  2004

  January

  3,801

  238

  693

  4,732

  2004

  February

  3,525

  342

  585

  4,452

  2004

  March

  4,662

  397

  785

  5,844

  2004

  April

  4,074

  448

  701

  5,223

  Total Settlements

  92,059

  8,159

  27,303

  127,521

  Total Receipts

  426,470

  41,133

  90,480

  558,083

  Total Outstanding

  334,411

  32,974

  63,177

  430,562

  Notes:

  1. Total settlements include claims settled by denial/withdrawal.

  2. Claim receipts are those claims that are fully registered. These figures exclude claims registered partially on the website (yet to be fully registered within ICMS due to a submission error during input) and claims held within the holding policy (pool of claims

  507W
  accepted with minimum data, awaiting further information to permit cross referencing and duplicate checks prior to full registration).

  With regard to the timetable for settling outstanding claims, I refer my hon. Friend to House of Lords, Official Report, of 21 April 2004, column WA49.

  As of 6 May 2004 the figures for Vibration White Finger are as follows:

  Month settled

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Total

  1996

  January

  139

  2

  1

  142

  1996

  February

  2

  2

  —

  4

  1996

  April

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1996

  May

  3

  —

  —

  3

  1996

  June

  3

  —

  2

  5

  1996

  July

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1996

  August

  1

  1

  1996

  November

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1997

  February

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1997

  April

  15

  —

  14

  29

  1997

  May

  28

  9

  32

  69

  1997

  June

  89

  35

  23

  147

  1997

  July

  55

  56

  49

  160

  1997

  August

  54

  55

  27

  136

  1997

  September

  93

  41

  72

  206

  1997

  October

  33

  20

  13

  66

  1997

  November

  31

  13

  32

  76

  1997

  December

  23

  38

  11

  72

  1998

  January

  44

  18

  28

  90

  1998

  February

  50

  75

  107

  232

  1998

  March

  87

  29

  50

  166

  1998

  April

  58

  18

  40

  116

  1998

  May

  91

  18

  21

  130

  1998

  June

  75

  45

  32

  152

  1998

  July

  102

  68

  41

  211

  1998

  August

  47

  21

  23

  91

  1998

  September

  38

  40

  19

  97

  1998

  October

  100

  30

  8

  138

  1998

  November

  164

  27

  36

  227

  1998

  December

  179

  18

  12

  209

  1999

  January

  67

  6

  17

  90

  1999

  February

  38

  3

  3

  44

  1999

  March

  93

  1

  26

  120

  1999

  April

  180

  7

  15

  202

  1999

  May

  236

  22

  15

  273

  1999

  June

  185

  32

  24

  241

  1999

  July

  212

  16

  211

  439

  1999

  August

  288

  12

  76

  376

  1999

  September

  313

  16

  60

  389

  1999

  October

  360

  14

  130

  504

  1999

  November

  412

  19

  196

  627

  1999

  December

  382

  13

  173

  568

  2000

  January

  286

  49

  95

  430

  2000

  February

  280

  22

  36

  338

  2000

  March

  405

  32

  90

  527

  2000

  April

  245

  30

  61

  336

  2000

  May

  328

  53

  132

  513

  2000

  June

  431

  84

  153

  668

  2000

  July

  316

  104

  113

  533

  2000

  August

  350

  32

  76

  458

  2000

  September

  245

  43

  70

  358

  2000

  October

  374

  59

  122

  555

  2000

  November

  359

  22

  68

  449

  2000

  December

  217

  15

  48

  280

  2001

  January

  296

  26

  78

  600

  2001

  February

  414

  61

  98

  573

  2001

  March

  584

  38

  116

  738

  2001

  April

  455

  153

  99

  707

  2001

  May

  583

  80

  104

  767

  2001

  June

  525

  37

  94

  656

  2001

  July

  740

  68

  211

  1,019

  2001

  August

  771

  43

  179

  993

  2001

  September

  745

  51

  133

  929

  2001

  October

  1,994

  109

  413

  2,516

  2001

  November

  492

  45

  136

  673

  508W

  Month settled

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Total

  2001

  December

  395

  32

  100

  527

  2002

  January

  1,113

  134

  270

  1,517

  2002

  February

  1,467

  59

  175

  1,701

  2002

  March

  2,391

  56

  292

  2,739

  2002

  April

  3,944

  119

  467

  4,530

  2002

  May

  1,987

  113

  446

  2,546

  2002

  June

  1,057

  54

  181

  1,292

  2002

  July

  1,157

  48

  149

  1,354

  2002

  August

  910

  34

  135

  1,079

  2002

  September

  683

  36

  154

  873

  2002

  October

  1,343

  85

  182

  1,610

  2002

  November

  1,102

  129

  256

  1,487

  2002

  December

  1,393

  45

  294

  1,732

  2003

  January

  1,954

  54

  452

  2,460

  2003

  February

  1,610

  58

  319

  1,987

  2003

  March

  2,390

  112

  504

  3,006

  2003

  April

  1,767

  115

  244

  2,126

  2003

  May

  3,074

  143

  284

  3,501

  2003

  June

  2,930

  115

  225

  3,270

  2003

  July

  2,868

  74

  360

  3,302

  2003

  August

  2,077

  82

  182

  2,341

  2003

  September

  2,111

  146

  201

  2,458

  2003

  October

  2,921

  80

  166

  3,167

  2003

  November

  2,496

  122

  299

  2,917

  2003

  December

  2,344

  84

  114

  2,542

  2004

  January

  2,444

  75

  181

  2,700

  2004

  February

  1,410

  64

  130

  1,604

  2004

  March

  1,606

  79

  295

  1,980

  2004

  April

  1,696

  106

  183

  1,985

  Total Settlements

  70,450

  4,748

  11,604

  86,802

  Total Receipts

  137,158

  11,480

  20,936

  169,574

  Total Outstanding

  66,708

  6,732

  9,332

  82,772

  Most general damage claims for VWF should be settled in 2005 with most claims for Services settled in 2007.

  Nuclear Installations
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has received on the adequacy of protection measures against malevolent adversaries and terrorists at nuclear installations. [173342]

  Mr. Timms
  My officials are in frequent contact with the Office for Civil Nuclear Security about security arrangements and the protection of civil nuclear sites.

  It is not Government policy to disclose the substance of those discussions and assessments, since such information may be of potential use to terrorists. However, the Director of Civil Nuclear Security publishes an annual report on the state of security in the civil nuclear industry and the effectiveness of security regulation. His next report is due this summer.

  Post Office Closures
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have been closed in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) the constituency of Huntingdon in each year since 1997. [172632]

  Mr. Timms
  I am advised by Post Office Ltd. that data on post office closures by county or Parliamentary constituency is not available in the form requested as the company does not require this data for its operational purposes. However, I understand that since March 2000 the company has recorded details of post office closures
  509W
  on the basis of Government region and in the East of England region as a whole, the numbers of net closures were as follows:

  Region: East of England

  Number

  2000–01

  70

  2001–02

  21

  2002–03

  33

  Post Office Ltd. produces statistics on post office closures on a quarterly basis. The latest data on net closures by region currently available for year 2003–04 is to the end of December 2003. Data for the quarter to end March 2004 is expected shortly. There were 61 net closures of post offices in the East of England region to the end of December 2003. These figures include a total of 55 closures in the East of England region under the urban reinvention programme since its commencement in late 2002.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make it obligatory for renewable energy developers to deliver community benefit. [170174]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 12 May 2004]: I have no plans to do so. However the Department is commissioning a study of the actual and potential impact of community benefits schemes on the deployment of renewable, especially wind, energy projects.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to facilitate negotiations between renewable energy developers and local communities affected by wind farm development regarding the calculation and delivery of community benefit. [170175]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 12 May 2004]: The community impact of wind farm developments, and any possible compensating benefits, should be addressed through the planning process in the normal way.

  The Department is commissioning a study of the actual and potential impact of community benefits schemes on the deployment of renewable, especially wind, energy projects.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effect of trends in renewable energy upon residents in Wirral, South. [170378]

  Mr. Timms
  As I far as I am aware recent trends in investment have not led directly to new renewables capacity in Wirral South itself. For details of developments in the surrounding Liverpool area I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 25 March 2004,Official Report, column 1109W, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 28 April 2004, Official Report, columns 1162–63W and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) on 11 May 2004, Official Report, column 248W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) nature and (b) value was of all contracts, consultancies or other services placed with the accountancy firms (i) Deloitte & Touche, (ii) Ernst & Young, (iii) KPMG and (iv) PricewaterhouseCoopers since 2000–01 by the Department and its agencies. [166090]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established on 29 May 2002, the value of contracts placed with the suppliers detailed in the question are listed as follows, along with the values of those let by agencies. The nature of all the contracts can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  ODPM

  Deloitte & Touche

  1,279,920

  Ernst & Young

  12,120,102

  KPMG

  3,329,904

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  5,108,650

  The Planning Inspectorate

  KPMG

  156,921

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  17,625

  The Fire Service College

  Deliotte & Touche

  9,037

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  68,258

  The QE2 Conference Centre has not placed any contracts with the consultancy firms in question.

  Deprivation
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what arrangements are being made with(a) local authorities and (b) other agencies to publish by district council information on pockets of deprivation identified by the new index of deprivation. [172028]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Indices of Deprivation 2004, published on 26 April, contains information on small pockets of deprivation. These are known as super output areas and cover between 1,000 and 3,000 people. The published information contains a rank and score for each super output area as well as the local authority and Government office region in which it is located.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that fire services for which their departments are responsible are aware of the Government's commitment to a change agenda following the Independent Review of the Fire Service. [172524]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister meets with Cabinet colleagues on a regular basis. Ministers and officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are also in regular contact with colleagues from other Government Departments in the
  511W
  course of Government business, including matters relating to the modernisation agenda for the Fire and Rescue Service.

  Grahame Park
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether Barnet council is meeting the terms of his Department's grant for neighbourhood wardens for Grahame Park; and if he will make a statement. [153840]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government Office for London have pursued the issue of whether Barnet council has complied with the terms of their funding in 2003–04. It is the understanding of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that they have done so. We have been advised however that since August 2003, Barnet has not been supporting the eight street wardens and four neighbourhood wardens for annual leave, sickness and training under the scheme. Also because of where the base station has been located, wardens were spending 30 minutes of their duty at the beginning and end of the day travelling to and from Grahame Park. Funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for wardens schemes in Barnet began in December 2000 and ceased on 31 March 2004. Future funding is a matter for local agencies. Over 80 per cent. of the first round of warden schemes have already secured ongoing funding.

  Green Belt
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 30 April 2004,Official Report, columns 1331–32W, on Green Belt. (1) if he will estimate how much land was used for such developments in (a) 1999 and (b) each year since 2001 for which figures are available; [172478]

  (2) if he will estimate how much land was used for such developments in (a) 1999 and (b) each year since 2001 for which figures are available;. [172479]

  (3) if he will estimate the number of such developments in (a) 1999 and (b) each year since 2001 for which figures are available. [172480]

  Keith Hill
  The answers referred to gave the full extent of information currently available. Land Use Change Statistics are derived from Ordnance Survey's map revision process. In urban areas Ordnance Survey records mostly change within six months of the development taking place but in rural areas there can be up to five years between a change taking place and its recording by Ordnance Survey. Early estimates of percentages of dwellings that are on previously developed land and of dwellings per hectare on new developments have been found to be robust and are published early. Totals of land or dwellings, however,

  Local authorities

  1985–86

  Basildon; Brent; Camden; Greenwich; Hackney; Haringey; Islington; Lambeth; Leicester; Lewisham; Portsmouth; Sheffield; Southwark; Thamesdown

  1986–87

  Basildon; Camden; Greenwich; Hackney; Haringey; Islington; Lambeth; Lewisham; Liverpool; Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Southwark; Thamesdown

  1987–88

  Basildon; Brent; Brighton; Camden; Gateshead; Greenwich; Hackney; Haringey; Hounslow; Islington; Lambeth; Lewisham; Middlesbrough; Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Newham; North Tyneside; Sheffield; Southwark; Thamesdown; Tower Hamlets

  1988–89

  Basildon; Camden; Ealing; Greenwich; Hackney; Haringey; Hull; Lambeth; Lewisham; Liverpool; Manchester; Middlesbrough; Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Southwark; Thamesdown; Tower Hamlets; Waltham Forest

  1989–90

  Camden; Greenwich; Hackney; Lewisham; Southwark; Thamesdown; Tower Hamlets

  512W
  continue to increase as further data come in and at present only the 2000 figures are close enough to their final values to be published. There was a particular problem with the 1999 data, which is incomplete and will remain so.

  Housing Stock Transfer
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has for bringing housing in local housing authorities where tenants have voted against stock transfers or Arms Length Management Organisations up to the decent homes standards specified in Labour's 2001 manifesto. [172282]

  Keith Hill
  Where local authorities need additional funds over and above the substantial increases this government has made to funding for council housing, they have three options, establishing an Arms Length Management Organisation, using the Private Finance Initiative or transfers or their stock to a registered social landlord. If tenants reject all of these options then we will respect their decision. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no proposals for providing additional resources above the three options. It is for local authorities with their tenants to work through the Options Appraisal process and to reach a decision from the options available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the standard spending assessment for youth and community in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) the constituency of Huntingdon (i) was in each of the last five years and (ii) is for 2004–05. [172635]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Youth and Community block is a sub-block within the Education service block and was introduced in 2003–04. In the same year the Government replaced Standard Spending Assessments (SSA) with Formula Spending Shares (FSS). Huntingdonshire is a district council and does therefore not provide Education services. The Youth and Community FSS figures for Cambridgeshire are:

  £

  2003–04

  4,036.647

  2004–05

  4,211.442

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities have been capped in the last 25 years. [172931]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The local authorities capped each year in England were:
  513W

  Local authorities

  1990–91

  Avon; Barnsley; Basildon; Brent; Bristol; Calderdale; Camden; Derbyshire; Doncaster; Greenwich; Hammersmith and Fulham; Haringey; Hillingdon; Islington; Lambeth; North Tyneside; Rochdale; Rotherham; Southwark; St. Helens; Wigan

  1991–92

  Basildon; Bristol; Greenwich; Ipswich; Lambeth; Langbaurgh; Middlesbrough; Milton Keynes; Norwich; Reading; Somerset; Stoke; Warwickshire; Wirral

  1992–93

  Basildon; Cheltenham; Gloucester; Gloucestershire; Greenwich; Hillingdon; Lambeth; Langbaurgh; Middlesbrough; Warwickshire

  1993–94

  Castle Point; Gloucestershire; Harlow

  1994–95

  Langbaurgh; Sheffield; Slough

  1995–96

  Norwich; Barnsley; Sheffield; Newcastle upon Tyne; Devon; Gloucestershire; Shropshire

  1996–97

  Cambridgeshire; Oxfordshire

  1997–98

  Oxfordshire; Somerset; Warwickshire

  1998–99

  Derbyshire

  Capping legislation was originally introduced in 1984. More flexible reserve capping powers were taken in 1999. These have not been used until this year. My Statement in the House on 29 April 2004, Official Report, column 1019, sets out the action the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is taking this year.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the standard spending assessment for youth and community services in Gloucestershire(a) was in each of the last four financial years and (b) is for 2004–05. [169874]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The youth and community block is a sub-block within the education service block and was introduced in 2003–04. In the same year the Government replaced standard spending assessments (SSA) with formula spending shares (FSS). The youth and community FSS figures for Gloucestershire are:

  £

  2003–04

  4,138,595

  2004–05

  4,303,748

  Ministerial Visits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list visits made by each Minister in the Department between December 2003 and April 2004, broken down by(a) date, (b) constituency visited and (c) cost. [171572]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of the number and percentage of registered voters for the pending national election in each province of Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [172091]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to the Afghanistan Joint Electoral Monitoring Body, as of 6 May a total of 2,033,568 Afghans (approximately 20 per cent.) have been registered to vote, of whom 30 per cent. (615,818) are women. Following is a regional breakdown.
  514W

  Regional breakdown

  Number

  Central

  837,650

  East

  299,416

  North East

  150,790

  South East

  49,844

  Central Highlands

  46,576

  North

  212,568

  South

  143,846

  West

  292,878

  Phase I of voter registration (in Kabul and regional centres) has been completed. Phase II (designed to reach more rural areas) was launched on 1 May.

  The UK is committed to supporting the electoral process. Last year we contributed £10.55 million to support election registration. We have pledged a further £0.5 million for voter education and £2.77 million to support preparations for the elections themselves.

  British Citizens (Imprisonment Abroad)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens were imprisoned abroad in each of the last three years, broken down by country of imprisonment. [171254]

  Mr. Mullin
  The total number of British citizens detained overseas in the last three years is:

  Number

  2002–03

  7,861

  2001–02

  7,499

  2000–01

  8,428

  I have placed a breakdown by country of imprisonment and British Posts for 2002–03 in the Library of the House. It would incur disproportionate costs to provide a breakdown by country for those detained in 2001–02 and 2000–01. However, the following tables show those British Posts recording the highest numbers of British citizens detained for the last three years:

  2000–01

  Post

  Numbers detained

  Percentage of British citizens detained compared to all overseas Posts

  Country

  Ibiza

  2,006

  24

  Spain

  Malaga

  394

  5

  Spain

  Tenerife

  296

  4

  Spain

  Orlando

  296

  4

  USA

  515W

  2000–01

  Post

  Numbers detained

  Percentage of British citizens detained compared to all overseas Posts

  Country

  Lille

  292

  3

  France

  Los Angeles

  253

  3

  USA

  New York

  229

  3

  USA

  Sydney

  220

  3

  Australia

  Alicante

  216

  3

  Spain

  Houston

  155

  2

  USA

  Total

  4,357

  52

  —

  2001–02

  Post

  Numbers detained

  Percentage of British citizens detained compared to all overseas Posts

  Country

  Ibiza

  1,531

  20

  Spain

  Orlando

  492

  7

  USA

  Tenerife

  318

  4

  Spain

  Lille

  272

  4

  France

  Los Angeles

  257

  3

  USA

  New York

  243

  3

  USA

  Kingston

  230

  3

  Jamaica

  Palma

  229

  3

  Spain

  Athens

  190

  3

  Greece

  Sydney

  164

  2

  Australia

  Total

  3,926

  52

  —

  2002–03

  Post

  Numbers detained

  Percentage of British citizens detained compared to all overseas Posts

  Country

  Malaga

  619

  8

  Spain

  Orlando

  546

  7

  USA

  Houston

  391

  5

  USA

  Los Angeles

  384

  5

  USA

  New York

  327

  4

  USA

  Tenerife

  315

  4

  Spain

  Sydney

  246

  3

  Australia

  Alicante

  231

  3

  Spain

  Palma

  227

  3

  Spain

  Dublin

  225

  3

  Ireland

  Total

  3,511

  45

  —

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens were sentenced to life imprisonment abroad in each of the last three years, broken down by country of imprisonment; and how many of these sentences were revised on appeal. [171256]

  Mr. Mullin
  The number of British Nationals detained in prisons overseas is collected on a quarterly and annual basis by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The data is not categorised by the length of sentence received and only represents those prisoners who have asked the local authorities to inform the British consulate of their arrest or who request consular assistance.

  Burma
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Department's516W
  assessment is of (a) the Burmese Government's seven point road map to democracy and (b) the proposed national constitutional convention. [172511]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are encouraged by the State Peace and Development Council's plans to reconvene the National Convention on 17 May to draft a new constitution, the first step of the road map outlined by Prime Minister Khin Nyunt on 30 August 2003. But it is essential that the National Convention is an inclusive, transparent process with a clear time frame. All political parties and ethnic groups should be invited to join the Convention, and to select their representatives freely. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all other National League for Democracy (NLD) members should be released immediately to allow them to prepare their approach to the National Convention.

  Without the participation of the NLD, the Convention will lack all credibility. There must be full freedom of debate and speech in the Convention and freedom of activity and association for political parties and ethnic groups. This includes ensuring that the 104 principles of the previous National Convention (1993–1996) are open for debate. Freedom from prosecution for views expressed on the Convention must be guaranteed.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Department has had with the Burmese Government regarding the(a) recent opening of the National League for Democracy's headquarters in Rangoon and (b) the continued closure of its other offices. [172513]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We welcome the recent opening of the National League for Democracy's (NLD) headquarters in Rangoon. We have repeatedly called on the Burmese regime to re-open all NLD offices throughout Burma.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with the Burmese Government regarding the possible release of Aung San Suu Kyi. [172515]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have repeatedly called on the Burmese regime to fully release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners and to allow them to play an active role in national reconciliation in Burma.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 6 April with regard to Mr. Mehrat Din and Muhammed Aqdas Din. [172250]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied on 28 April.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of policy entrants to his Department in each of the last five years attended public or independent schools. [172116]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is in the following table.
  517W

  Policy entrants

  Percentage from independent schools

  1999

  60

  2000

  64

  2001

  48

  2002

  24

  2003

  37

  The recruitment section records school information as "independent" (which includes public schools) or "comprehensive".

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who the members of the Departmental Board are, broken down by(a) gender, (b) race or ethnicity, (c) whether they attended public or independent school and (d) whether they attended Oxford University or Cambridge University; and how long each has been in post. [172117]

  Mr. Straw
  The Data Protection Act prevents us from providing information about the ethnicity or race of individuals. The members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Board, and the background information requested, as published in Who's Who, is as follows:Sir Michael Jay—Sir Michael has been in his current post for two years. He was educated at Oxford and London Universities, and Winchester College.
  Sir Stephen Brown—Sir Stephen has been in his current post for two years. He was educated at Sussex University, the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Leeds Grammar School.
  John Sawers— John Sawers has been in his current post for one year. He was educated at Nottingham University, and Beechen Cliff School, Bath.
  Kim Darroch—Kim Darroch has been in his current post for one year. He was educated at Durham University, and Abingdon School.
  Martin Donnelly—Martin Donnelly has been in his current post for two months. He was educated at Oxford University and Saint Ignatius College.
  William Ehrman—William Ehrman has been in his current post for two years. He was educated at Cambridge University, and Eton.
  Richard Stagg—Richard Stagg has been in his current post for one year. He was educated at Oxford University, and Winchester College.
  David Warren—David Warren has been in his current post for three months. He was educated at Oxford University, and Epsom College.
  Simon Fraser—Simon Fraser has been in his current post for two years. He was educated at Cambridge University, and St. Paul's School.
  Simon Gass—Simon Gass has been in his current post for three years. He was educated at Reading University, and Eltham College.

  The Board also has two non-executive members, Allan Gormly, Chairman of BPB Industries, and Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Director of Corporate Affairs, Tesco plc.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office needs to be, and to be seen to be, representative of the diverse UK population as a whole; we are committed to achieving this and now have 21 female and two minority ethnic heads of posts. But we are aware that we have some way to go.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government supports the establishment of a United Nations mediator to Iraq. [171810]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government supports a vital and developing role for the United Nations in Iraq. The UN Secretary-General's Special Adviser, Lakhdar Brahimi, is already playing an important role building an Iraqi consensus on the formation of an Interim Government by 30 June. We welcome his proposals and look forward to working with him and the people of Iraq on developing them. We also welcome the role of Carina Perelli, Head of the UN's Elections Assistance Division, whose proposals for the preparations for elections in early 2005 have been agreed by the Iraqi Governing Council.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will encourage those responsible for the final Iraq constitution to amend the constitution so that the target of 25 per cent. of women in political positions in the interim constitution becomes a minimum requirement. [172201]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Transitional National Assembly will be formed by democratic elections by early 2005. The Transitional Administrative Law stipulates that the electoral law shall aim to achieve the goal of having women constitute no less than one quarter of the National Assembly. The members of that Assembly will draft the Iraqi constitution, which will then be ratified by a referendum. We would expect democratically-elected members to ensure appropriate representation of women and we will ensure they are fully aware of the Government's policy of encouraging this.

  Libya
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government has made to the Libyan Government concerning the sentencing to death of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor for allegedly infecting children with HIV; what discussions the Government has held with European partners on this matter; what plans the Government has to raise this matter at the UN Commission on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement. [172667]

  Mr. Straw
  My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean telephoned Libyan Foreign Minister Shalgam on 9 May to express our concern at the verdict. The EU Troika met Mr. Shalgam during the EuroMed Ministerial in Dublin on 6 May to highlight the EU's concern at the court's decision and underline that a satisfactory resolution to this case is a factor in the further improvement of Libya's relations with the EU. I spoke immediately after the verdicts were handed down to Bulgarian Foreign Minister Passy to offer our support. The next session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights will take place in spring 2005. The Government will consider nearer the time whether action in that forum is appropriate.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with the Nigerian Government regarding the issue of people trafficking. [172512]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British High Commission in Abuja is in regular contact with the Nigerian National Agency for the Prohibition of Traffic in Persons to identify ways to intensify co-operation to prevent trafficking in human beings. President Obasanjo has recently appointed a Special Assistant on Trafficking who is charged with establishing a National Strategy.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with EU partners on the situation in Darfur; and if he will make a statement. [172664]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 12 May 2004]: The situation in Darfur was discussed at the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council on 26 April. Since then it has also been discussed by the Political and Security Committee, the Africa Working Group and the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Working Group. Our Ambassador in Khartoum, as a member of the local EU Troika, took part in a demarche on the acting Foreign Minister on the subject of Darfur on 8 May.

  I met the Sudanese Foreign Minister, Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail on 11 May in London.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the relationship between the Janjaweed militias and the Sudanese Government in Darfur. [172666]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 12 May 2004]: According to reports from the UN and non-governmental organisations, the Janjaweed militias have been operating in close coordination with the forces of the Government of Sudan. The Secretary of State for International Development and I made clear to the Sudanese Foreign Minister, during his visit on 11 May, that the Sudanese Government has an obligation to protect its civilians and must act now to rein in the Janjaweed militias.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent report commissioned by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation in Darfur. [172696]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 12 May 2004]: The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has recently issued a report on its visit to Darfur, western Sudan. The Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights briefed the Security Council on the content of this report on 7 May, highlighting the seriousness of the humanitarian and human rights situation in Darfur. We are studying the recommendations in the report and considering the best way in which to take these forward.

  We have called on all parties to abide by the cease-fire and stop targeting civilians. I met the Sudanese Foreign Minister on 11 May and made clear that the human rights abuses and breaches of international humanitarian law are unacceptable and must stop, and
  520W
  that the Sudanese Government has a responsibility to rein in the Janjaweed militias which are responsible for many of the worst atrocities.

  Sudan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent vote in the UN Human Rights Commission concerning the human rights situation in Western Sudan, with particular reference to the Government's position on the two defeated amendments to the Human Rights Commission's decision on the Sudan moved by the United States. [172665]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 12 May 2004]: The language of the Commission on Human Rights decision on Sudan was disappointingly weak. But it was a better outcome than last year, as the decision mandates an independent expert to provide formal international scrutiny of the human rights situation in Sudan. The EU insisted on the establishment of an independent expert to carry out this work. Such international scrutiny has been lacking since the end of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur when the EU-sponsored Sudan Resolution was defeated at last year's Commission on Human Rights.

  We fully supported the draft EU Item 9 Resolution on Sudan, but Commission on Human Rights procedure meant that an alternative draft decision on Sudan, tabled by the African Group under a different agenda item, took precedence. We also supported the two amendments to the decision proposed by the US, but these were defeated in a vote.

  Syria
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Department has had with the Syrian government regarding the recent arrest of the lawyer and human rights activist Aktham Naisse. [172506]

  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly raise our concerns about Syria's human rights record, bilaterally and in conjunction with EU partners. Our Ambassador to Damascus was a member of the EU Troika which demarched the Syrian government on the arrest of Aktham Naisse on 26 April 2004.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions the Department has had with the Vietnamese Government regarding human rights abuses against the Central Highlands minority Christian population. [172509]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I raised human rights and the situation in the Central Highlands with the Vietnamese government during my visit to Vietnam in March. We are very concerned about the recent violence in the region, and the reported deaths of several protesters. Our Ambassador in Hanoi expressed our concern to the Vietnamese government on 16 April and I subsequently discussed the issue with the Vietnamese Foreign Minister on 4 May, and with Deputy Foreign Minister Le Van Bang, whom I met in London on 5 May. The EU has also made representations, calling on the
  521W
  Vietnamese authorities to respect fully international human rights standards in their response to demonstrations; to allow the international community access to the area; and to address the grievances of the ethnic minority people in the Central Highlands.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding will be made available for the establishment of(a) Young Apprenticeships, (b) Pre-Apprenticeships, (c) Apprenticeships and (d) Advanced-Apprenticeships in the next financial year. [172975]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  For Young Apprenticeships £3.5 million is available in the programme's first academic year 2004/05. Funding of Apprenticeship programmes post 16 are a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many residents of Stockton, South have undertaken apprenticeships in each of the last five years. [171456]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available at parliamentary constituency level. However, figures are available for Learning and Skills Council (LSC) areas and, prior to the creation of the LSC, Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) areas. The following table shows the number of starts on modern apprenticeships in Tees Valley LSC area between April 2001 and the end of July 2003, as well as the number of starts from April 1998 to March 2001 in Tees Valley TEC area.

  Time period1

  TEC/LSC

  Advanced MA

  Foundation MA

  April 1998 to March 1999

  Tees Valley TEC

  1,700

  400

  April 1999 to March 2000

  Tees Valley TEC

  1,900

  3,100

  April 2000 to March 2001

  Tees Valley TEC

  2,100

  3,300

  April 2001 to July 2002

  Tees Valley LSC

  1,000

  3,200

  August 2002 to July 2003

  Tees Valley LSC

  900

  2,600

  1TECs reported figures in financial years. LSC reports figures in academic years. The first LSC 'year' was 16 months in order to bring the financial year figures into line with academic years.

  Note:

  All figures rounded to nearest 100.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: number of pupils in classes of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher Position as at January each year

  Maintained primary

  Maintained secondary

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Wigan parliamentary constituency

  Total pupils in all classes

  Number of pupils

  percentage of pupils2

  Total pupils in all classes

  Number of pupils

  percentage of pupils2

  1997

  7,130

  3,260

  45.7

  4,890

  220

  4.5

  2003

  6,320

  1,290

  20.8

  5,470

  700

  12.7

  2004 (provisional)

  6,320

  1,300

  20.5

  5,630

  800

  14.2

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Percentage of pupils in those classes expressed as a percentage of pupils in the sum of constituent items and the total.

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10, therefore there may be discrepancies between all classes taught by one teacher.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  522W
  Sources:

  TEC Management Information.

  LSC Individualised Learner Record.

  Bootle Schools
  Mr. Benton
  Te ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Bootle deemed to be failing since 1997 have since reached satisfactory standards. [172022]

  Mr. Miliband
  One school in Bootle has been deemed to be failing since 1997 and has subsequently reached satisfactory standards.

  Bullying
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many instances of bullying were recorded in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Brent in each year since 1997; and what the average figures for (i) English borough councils and (ii) London boroughs were in each year. [172811]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Data on bullying are not collected centrally and there is no reliable basis for an estimate of prevalence. However, any level of bullying is too high and we are determined to help schools to tackle the problem. Our guidance pack 'Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence' and the. anti-bullying Charter and the anti-bullying website www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying offer detailed advice on preventing and addressing bullying. In November 2003 I launched our anti-bullying Charter for schools, which schools are now signing. It is accompanied by a summary of effective practice to help schools review and enhance their anti-bullying policies. The Charter was launched at the first of a series of regional conferences which have been running since November 2003 and culminate with a final conference in June. These conferences are an opportunity for schools and other partners to share good practice on this issue. Details of the conferences can be accessed online at www.teachernet.gov.uk/antibulling

  Class Sizes (Wigan)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Wigan were taught in classes of more than 30(a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [169283]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is shown in the table, final figures for 1997 and 2003 plus latest provisional figures for 2004 have been provided.

  Classics
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which secondary schools in the maintained sector in England offer(a) Ancient Greek and (b) Latin at A level. [172441]

  Mr. Miliband
  The DfES does not have on information which schools offer individual subjects. We can only identify those schools where pupils were entered for a subject in a particular year.

  There are eight maintained secondary schools where at least one student attempted an A level in Greek in the academic year 2002–03. The schools are:

  The Camden School for Girls

  St. Francis Xavier's College, Liverpool

  Weatherhead High School, Wallasey

  Easingwold School, York

  Ripon Grammar School

  Reading School

  Colchester Royal Grammar School

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  There are 84 maintained secondary schools where at least one student attempted an A level in Latin. The schools are:

  The Camden School for Girls, Camden

  The London Oratory School, Hammersmith and Fulham

  The Cardinal Vaughan Memorial RC School, Kensington and Chelsea

  The Henrietta Barnett School, Barnet

  St Michael's Catholic Grammar School, Barnet

  Chislehurst and Sidcup Grammar School, Bexley

  St. Olave's and St. Saviour's Grammar School, Bromley

  Drayton Manor High School, Baling

  The Latymer School, Enfield

  St. Ignatius College, Enfield

  The Tiffin Girls' School, Kingston upon Thames

  Tiffin School, Kingston upon Thames

  Ilford County High School, Redbridge

  Woodford County High School, Redbridge

  Nonsuch High School for Girls, Sutton

  The John Fisher School, Sutton

  King Edward VI Handsworth School, Birmingham

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Girls, Birmingham

  Old Swinford Hospital, Dudley

  Wolverhampton Girls' High School, Wolverhampton

  Archbishop Blanch Church of England Voluntary Aided High School A Technology College, Liverpool

  St. Francis Xavier's College, Liverpoo1

  The Blue Coat School, Liverpool

  Manor High School, Sefton

  Chesterfield High School, Sefton

  West Kirby Grammar School, Wirral

  Weatherhead High School, Wirral

  St. Anselm's College, Wirral

  Thornleigh Salesian College, Bolton

  Altrincham Grammar School for Boys, Trafford

  Loreto Grammar School, Trafford

  St. Anthony's Catholic Girls' School, Sunderland

  Ripon Grammar School, North Yorkshire

  524W

  Ermysted's Grammar School, North Yorkshire

  All Saints RC School, York

  Dr. Challoner's High School, Buckinghamshire

  Aylesbury Grammar School, Buckinghamshire

  Wycombe High School, Buckinghamshire

  The Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire

  Bournemouth School, Bournemouth

  St. John's School and Community College, Wiltshire

  Reading School, Reading

  Kendrick Girls' Grammar School, Reading

  St. Bernard's Convent School, Slough

  The King's School, Peterborough

  Devonport High School for Boys, Plymouth

  Chelmsford County High School for Girls, Essex

  King Edward VI Grammar School, Chelmsford, Essex

  Colchester Royal Grammar School, Essex

  Colchester County High School for Girls, Essex

  Brentwood Ursuline Convent High School, Essex

  Southend High School for Boys, Southend on Sea

  Maidstone Grammar School, Kent

  Simon Langton Girls' Grammar School, Kent

  The Judd School, Kent

  Dartford Grammar School, Kent

  Cranbrook School, Kent

  The Archbishop's School, Kent

  Tonbridge Grammar School for Girls, Kent

  Dover Grammar School for Boys, Kent

  The Rochester Grammar School for Girls, Medway

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School, Lancashire

  Stroud High School, Gloucestershire

  Hitchin Boys' School, Hertfordshire

  Hitchin Girls' School, Hertfordshire

  Freman College, Hertfordshire

  Watford Grammar School for Boys, Hertfordshire

  Watford Grammar School for Girls, Hertfordshire

  The Bishop's Stortford High School, Hertfordshire

  Boston High School, Lincolnshire

  Spalding High School, Lincolnshire

  Spalding Grammar School, Lincolnshire

  Caistor Grammar School, Lincolnshire

  The Henry Box School, Oxfordshire

  Wheatley Park School, Oxfordshire

  Northgate High School, Suffolk

  Oxted School, Surrey

  George Abbot School, Surrey

  Stratford-upon-Avon Grammar School for Girls A Specialist Language College, Warwickshire

  Kenilworth School and Sports College, Warwickshire

  Rugby High School, Warwickshire

  Chichester High School for Girls, West Sussex

  Hazelwick School, West Sussex

  Bishop Luffa Church of England School, Chichester, West Sussex

  Correspondence
  Mr. IIlsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills under what circumstances the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education received a copy of the letter written by the hon. Member
  525W
  for Barnsley, Central to Professor Boucher, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield, dated 26 January. [171105]

  Alan Johnson
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Departmental Policies
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will set out, with statistical information relating as closely as possible to the constituency of Ilford, North, the effect of his Department's policies on Ilford, North since 1997. [164884]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The constituency of Ilford, North falls within Redbridge local education authority. Where the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) can or does collect information by constituency, it has been provided.

  Additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, my Department is investigating ways in which we disseminate information about the effects of our policies at a local level. We hope to have systems to facilitate this in place later this year.

  Children, Young People and Families

  Early Education

  All 3 and 4-year-olds are now guaranteed a free, part-time, Government funded, early education place if their parents want it throughout England. We understand that the current early education participation rate in the Redbridge authority is around 68 per cent.

  Child Care

  There has been a major expansion in child care provision since 1997. We only have figures at local authority level. Since April 1999 we had created, by March 2004, over 3,200 new child care places benefiting over 5,800 children in Redbridge.

  Children's Social Services

  Children's social services in the constituency are delivered by Redbridge council which is a two star social services authority, with services for children and families assessed as serving most people well with promising prospects (as published in the Annual Review of Performance Reports, issued by the Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate).

  Disadvantaged Area Programmes

  Some of our key programmes for young children and families target the most disadvantaged communities. We have created three Neighbourhood Nurseries in the constituency with 136 new places. There are no Sure Start local programmes or Early Excellence Centres within the constituency. Redbridge intends to create four children's centres at least one of which is likely to be in Ilford, North.

  Connexions

  Connexions, the Government's front line support service for all young people aged 13–19, is providing advice, guidance and support to young people in Ilford, North constituency through East London Connexions Partnership. Since its launch in June 2002, young people aged 13–19 have had access to support and advice on a range of issues to help them participate and achieve in education, employment and training and to reach their full potential as adults.
  526W
  Youth Services

  Although not recently inspected by Ofsted, Redbridge Youth Service has used the findings of an independent inspection based on the Ofsted Framework and the Government's requirements within Transforming Youth Work to reconfigure the service during 2003/04. The 2004–05 plan, although still draft, demonstrates a commitment to achieving the performance measures required by Transforming Youth Work: Resourcing Excellent Youth Services.

  Extended Schools

  The Department is supporting the rollout of up to 240 full service extended schools by 2006, so that there will be at least one in each LEA area. Redbridge LEA will be developing one full service extended school from this year.

  Schools

  Recurrent Funding

  The estimated1 increase in per pupil funding in Redbridge in real terms from 1997–98 to 2004–05 is £700 compared with the national average of £880.

  Capital Funding

  Redbridge LEA had an allocation of £13.1 million (including £3.2 million which is devolved directly to schools) for 2003–04 compared with £9.9 million in 1996–97. Redbridge LEA has been allocated £16.1 million for 2004–05. Some Voluntary Aided allocations have still to be included for 2004–05.

  School Performance Tables

  Key Stage (KS) figures can be found at on the DfES website at: www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables

  Class Sizes

  The number of 5, 6 and 7-year-olds in classes over 30 has fallen from 2,331 in 1997 to 95 by January 2003.

  Teachers

  Since 1997 (to 2003) there are 370 more teachers (FTE), 429 more teaching assistants and 548 more support staff.

  Specialist Schools

  There are nine Specialist Schools in Redbridge LEA.

  Beacon Schools

  There are two Beacon Schools in Redbridge LEA.

  Primary Strategy Leadership

  10 primary schools in Redbridge LEA are part of the Primary Strategy Leadership programme this year. Additional schools will be selected by the LEA to enter the programme in 2004/05.

  Leadership Incentive Grant

  There is one secondary school in Redbridge in receipt of LIG, the Loxford School of Science and Technology. This is a high-performing school which receives LIG because more than 35 per cent. of its pupils are eligible for Free School Meals.

  Behaviour Improvement Projects

  All secondary schools in Redbridge LEA receive support from the Behaviour and Attendance strand of the Key Stage 3 Strategy, including a behaviour audit and training materials and support from specialist LEA-level consultants. Primary schools in the area receive

  527W
  support through the Primary National Strategy's Behaviour and Attendance Pilot, which includes a primary behaviour audit and curriculum and training materials with special focus on children's social, emotional and behavioural skills.

  14–19 Education

  The Government's strategy for 14–19 education and training, set out in "14–19: opportunity and excellence", will provide all young people with the opportunity to continue their education in different settings, including schools, colleges, and the workplace.

  The impact of the 14–19 agenda on Ilford, North includes:

  Strategic Area Reviews (StARs)

  In April 2003, all local Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) started strategic area reviews (StARs) of post-16 LSC-funded provision. These reviews aim to achieve the right mix of provision in an area to improve participation, raise attainment and improve learner choice. StARs will ensure that there is the breadth of opportunity and quality of provision to meet the needs of learners, employers and communities.

  All local LSCs have been gathering information, reviewing provider missions, and consequently building an understanding of each provider's role and the provision on offer. The next step is to develop strategic options.

  In the case of Ilford, North, and its local LSC, London East, progress is good and work continues with developing borough profiles and strategic proposals.

  To support the StAR process, and to provide local providers with a clear understanding of what the local learning and skills priorities are, LSC London East are producing an over arching strategic framework document.

  The LSC London East has, in addition to the StAR process, conducted a survey to test its assumptions about what young people, adults and employers want from education.

  Vocational Provision

  London East LSC currently has four work-based learning providers delivering vocational programmes in the constituency of Ilford, North.

  Learners in the borough have access to all of the remaining 42 work-based learning providers in the London East portfolio. Within a reasonable travelling distance they can gain entry to over 40 occupational areas ranging from Accounting, Engineering, Childcare, Retail, Hospitality and Catering and Information technology.

  Educational Maintenance Allowances

  Redbridge is not an EMA pilot area. However the scheme has now been launched nationally and all eligible students in England can apply for EMA for academic year 2004/05.

  Higher Education

  The number of 18 to 20-year-olds entering full-time Higher Education courses, are as follows.
  528W

  Redbridge LEA

  Number

  1997

  1,317

  1998

  1,366

  1999

  1,389

  2000

  1,604

  2001

  1,648

  2002

  1,799

  Adult Education

  The Local Labour Force Survey shows that in Ilford, North:
  The proportion of working age people qualified to at least level 4 rose from 17.4 per cent. in 1999 to 21.1 per cent. in 2002.
  The proportion of working age people qualified to at least level 2 rose from 59.5 per cent. in 1999 to 64.3 per cent. in 2002.
  The proportion of working age people without any qualification rose from 11.5 per cent. in 1999 to 14.7 per cent. in 2002.
  The proportion of working age people who received job related training in the last four weeks has fallen from 12.3 per cent. in 1999 to 9.4 per cent. in 2002.
  1Includes provisional estimates of grants and allocations still to be confirmed. Total funding per pupil aged 3–19 includes Education Formula Spending (EFS) and all relevant grants in the DfES Departmental Expenditure Limits but, for comparability, exclude the pensions transfer to Learning and Skills Council and EFS in 2003–04 and 2004–05. Real terms at 2002–03 prices.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Newcastle East and Wallsend constituency, the effects on Newcastle, East and Wallsend of his Department's policies and actions since 1997. [166879]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The constituency of Newcastle Upon Tyne, East and Wallsend covers part of both Newcastle upon Tyne and North Tyneside local education authorities. Where the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) can or does collect information by constituency, it has been provide

  Additional information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, my Department is investigating ways in which we disseminate information about the effects of our policies at a local level. We hope to have systems to facilitate this in place later this year.

  Children, Young People and Families Early Education

  All 3 and 4-year-olds are now guaranteed a free, part-time, Government funded early education place if their parents want it throughout England. We understand that the current early education participation rate in the Newcastle upon Tyne authority is around 100 per cent. and in the North Tyneside authority 94 per cent.

  Child Care

  There has been a major expansion in child care provision since 1997. We only have figures at local authority level, but at March 2004 we had created over 4,200 new child care places since April 1999, benefiting over 7,500 children, in Newcastle upon Tyne, and over 4,300 new places benefiting over 7,700 children in North Tyneside.
  529W
  Children's Social Services

  Children's social services in the constituency are delivered by two councils—Newcastle and North Tyneside. Newcastle is a three star social services authority with services for children and families assessed as serving most children well with excellent prospects. North Tyneside is a one star council with services for children and families assessed as serving some children well with promising prospects. These judgments are set out in the annual review of Performance Ratings for Social Services in England published by the Chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate in November 2003.

  Disadvantaged Area Programmes

  Some of our key programmes for young children and families target the most disadvantaged communities. The constituency contains three Sure Start local programmes, two in Newcastle (West Walker and Fossway) and one in North Tyneside (Wallsend). The West Walker programme is also linked to the Walkergate Early Years Centre Early Excellence Centre. Wallsend and West Walker also have Neighbourhood Nurseries which, along with another two standalone projects, have created 131 new places in the constituency. Both authorities are now working on their plans for children's centres which will build on this existing provision. Newcastle upon Tyne intends to create nine centres and North Tyneside six, two of which have already been designated.

  Connexions

  Connexions, the Government's front line support service for all young people aged 13–19, is providing advice, guidance and support to young people in Newcastle Upon Tyne, East and Wallsend constituency through Tyne and Wear Connexions Partnership. Since its launch in April 2002 young people aged 13–19 have had access to support and advice on a range of issues to help them participate and achieve in education, employment and training and to reach their full potential as adults.

  Youth Services

  There are two local authority youth services in Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend: Newcastle; and North Tyneside. Both services have been subject to Ofsted inspections in recent years, and in both significant weaknesses were found. But both local authorities have responded positively, increasing their investment in their youth services. They have also revised and updated many of their procedures and have fully embraced the Transforming Youth Work agenda.

  Extended Schools

  The Department is supporting the rollout of up to 240 full service extended schools by 2006, so that there will be at least one in each LEA area. Benfield School in Newcastle LEA has been developing as a full service extended school from 2003–04.

  Schools Recurrent Funding

  The estimated1 increase in per pupil funding in real terms from 1997–98 to 2004–05 is £920 in Newcastle upon Tyne and £940 in North Tyneside compared with the national average of £880.
  530W
  Capital Funding

  North Tyneside LEA had an allocation of £11.5 million (including £2.6 million which is devolved directly to schools, £2.4 million in targeted Capital funding and £0.5 million in VA Targeted Capital funding) for 2003–04 compared with £1.4 million in 1996–97. North Tyneside LEA has been allocated £6.7 million for 2004–05. Some Voluntary Aided (VA) allocations have still to he included for 2004–05.

  Newcastle LEA had an allocation of £16.3 million (including £3.4 million which is devolved directly to schools and £5 million for VA Targeted Capital funding) for 2003–04 compared with £1.0 million in 1996–97. Newcastle LEA has been allocated £69.7 million for 2004–05 (including 360 million in PFI credits). Some VA allocations have still to be included for 2004–05.

  School Performance Tables

  Key Stage (KS) figures can be found at on the DIES website at: www.dfes.gov.uk/performancetables

  Class Sizes

  In North Tyneside LEA the number of 5, 6 and 7-year-olds in classes over 30 has fallen from 2,183 in 1997 to 0 by January 2003.

  In Newcastle upon Tyne LEA the number of 5, 6 and 7-year-olds in classes over 30 has fallen from 2,964 in 1997 to 63 by January 2003.

  Teachers

  In North Tyneside LEA the number of teachers (FTE from 1997 to 2003) is unchanged. However there are 110 more teaching assistants than in 1997 and 345 more support staff than in 1997.

  In Newcastle LEA the number of teachers has risen by 50 (FTE from 1997 to 2003). However there are 246 more teaching assistants than in 1997 and 434 more support staff than in 1997.

  Specialist Schools

  There are eight specialist schools in Newcastle upon Tyne LEA and seven specialist schools in North Tyneside LEA.

  Beacon Schools

  There are six beacon schools in Newcastle upon Tyne LEA and eight beacon schools in North Tyneside LEA.

  Primary Strategy Leadership

  17 primary schools in Newcastle upon Tyne LEA and 13 primary schools in North Tyneside LEA are part of the Primary Strategy Leadership programme this year. Additional schools will be selected by the LEAs to enter the programme in 2004/05.

  Leadership Incentive Grant

  There are 11 secondary schools in Newcastle upon Tyne in receipt of LIG and 11 secondary schools in North Tyneside in receipt of LIG. All are eligible for LIG because they are part of the Excellence in Cities programme.

  Behaviour Improvement Projects

  All secondary schools in Newcastle upon Tyne and North Tyneside receive support from the Behaviour and Attendance strand of the Key Stage 3 Strategy, including a behaviour audit and training materials and support from specialist LEA—level consultants. In addition, four secondary schools and 27 primary

  531W
  schools in Newcastle upon Tyne and four secondary schools and 15 primary schools in North Tyneside participate in the Behaviour Improvement Programme, which provides more intensive support for schools facing the greatest challenges.

  14–19 Education

  The Government's strategy for 14–19 education and training, set out in "14–19: opportunity and excellence", will provide all young people with the opportunity to continue their education in different settings, including schools, colleges, and the workplace.

  The impact of the 14–19 agenda on Newcastle Upon Tyne, East and Wallsend includes:

  16–19 Area Inspection (14–19 from March 2003)

  16–19 Area Inspections were introduced in 1999 as a key means of securing improvements in learning for young people. Both Newcastle Upon Tyne and North Tyneside have had a 16–19 area inspection, copies of their Ofsted reports can be found on their website www.ofsted.gov.uk.

  With Tyne and Wear LSC in the lead, local partners have developed Action Plans for both areas, which have been accepted by Ministers. Tyne and Wear LSC are responsible for the implementation of both action plans, which are still ongoing.

  In the autumn, Newcastle will under-go a further Area Inspection of 14–19 learning which will be undertaken jointly by Ofsted and the ALI. The LSC Tyne and Wear and the LEA will be jointly asked, along with local partners to prepare and implement an Action Plan, following the 14–19 Area Inspection.

  Strategic Area Reviews (StARs)

  In April 2003, all local Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) started strategic area reviews (StARs) of post-16 LSC-funded provision. These reviews aim to achieve the right mix of provision in an area to improve participation, raise attainment and improve learner choice. StARs will ensure that there is the breadth of opportunity and quality of provision to meet the needs of learners, employers and communities.

  All local LSCs have been gathering information, reviewing provider missions, and consequently building an understanding of each provider's role and the provision on offer.

  In LSC Tyne and Wear's area there were five 16–19 area wide inspections between spring 2000 and spring 2002, including for Newcastle and North Tyneside (the local authority areas in which the constituency of Newcastle East and Wallsend falls). As a result of these inspections both authorities, in conjunction with the local LSC and many other partners in the Learning Partnerships, produced and are now implementing 14–19 strategies. The objectives of these strategies align perfectly with that of the LSC's Strategic Area Review process.

  In both authorities, learning providers work in partnership on a wide range of learning issues, to deliver a learner entitlement for all young people. Over the last three years both authorities have seen an upward trend in participation and attainment at both GCSE and post-16 levels.
  532W
  The StAR process for LSC Tyne and Wear in relation to 14–19 provision is, therefore, one which builds on this effective partnership work, rather than proposing structural reorganisation.

  Vocational Provision

  Learners in Newcastle have easy access within the city to 21 work-based learning providers delivering a wide range of vocational programmes covering occupational areas/sectors which are significant to the sub-regional economy including Business and Administration, Construction, Engineering, Health and Care, Hospitality, ICT, Retail. These programmes are available at a range of levels, from Entry to Employment through Foundation Modern Apprenticeships to Advanced Modern Apprenticeships and, increasingly, to 14–16 learners as part of their individual learning programme.

  Four work-based learning providers are based in North Tyneside offering Business Administration, Construction, Engineering, Hair and Beauty, Hospitality and Catering programmes, as well as a very significant amount of Entry to Employment programmes and provision for learners with learning difficulties. Like Newcastle the provision in North Tyneside is appropriate for employment opportunities in the Tyne and Wear area.

  In the compact sub-region which comprises LSC Tyne and Wear learners from both of these local authority areas have access to more than 60 providers of work-based opportunities.

  Educational Maintenance Allowances

  There is one Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) pilot area in Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend. The pilot scheme has been in operation in North Tyneside since September 2000. In its first year the EMA provided financial support for 800 students and in each subsequent year 1,500 students have benefited from the scheme. In the financial year 2003–04 a total of £1.3 million in EMA payments were made for eligible students living in North Tyneside.

  The scheme has now been launched nationally and all eligible students in England can apply for EMA for academic year 2004/05.

  Higher Education

  The number of 18 to 20-year-olds entering full-time Higher Education courses, are as follows:

  Newcastle upon Tyne LEA

  North Tyneside LEA

  1997

  826

  746

  1998

  925

  772

  1999

  956

  821

  2000

  1,001

  769

  2001

  1,242

  698

  2002

  1,269

  651

  Adult Education

  The Local Labour Force Survey shows that in Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend:
  The proportion of working age people qualified to at least level 4 rose from 15.8 per cent. in 1999 to 21.1 per cent. in 2002.
  The proportion of working age people qualified to at least level 2 has fallen from 65.2 per cent. in 1999 to 62.7 per cent. in 2002.
  The proportion of working age people without any qualifications rose from 18.3 per cent. in 1999 to 19.4 per cent. in 2002.

  533W
  The proportion of working age people who received job related training in the last four weeks rose from 7.5 per cent. in 1999 to 12.5 per cent. in 2002.
  1Includes provisional estimates of grants and allocations still to be confirmed. Total funding per pupil aged 3–19 includes Education Formula Spending (EPS) and all relevant grants in the DfES departmental Expenditure Limits but, for comparability, exclude the pensions transfer to Learning and Skills Council and EPS in 2003–04 and 2004–05. Real terms at 2002–03 prices.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by his Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170798]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The percentage of crockery, cutlery and glassware procured by my Department over the last five years, which is of British manufacture is as follows:

  (a) crockery 90 per cent.

  (b) cutlery unknown country of origin not displayed

  (c) glassware 0 per cent.

  Education Services (Bootle)
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Bootle have benefited from the Excellence in Cities programme; and what the per pupil spending was in each year since the programme's inception. [172682]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of children in Bootle benefiting from EiC, and the annual spend per pupil for the years in question.

  Number of children

  Total EiC expenditure1 (£)

  Spend per pupil (£)

  2000–01

  4,219

  373,916

  88.63

  2001–02

  7,846

  1,150,998

  146.70

  2002–03

  7,821

  1,297,269

  165.87

  2003–04

  7,825

  2,498,105

  319.25

  Note:

  All funding figures supplied by Sefton Excellence in Cities Coordinator.

  The increase in the number of pupils benefiting from EiC from 2001 onwards is due to the schools in the Education Action Zones in the area coming under the control of the Sefton EiC Partnership.

  The large increase in the rate of EiC funding in 2002–03 is due to the extra funding provided through the Behaviour Improvement Programme and the increase in 2003–04 is due to the introduction of the Leadership Incentive Grant.

  Maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools1: school meal arrangements Position as at January each year—Edmonton Parliamentary Constituency

  Number on roll

  Number of pupils taking free school meals

  Percentage taking free school meals

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Maintained Nursery and Primary

  2001

  10,703

  2,556

  23.9

  2,977

  27.8

  2002

  10,686

  2,540

  23.8

  3,046

  28.5

  20032

  10,616

  2,611

  24.6

  3,097

  29.2

  Education Statistics (Manchester)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what public funding has been spent on adult(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in Manchester, Blackley in each of the last five years. [172889]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total spend on "Skills For Life" (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on Key Skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology), from April 2001 to July 2003, in the Greater Manchester Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area is set out in the following table:

  £000

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  April 2001 to July 20011

  8,925

  2,598

  August 2001 to July 2002

  15,369

  3,586

  August 2002 to July 2013

  27,258

  4,210

  1 The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  From the information available to the LSC it has not been feasible to obtain estimates at constituency level or separate figures by subject without incurring disproportionate cost. Likewise it has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April 2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was formed, but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Manchester, Blackley deemed to be failing since 1997 have since reached satisfactory standards. [172890]

  Mr. Miliband
  One primary school in Manchester, Blackley has been deemed to be failing on two inspections since 1997 and placed in special measures twice. Following the second designation, the requirement for special measures was removed in June 2003.

  Free School Meals (Edmonton)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children received free school meals in the constituency of Edmonton in(a) 1991–92, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2003 [169304]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: The available data on free school meals is shown in the table. Information for 1991–92 is not available at Parliamentary Constituency level.
  535W

  Maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools1: school meal arrangements Position as at January each year—Edmonton Parliamentary Constituency

  Number on roll

  Number of pupils taking free school meals

  Percentage taking free school meals

  Number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals

  Maintained Nursery and Primary

  2001

  5,791

  822

  14.2

  1,282

  22.1

  2002

  5,964

  727

  12.2

  1,258

  21.1

  20032

  5,822

  738

  12.7

  1,189

  20.4

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Includes dually registered pupils and boarding pupils.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  GCSEs
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 15 and 16-year-olds in Wigan achieved five or more GCSEs at grade A* -C or GNVQ equivalent in each of the last seven years. [169287]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1 achieving five or more grades A.*-C at GCSE/GNVQ

  Percentage

  Academic year

  Wigan

  England

  1997

  44.8

  45.1

  1998

  43.2

  46.3

  1999

  45.7

  47.9

  2000

  46.7

  49.2

  2001

  47.1

  50.0

  2002

  49.3

  51.6

  2003

  50.7

  52.9

  1 GCSE/GNVQ results are reported as standard as the results of pupils aged 15 at the start of the academic year i.e. 31 August and therefore reaching the end of compulsory education at the end of the school year

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the GCSE results in the constituency of Edmonton were in(a) 1991–92, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2003. [169305]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1 achieving five or more grades A* -C at GCSE/GN VQ

  Academic year

  Edmonion parliamentary constituency

  England

  1991/92

  42.4

  38.3

  2001/02

  42.4

  51.6

  2002/03

  44.0

  52.9

  1GCSE/GNVQ results are reported as standard as the results of pupils aged 15 at the start of the academic year i.e. 31 August and therefore reaching the end of compulsory education at the end of the school year.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 15 and 16-yearolds in South Ribble achieved five or more GCSEs at grade A* -C or GNVQ equivalent in each of the last seven years. [171981]
  536W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1 achieving five or more grades A *-C

  Percentage

  Academic year

  South Ribble

  England

  1997

  54.7

  45.1

  1998

  53.9

  46.3

  1999

  56.0

  47.9

  2000

  61.0

  49.2

  2001

  59.5

  50.0

  2002

  61.5

  51.6

  2003

  63.7

  52.9

  1 GCSE/GNVQ results are reported as standard as the results of pupils aged 15 at the start of the academic year i.e. 31 August and therefore reaching the end of compulsory education at the end of the school year.

  Higher Education (Specialist Courses)
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students enrolled on specialist textile and clothing education courses in universities and colleges in each of the last 15 years for which figures are available. [167591]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following table shows the number of enrolments on fashion and textiles courses in further education colleges from 1995–96 to 2002–03 inclusive. Figures for earlier years are not available due to changes in data collection methods. Figures for higher education enrolments to textile and clothing education courses are not held centrally.

  Enrolments 'on fashion and textiles' courses in further education sector colleges in England: 1995–96 to 2002–03

  Number of enrolments1

  1995/96

  7,890

  1996/97

  9,970

  1997/98

  9,600

  1998/99

  7,960

  1999/2000

  7,410

  2000/01

  6,480

  2001/02

  6,210

  2002/032

  4,990

  1 Council-funded further education only.

  2 Provisional.

  Note:

  Numbers are rounded to nearest 10.

  Source:

  LSC Individualised Student/Learner Record

  Key Stage 2
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of pupils achieved each level for

  Percentage of pupils achieving each level

  D

  A

  F

  B

  N

  W

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  English

  20031

  1

  1

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  17

  48

  27

  2002

  1

  1

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  17

  46

  29

  2001

  1

  1

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  17

  46

  29

  2000

  1

  2

  —

  4

  2

  —

  —

  1

  20

  47

  23

  1999

  0

  2

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  20

  48

  22

  1998

  0

  2

  —

  4

  2

  —

  —

  1

  26

  48

  17

  1997

  0

  3

  —

  4

  2

  —

  —

  1

  26

  48

  16

  1996

  0

  3

  2

  —

  —

  0

  1

  6

  30

  45

  12

  Mathematics

  20031

  0

  1

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  20

  44

  29

  2002

  1

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  20

  46

  27

  2001

  0

  1

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  1

  22

  45

  25

  2000

  0

  2

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  20

  45

  26

  1999

  0

  2

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  1

  23

  45

  24

  1998

  0

  2

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  1

  31

  42

  17

  1997

  0

  3

  —

  3

  2

  —

  —

  2

  28

  44

  18

  1996

  0

  3

  2

  —

  —

  0

  1

  5

  34

  40

  14

  12003 results are pronisional.

  Notes:

  A—represents pupils who were absent.

  D—represents pupils who have been disapplied under section 364/365 of the Education Act.

  B—represents pupils who were assessed by teacher assessment only.

  N—represents pupils who took the tests but failed to register a level.

  W—represents pupils who are "working towards" level 1 but have not yet achieved the standards needed for level 1.

  F—represents pupils who have failed to register a level for reasons other than absence.

  Mayoral Meetings
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what dates(a) he and (b) his predecessor has held official meetings with the Mayor of London since July 2000; and what the subject of each meeting was. [171437]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: Ministers from the Department for Education and Skills have met the Mayor of London from time to time and discussed a variety of subjects relating to education and skills.

  Residential Experiences
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his address to the NASUWT conference, if he will make a statement on funding support for residential experiences for school children. [171057]

  Mr. Miliband
  Many schools already offer opportunities for residential experience for their students. My Department is looking at how residential opportunities can contribute to more young people taking advantage of extra curricular activities. As a starting point a map of existing residential opportunities will be established. I will also reflect fully on further advice from the Tomlinson Group on 14–19 reform about young people developing broader skills through wider activities.
  538W
  (a) literacy and (b) numeracy at Key Stage 2 in each year since the introduction of SATs. [172934]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is:

  Safe Routes to Schools Programme
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of schools(a) in Bolton, North East, (b) in Greater Manchester and (c) in England have implemented initiatives under the Safe Routes to Schools programme. [172601]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Local transport plan annual progress reports submitted by local authorities at the end of July 2003 showed that by the end of March 2004 (a) they did not expect any schools in the area covered by Bolton metropolitan borough council to have either a safe route to school or a school travel plan in place; (b) they expected 260 schools in Greater Manchester to have at least one safe route to school and 167 to have a school travel plan in place; and (c) they expected over 3,800 schools nationally to have at least one safe route to school and over 3,500 to have a school travel plan in place. Local transport plan annual progress reports do not enable us to identify the numbers of safe routes to school and school travel plans by constituency area.

  Although no schools in Bolton currently have a safe route to school or school travel plan in place, I understand that at least seven local traffic calming schemes have been implemented within the immediate environs of schools, one school has prepared a drafts school travel plan and several others have expressed an interest in developing a plan.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was of outstanding repairs to school buildings identified by the 2003 Asset Management Survey; and when he will publish the full results of that survey. [171241]

  Mr. Miliband
  The data supplied to the Department by English local education authorities and derived from their condition assessments of school buildings show maintenance requirements of approximately £8,000 million. This figure includes outstanding repairs and work needed over a five year period from the dates of the assessments. The Department has been working with authorities to resolve data quality issues and will shortly publish analysis of the data.

  Central government capital support for investment in school buildings has increased from under £700 million in 1996–97 to £4.5 billion this year and will rise further to over £5 billion by 2005–06. Progress is being made year-by-year in improving the quality of the school building stock.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what reports he has received on the exclusion of disruptive children from schools during Ofsted inspections. [172375]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not received any reports of disruptive children being excluded during Ofsted inspections.

  Pupils may be excluded only for disciplinary reasons, in response to serious breaches of a school's discipline policy, and if allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school.

  An exclusion which is not carried out in accordance with the formal procedures set out in regulations and guidance would be illegal.

  School Locations
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils live more than three miles away from the school that they attend, broken down by region. [167866]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Numbers of pupils living more than three miles1 from the maintained primary and secondary schools2 that they attend—January 2003

  Primary Number of school population travelling more than three miles

  Secondary Percentage of school population travelling more than three miles

  Number of school population travelling more than three miles

  Percentage of school population travelling more than three miles

  North East

  5,996

  2.6

  22,703

  12.5

  North West

  17,045

  2.7

  62,996

  13.3

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  12,909

  2.8

  51,235

  14.6

  East Midlands

  14,931

  4

  58,757

  19.6

  West Midlands

  17,648

  3.6

  54.095

  14.2

  540W

  Numbers of pupils living more than three miles1 from the maintained primary and secondary schools2 that they attend—January 2003

  Primary Number of school population travelling more than three miles

  Secondary Percentage of school population travelling more than three miles

  Number of school population travelling more than three miles

  Percentage of school population travelling more than three miles

  East of England

  21,386

  4.7

  88,607

  22.9

  London

  14,576

  2.3

  55,741

  13.2

  South East

  30,805

  4.7

  114,785

  22.5

  South West

  19,891

  5

  78,074

  23.9

  England

  155,187

  3.7

  586,993

  17.8

  1Distances calculated are straight line.

  2Includes middle schools as deemed.

  Source:

  Pupil Level Annual Schools' Census.

  Schools (Outdoor Pursuits)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he last discussed access to outdoor and adventurous activities for young people with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. [171604]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Outdoor and adventurous activities is one of six areas of activity for which programmes of study have been drawn up within National Curriculum Physical Education. The Secretaries of State for Education and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport have regular bilateral meetings at which a range of issues are discussed, including provision for PE and school sport.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to promote adventure holidays and outdoor pursuits in schools; and if he will make a statement. [171606]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The extent to which schools incorporate adventure holidays, and outdoor pursuits in their provision (beyond the provision for outdoor and adventurous activities within National Curriculum Physical Education), is at their discretion. The Department will reflect fully on further advice from the Tomlinson Group on 14–19 reform about young people developing broader skills through wider activities.

  Secondary Schools (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacant secondary school places there were in Cambridgeshire, broken down by(a) school year group, (b) district and (c) establishment, at the start of the spring term of school year 2003–04. [172637]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of surplus secondary school places in Cambridgeshire broken down by individual establishment. The figures state the position at the beginning of the calendar year beginning 2003 rather than the school year.

  We do not collect surplus place data by school year group, or borough or district area.
  541W

  Number of surplus places in secondary schools in Cambridgeshire at January 2003

  School name

  Surplus

  Bottisham Village College

  40

  Impington Village College

  61

  Swavesey Village College

  128

  Parkside Community College

  0

  Chesterton Community College

  122

  Coleridge Community College

  223

  Cottenham Village College

  114

  Melbourn Village College

  176

  The Cromwell Community College

  174

  Sir Harry Smith Community College

  5

  Witchford Village College

  38

  The Manor Community College

  281

  The Netherhall School

  156

  St. Ivo School

  13

  Ernulf Community School

  103

  City of Ely Community College

  244

  The Neale-Wade Community College

  34

  Hinchingbrooke School

  65

  Ramsey Abbey School

  0

  St. Bede's Inter-Church Comprehensive School

  21

  Gamlingay Village College

  54

  Bassingbourn Village College

  37

  The Queen's School

  198

  Sawtry Community College

  0

  Comberton Village College

  158

  Sawston Village College

  90

  Ailwyn Community College

  3

  Longsands College

  27

  St. Peter's School

  243

  Soham Village College

  36

  Union Village College

  32

  Total

  2,876

  Teacher Numbers
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers, (b) support staff and (c) teachers in secondary schools there were (i) in 1997 and (ii) on the latest date for which figures are available in (A) the London borough of Waltham Forest and (B) the London borough of Redbridge. [171992]

  Mr. Miliband
  The tables show the total number of full-time equivalent regular teachers in all maintained schools, support staff in maintained schools and regular teachers in maintained secondary schools in January 1997 and 2003 in the two local education authorities requested.

  Redbridge LEA

  Regular teachers

  Support staff

  Regular secondary teachers

  1997

  2,100

  600

  1,060

  2003

  2,470

  1,140

  1,300

  Waltham Forest LEA

  Regular teachers

  Support staff

  Regular secondary teachers

  1997

  2,010

  740

  840

  2003

  1,940

  1,230

  890

  1Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  Sources:

  Annual School Census (support staff) and the annual survey of teachers in service and teacher vacancies (618g) (teachers).

  Teacher Workload
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the change in teacher workload since the publication of Red Tape and Bureaucracy in Schools; and what progress has been made against the targets announced in the document. [171828]

  Mr. Miliband
  The main means by which teacher workload is monitored is through the regular diary surveys undertaken for the Office for Manpower Economics. Last year's survey was conducted in March 2003. The most recent one was conducted in March 2004, with results available in the autumn. The March 2003 survey showed some reductions in hours, but this was obviously too early to draw any conclusions. The "Making a Difference—Red Tape and Bureaucracy in Schools Second Report" was published in March 2003. The Report included 125 separate outcomes to be completed up to September 2005, of which 79 have now been completed.

  The Implementation Review Unit (IRU) panel of 12 experienced practitioners drawn from schools across England was established in April 2003 to ensure that the bureaucratic and workload implications of both new and existing policies are kept under rigorous review, and to advise how red tape and bureaucracy can be minimised. Their first annual report was published on 30 April 2004, which provides an assessment of the progress that has been made, including the introduction of a system within the DfES to assess the impact of new initiatives before they, are introduced. The report is available at www.dfes.gov.uk/iru.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are being taken in schools to(a) promote the safer sex message and (b) reduce unplanned pregnancies. [172577]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Teaching about safer sex is a key element of the Government's sexual health strategy and is covered by our Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) guidance which was sent to all schools in July 2000. All maintained secondary schools have a statutory responsibility to teach SRE including sexual health, contraception and the range of advice and support services which are available.

  Effective SRE should ensure that young people understand the reasons for delaying sexual activity, including unwanted pregnancies, and give them the skills and knowledge to make informed decisions.

  Truancy (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average truancy rate for secondary schools in Nottinghamshire was in each of the last five years. [171517]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is as follows.
  543W

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absences for secondary schools in Nottinghamshire

  Academic year (September-May)

  Percentage

  1998

  1.49

  1999

  1.38

  2000

  1.34

  2001

  1.24

  2002

  1.30

  2003

  1.49

  Unemployed Graduates
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many graduates claimed unemployment benefit for(a) one to three months, (b) four to six months, (c) seven to nine months and (d) 10 to 12 months directly after graduation in each year since 1997. [172628]

  Alan Johnson
  Administrative data relating to claims of jobseekers' allowance in the year after graduation are not available.

  Information on economic activity more generally is collected, though not at the detailed level requested. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) collects data on the employment position of students six months after graduation, through the annual First Destination Survey. Summary results are available in the relevant Statistical First Releases which are placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The Department also commissioned the Institute of Employment Research to analyse the early careers of 1995 graduates. The published report1 provides more detail of labour market transitions in the first year post-graduation. This research is currently being extended in an analysis of 1999 graduates which we expect to be published later this year.

  1Elias, P. & K. Purcell (1999) Moving On—Graduate Careers Three Years After Graduation DfEE-CSU-AGCAS-IER

  Universities
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) when his Department will agree the new criteria for degree-awarding powers and university title in England and Wales; [172288]

  (2) whether the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education has extended its moratorium on the grant of new degree-awarding powers to institutions in Wales. [172289]

  Alan Johnson
  A moratorium on new applications for Degree Awarding Powers (DAP) and University Title (UT) was put in place for institutions in England and Wales last year as we consulted on revised criteria for DAP and UT. In a written ministerial statement on 16 March 2004,Official Report, column 16WS, I announced that we would be holding further discussions on renewable DAP and a paper will be issued on 14 May 2004. A copy of this paper will be placed in the House Libraries and will also be available on the Department for Education and Skills website. We hope to finalise new criteria for DAP and UT in England and Wales by this summer.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in reducing the number of adults without a NVQ level 2 or equivalent qualification by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [172976]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Good progress is being made to reach our 2010 target of reducing by 40 per cent. those without a level 2 qualification (NVQ level 2 or equivalent). According to the Labour Force Survey, the reduction realised as of autumn 2003 was 5.4 per cent. from the autumn 2001 baseline. The interim milestone for 2006 is that there should be 1 million more adults in the workforce with full level 2 or better than in 2002. Autumn 2003 figures show an increase of 187,000 adults with at least a level 2 compared to the autumn 2002 baseline.

  These figures are broadly in line with the planned trajectories for meeting the PSA targets for both 2006 and 2010.

  The Skills Strategy White Paper (published July 2003) includes a wide range of interlinked measures to remove barriers to learning, support participation for individuals and increase the amount of training undertaken with employers. It set out our intention to introduce a new entitlement for any adult in the labour force to have access to free tuition for their first full level 2 qualification. We are working with the LSC on phasing in the level 2 entitlement, with phase one in 2004–05 and full rollout beginning the following year.

  In September 2003, we started piloting the new Adult Learning Grant in ten local LSC areas, which offers up to £30 per week to adults on low incomes studying full-time for a first full level 2 qualification. Over 3,000 ALG applications have been received and over 2,000 awards have been made to learners. From September, we are doubling the size of the current pilot by extending the ALG throughout the SE and NE regions, as part of linked trials of key initiatives announced in the Skills Strategy.

  There are currently 12 Employer Training Pilots (ETPs) which are testing new financial support measures to improve access to training and enable employees to attain basic and level 2 skills. By mid April over 49,000 learners and nearly 9,000 employers were engaged. The expansion of ETPs was announced in the Budget and ETPs will now be available in 20 LSC areas in England.

  We believe that these and other related measures in the Skills Strategy will enable us to accelerate the trajectory towards meeting these targets.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Advisers/Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on external consultants and advisers in each of the last three years. [171874]
  545W
  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in 2002. Expenditure for years 2000–01 and 2001–02 is for the former Department of Social Security.

  £ million

  2000–01

  104.7

  2001–02

  169.5

  2002–03

  291.5

  Benefit Claimants (Over-50s)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of claimants of disability benefits aged between 50 and state pension age worked immediately prior to their claim, in each year since 1997, broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [172540]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available on whether people worked immediately prior to claiming disability living allowance or industrial injuries disablement benefit. Both of these benefits can be paid to people in work, as well as to those who have stopped work or never worked.

  Carers' Allowance
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of abolishing the overlapping benefit rule in respect of carers' allowance for(a) women over 60 years and (b) men and women over 65 years. [171344]

  Maria Eagle
  The gross cost of exempting all pensioners over 65 in receipt of carers' allowance from the overlapping benefits rule would be around £200 million. After adjusting for offsets in income-related benefits the cost would be around £130 million1. Exempting women only, aged 60 and over, would cost £155 million (£100 million after adjustments), although our commitment to the European directive on equal treatment would of course prevent us from introducing such a measure.

  These costs do not take account of the introduction of pension credit where carers' allowance is taken fully into account but an additional amount may be awarded in respect of the caring.

  Neither do the figures take account of the behavioural effect of carers who have not claimed a carer's allowance but who would be induced to do so if the overlapping benefits rules were amended as suggested.

  1Estimates use benefit rates for 2003–04 and are based on a 100 per cent. extract of claims for carers' allowance taken from the carers' allowance computer system for May 2003, a 5 per cent. extract from claims recorded on the income support computer system in 2003 and a 1 per cent. extract of housing benefit/council tax benefit claims of May 2001.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the production of his Department's latest annual report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [171159]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions latest departmental report was published on 29 April 2004. Final expenditure figures are not yet available, but the costs of production incurred by the Department are estimated to be £38,897. Publishing costs are met by the publisher, TSO (The Stationery Office), and do not fall to government.

  1,500 copies of the report were produced, of which 1,160 were for the Department's use. Distribution details are set out in the following table. The report is also available free of charge on the departmental website.

  The production and sale of remaining copies of the report are matters for the publisher. Meaningful information about the number of copies of the 2004 report sold at the cover price of £27 is not yet available as publication is so recent.

  Recipients

  Number of copies distributed free of charge

  House of Lords

  50

  House of Commons

  200

  Chair of the Treasury Select Committee

  1

  Chair and members of Work and Pensions

  Select Committee

  23

  Opposition spokesmen

  4

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  15

  HM Treasury and Cabinet Office

  3

  Health and Safety Commission/Executive

  10

  Departmental staff

  854

  Total

  1,160

  Departmental Appointments
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been employed on 13 week casual appointments in his Department in the last 12 months, broken down by agency; and if he will make a statement. [171591]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Thirteen week casual appointments during the period 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

  Business area

  Number

  DWP Corporate Centre

  0

  Jobcentre Plus

  138

  The Pension Service

  5

  Child Support Agency

  1

  Disability and Carers Service

  13

  The Appeals Service

  0

  Total

  157

  Departmental Computers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to update computer(a) hardware and (b) software standard packages used in his Department. [166370]

  Mr. Pond
  By June this year we will have completed the modernisation of the desk top infrastructure across the Department. This has involved replacing almost all existing desktop hardware, and supporting file and print servers, upgrading the networks and delivering a standard set of software applications and packages

  In future, in common with standard industry practice, IT equipment and services will be updated in line with ongoing business needs, with value for money being an important factor in determining how and when any updates take place. Additionally, our strategy and thinking will be informed by opportunities presented by advances in technology, benchmarking against industry standards and consultation with our existing suppliers and other Government Departments.

  Departmental Pay
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of his Department's staff earn less than two-thirds of male median earnings. [170584]

  People receiving disability living allowance (DLA), attendance allowance (AA) and industrial injuries disablement benefit (IIDB), as a percentage of the population of Great Britain and broken down by benefit combinations and Government Office region

  Thousand

  Region

  Total

  Percentage of population

  DLA only

  DLA and IIDB

  DLA and AA

  DLA, AA and IIDB

  All

  4,172.2

  7.3

  2,408.9

  102.7

  14.3

  0.8

  North East

  250.7

  10.0

  141.3

  13.0

  0.8

  2—

  North West

  625.4

  9.3

  381.1

  18.1

  2.1

  10.2

  Yorkshire and Number

  391.2

  7.9

  235.7

  10.1

  0.9

  10.1

  East Midlands

  308.8

  7.3

  170.3

  10.2

  0.9

  10.1

  West Midlands

  412.3

  7.8

  230.5

  10.6

  1.6

  10.1

  East

  320.4

  5.9

  170.7

  6.1

  1.3

  2—

  London

  383.3

  5.2

  240.4

  4.4

  1.1

  2—

  South East

  389.0

  4.8

  210.9

  6.5

  1.8

  2—

  South West

  323.3

  6.5

  163.0

  5.2

  1.2

  10.1

  Wales

  322.7

  11.1

  194.8

  9.0

  1.1

  10.2

  Scotland

  444.8

  8.8

  270.1

  9.5

  1.5

  2—

  Thousand

  Region

  AA only

  AA and IIDB

  IIDB only

  All

  1408.1

  19.2

  218.2

  North East

  67.2

  2.1

  26.3

  North West

  191.4

  2.7

  29.8

  Yorkshire and Number

  117.2

  2.1

  25.2

  East Midlands

  104.5

  1.9

  20.8

  West Midlands

  146.9

  2.1

  20.6

  East

  126.7

  0.8

  14.7

  London

  126.4

  0.7

  10.4

  South East

  148.7

  0.9

  20.3

  South West

  137.4

  1.3

  15.2

  Wales

  102.5

  2.6

  12.6

  Scotland

  139.2

  2.1

  22.5

  548W
  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table. The figures reflect the first stage of the DWP 2003 pay award. The numbers of staff earning below two-thirds of the male median will reduce when the second stage of the award is paid with May 2004 salaries.

  DWP

  Under £6.00 ph

  Over £6.00 ph

  Total staff

  Total staff in post (Number)

  26,902

  117,536

  144,438

  Percentage of total

  18.6

  81.4

  100

  Notes:

  1 The Median of Male Gross Earnings (all employees) is £9.07 according to the Office for National Statistics Labour Force Survey for Winter 2003–04. Two-thirds is therefore £6.00.

  2. DWP data is taken from the February 2004 payroll.

  3. DWP salaries include allowances, but not overtime as the hourly rate calculations from which the numbers are derived are based on DWP standard contractual hours.

  4. The standard contractual hours used for the figures are 41 for full-time staff in the London pay zones, 36 for part-time staff in the London pay zones, 42 and 37 respectively for staff working outside these areas.

  Disability Benefits
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of people are on disability benefits, broken down by(a) benefit and (b) region; and if he will make a statement. [171587]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the following tables.

  1Figures are less than 500 and subject to a high degree of sampling variation.

  2Denotes nil or negligible.

  Notes

  1 Figures taken from a 5 per cent. sample at 31 August 2003 for AA and DLA and at 30 September 2003 for IIDB.

  2 Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3 From November 2002, the methodology for producing these figures was changed to allow statistics to be published much sooner. This has resulted in a small increase in the reported caseload. This is because some cases which have actually terminated but have not yet been updated on the computer system are now included.

  4 Population Figures used to produce the percentages are mid 2002 for population of all ages. Source: Office for National Statistics.
  549W
  5. DLA is payable to all ages, if claimed before 65. IIDB is payable to working age claimants. AA is only payable on new claims to those aged 65 plus. There remain a number of AA claims in payment from before 6 April 1992, which were not converted to DLA with the introduction of the new scheme, which explains why some people still receive a combination of DLA mobility component and AA for their care costs.

  The total for AA does not match published individual benefit statistics as published AA statistics use rating factors to take account of late terminations.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of maintaining his Department's website was in the last 12 months; how many staff are responsible for the maintenance of the website; and how many hits it received in the last 12 months. [170589]

  Jane Kennedy
  Development of the DWP website is carried out by the Department's own in-house web team who are responsible for its production, management and maintenance. It is not possible to quantify internal costs for the site

  There were no contracted or quantifiable costs for the Department's website in the last 12 months.

  The department's IT contractor provides hosting of departmental sites, and provision of web hosting services. However, internet services are not accounted for separately and it is not possible to disentangle these costs.

  The equivalent of five full-time members of staff maintain the site.

  The site attracted 77,031,942 hits in the last 12 months.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish an assessment of the incapacity benefit pilots; and if he will make a statement. [172855]

  Maria Eagle
  We will be publishing reports at intervals during the course of the evaluation of the incapacity benefit pilots, although the full and final impact assessment will not be available until early 2007. From later this year onwards, qualitative findings on areas such as personal advisers and customer experiences of the reforms will be published. An interim assessment of the impact of the incapacity benefit pilots will also be available in summer 2005. In parallel we will be assessing direct feedback from those responsible for, and participating in, the pilots in order to further improve the effectiveness of the support available, and apply appropriate lessons more widely.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will fund compensation for members of occupational pension schemes who have suffered serious loss and will not be eligible for the Pension Protection Fund. [172712]
  550W
  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on 26 April 2004,Officia1 Report, column 848W

  Pension Protection Fund
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether(a) the Chairman, (b) the Chief Executive and (c) the staff of the Pension Protection Fund will be in pensionable employment liable for the levy to the Pension Protection Fund. [172929]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As a part of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) employment terms and conditions the Chairman, the Chief Executive and the staff of the Pension Protection Fund will have the opportunity to join the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. This is in line with the pension provision currently provided for OPRA staff. The Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, along with other similar schemes, is a funded public service pension scheme with a crown guarantee and therefore will not be required to pay the pension protection fund levies.

  Public Awareness Campaigns
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what public awareness campaigns have been undertaken by his Department since 2001; and what the cost was of each. [170587]

  Maria Eagle
  During 2003–04 the Department for Work and Pensions ran a number of initiatives alerting people to their rights, responsibilities and entitlements through public awareness campaigns. Details of these campaigns and their respective costs are in the table.

  2003–04 campaign

  Publicity expenditure (£)

  Future Pensioners/Informed Choice

  2,700,000

  Pensioners' Guide

  1,250,000

  Pension Credit

  15,580,000

  The Pension Service

  2,650,000

  Direct Payment

  12,474,000

  Direct Payment road show

  480,000

  Fraud

  9,362,000

  Winter Fuel

  938,000

  Council Tax Benefit

  652,000

  New Deal

  7,600,000

  Jobcentre Plus awareness

  531,000

  Jobseeker Direct help-line

  1,700,000

  Jobcentre Plus employer marketing

  1,016,000

  Age Positive

  946,000

  DDA Awareness

  300,000

  Notes:

  1. All costs exclude VAT

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Information campaigns costing under £250,000 and the details of highly localised publicity activity by the Department's customer-facing businesses have generally not been included as a disproportionate cost would be incurred in compiling these figures.

  A breakdown of publicity spend for 2001–02 and 2002–03 can be found in the Department's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Unemployment Statistics (Over-50s)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many and what proportion of people between the age of 50 and state pension age were
  551W
  not in work in each year since 1997, broken down by gender; and if he will make a statement; [172531]

  (2) how many and what proportion of people were in work immediately before reaching state pension age in each year since 1997, broken down by gender; and if he will make a statement; [172534]

  (3) what percentage of people between the age of 50 and state pension age were long-term unemployed in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [172535]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr Holmes dated 13 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about employment and unemployment. I am replying in his absence. (172531, 172534, 172535)

  The attached tables provide the information requested for the three months ending in February each year from 1997 to 2004. Table 1 shows the numbers of people in employment by gender at an age one year less than the State retirement age. Table 2 shows the numbers of people by gender, aged between 50 and State retirement age, who were not in employment. Table 3 shows the numbers of people by gender, aged between 50 and State retirement age, who were unemployed for. 12 months or longer.

  All estimates are taken from the ONS Labour Force Survey. As with any statistical sample survey, estimates from the Labour Force Survey are subject to sampling variability.

  Table 1: Numbers and proportion of people in employment immediately prior to State retirement age, United Kingdom, three months ending February each year from 1997 to 2004

  Thousand, percentage

  Men aged 64 and women aged 59

  Men aged 64

  Women aged 59

  Number

  Percentage1>

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  1997

  235

  414

  102

  38.0

  132

  44.5

  1998

  209

  38.4

  90

  36.7

  118

  39.8

  1999

  226

  41.1

  92

  36.6

  134

  44.9

  2000

  218

  39.9

  95

  34.6

  123

  45.3

  2001

  250

  42.0

  103

  36.1

  147

  47.5

  2002

  258

  43.7

  102

  39.2

  157

  47.2

  2003

  274

  43.5

  106

  36.7

  168

  49.3

  2004

  318

  50.1

  123

  45.1

  195

  53.9

  1As a percentage of population in the relevant age and gender group.

  Source:

  ONS-Labour Force Survey

  Table 2: Numbers and proportion of people not in employment1 aged between 50 and State retirement age, United Kingdom, three months ending February each year from 1997 to 2004

  Thousand, percentage

  Men aged 50–64and women aged 50–59

  Men aged 50–64

  Women aged 50–59

  Number

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage2

  1997

  2,836

  35.8

  1,527

  33.1

  1,309

  39.5

  1998

  2,855

  34.9

  1,532

  32.3

  1,323

  38.5

  1999

  2,833

  33.7

  1,520

  31.3

  1,313

  37.1

  2000

  2,896

  33.8

  1,578

  31.9

  1,318

  36.5

  2001

  2,842

  32.7

  1,526

  30.4

  1,316

  35.7

  2002

  2,849

  32.3

  1,533

  30.3

  1,316

  35.1

  2003

  2,777

  31.2

  1,491

  29.2

  1,286

  34.0

  2004

  2,715

  30.3

  1,448

  28.1

  1,268

  33.3

  1 Not in employment refers to people who are either unemployed or economically inactive.

  2 As a percentage of population in the relevant age and gender group.

  Source:

  ONS-Labour Force Survey.

  552W

  Table 3: Numbers and proportion of people who are long-term unemployed1 aged between 50 and State retirement age, United Kingdom, three months ending February each year from 1997 to 2004

  Thousand, percentage

  Men aged 50–64and women aged 50–59

  Men aged 50–64

  Women aged 50–59

  Number

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage2

  1997

  183

  2.3

  142

  3.1

  41

  1.2

  1998

  133

  16

  102

  2.1

  31

  0.9

  1999

  127

  1.5

  97

  2.0

  30

  0.8

  2000

  104

  1.2

  86

  1.7

  18

  0.5

  2001

  95

  1.1

  79

  1.6

  16

  0.4

  2002

  83

  0.9

  63

  1.2

  20

  0.5

  2003

  81

  0.9

  62

  1.2

  19

  0.5

  2004

  71

  0.8

  53

  1.0

  18

  0.5

  1 Long-term unemployment refers to people who are unemployed for over 12 months.

  2 As a percentage of population in the relevant age and gender group.

  Source:

  ONS-Labour Force Survey.

  Websites
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cost of the websites of(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies of his Department was in the most recent year for which figures are available. [160019]

  Jane Kennedy
  Development for the DWP website, agency and other campaign websites is carried out by the Department's own in-house web team who are responsible for production, management and maintenance of all sites.

  Contracted and quantifiable costs are included in the following information for Jobcentre Plus and The Pensions Service websites, however it is not possible to quantify internal costs for the Department's and Child Support Agency sites.

  The department's IT contractor provides hosting of departmental websites, and provision of web hosting services. However, internet services are not accounted for separately and it is not possible to disentangle these costs. Web hosting is included within the quantified costs for the Jobcentre Plus:

  Organisation

  URL

  Costs for 2002–03

  DWP

  www.dwp.gov.uk

  No external costs

  CSA

  www.csa. gov.uk

  No external costs

  Jobcentre Plus

  www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk

  1£763,285

  The Pension Service

  www.thepensionservice.gov.uk

  £188,093

  1 Includes quantifiable web hosting costs and links to Job Bank jobs database e-Service.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the advice he gives to those(a) public and (b) private pension schemes which will allow a recipient to keep a widow's pension in the event of re-marriage. [172853]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In the private sector, provision of widows' and widowers' benefits is a matter for pension scheme rules. It is up to trustees to decide what information is given to members. Where a scheme is contracted out, it must provide for widows' and
  553W
  widowers' benefits, but it is down to individual schemes to decide whether such payment should cease on re-marriage

  Most public service schemes have statutory rules which require widows' and widowers' pensions to terminate on re-marriage or cohabitation.

  The Local Government Pension Scheme introduced widows' and widowers' pensions for life from April 1998.

  Since October 2002 the new Civil Service pension scheme has provided for survivor pensions to be paid to unmarried partners; the costs of these benefits are being met by higher member contributions. At the same time the requirement to terminate widows' and widowers' pension on remarriage or cohabitation was removed.

DEFENCE

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there will be apprenticeships in the Royal Navy in the future; and if he will make a statement. [172859]

  Mr. Caplin
  There are no plans to change the training of Royal Naval personnel in respect of apprenticeships in the future. The Royal Navy will continue to encourage personnel to gain external qualifications through accreditation with civilian organisations as this is a positive recruiting initiative and provides a well trained civilian work force for the future

  The training delivered to over 90 per cent. of personnel in the Royal Navy is eligible for the award of an apprenticeship as defined by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Currently over 3,200 personnel are working towards a Level 2 qualification.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's relationship with BAE Systems; and what assessment he has made of the ways in which it can be improved. [171801]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: Her Majesty's Government have a professional relationship with all defence contractors, and senior company officials meet regularly with the Ministry of Defence, and other Government departments.

  The MOD has set up Key Supplier Management (KSM) programmes to work with all major suppliers to improve performance from both the supplier and customer points of view.

  Civilian Staff
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian staff are employed(a) by Ministry of Defence Trading Funds and (b) as Royal Fleet Auxiliaries; how many of his Department's civilian staff are on (i) career breaks, (ii) long-term sick leave and (iii) secondments; and if he will list these numbers (A) for the whole of the UK, (B) for Scotland and (C) for Wales. [170450]
  554W
  Mr. Caplin
  The number of full-time equivalent, permanent, industrial and non-industrial civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence Trading Funds and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries in the whole of the United Kingdom, in Scotland and in Wales, as at the latest available date:

  1 March 2004

  Trading funds

  Royal fleet auxiliaries

  Total UK Of Which:

  11,280

  2340

  Scotland

  540

  n/a

  Wales

  2,470

  n/a

  The number of full-time equivalent, permanent, industrial and non-industrial MOD civilian staff on career breaks and secondments for the whole of the United Kingdom, for Scotland and for Wales, as at the latest available date:

  1 March 2004

  Career breaks

  Secondments

  Total UK Of which:

  510

  220

  Scotland

  10

  —

  wales

  —

  —

  Information on the numbers of long-term sick leave for 2003 is not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member when it has been collated and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Defence Medal Offices
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many staff are employed at defence medal offices, broken down by(a) sex and (b) those employed on a (i) permanent, (ii) fixed-term and (iii) casual basis; [172035]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of experienced staff who are prepared to transfer from Droitwich Spa to RAF Innsworth after the closure of the Army Medal Office. [172038]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 10 May 2004, the following staff were employed at the four Defence Medal Offices.

  Sex

  Permanent

  Fixed term

  Casual

  Total

  Army Medal Office

  29 female

  52

  2

  1

  55

  26 male

  RAF Medal Office

  6 female

  12

  0

  3

  15

  9 male

  RM Medal Office

  6 female

  7

  0

  0

  7

  1 male

  RN Medal Office

  11 female

  11

  0

  1

  12

  1 male

  —

  —

  —

  89

  The Investment Appraisal assumed nine staff would transfer from Droitwich to Innsworth to build upon the existing cadre of experienced Innsworth based RAF Medal office staff. Until the current staff preference exercise is completed at the end of May, no further assessment can be made as to the number of experienced staff prepared to transfer from Droitwich to Innsworth.
  555W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the timetable is for the closure of the Army Medal Office in Droitwich Spa; [172039]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his plans to minimise disruption in the issuing of medals normally issued by the Army Medal Office in Droitwich Spa during the period of its closure and relocation to RAF Innsworth. [172040]

  Mr. Caplin
  My written statement on 20 April 2004,Official Report, column 12WS, made clear that this will be a phased operation. The phased closure is part of the risk reduction strategy to counter the temporary disruption in the issuing of medals that may occur during the actual move.

  Project name

  ISD

  Ocean Survey Vessel (HMS SCOTT)

  June-1997

  Skynet 4 Stage II

  May-1998

  PtarmiganMapps (Deployable Trunk Communications System)

  December-2000

  Medium Support Helicopter Aircrew Training Facility (MSHATF)

  April-2001

  Verticle Launched Anti-tank Munition (Shielder)

  May-2001

  COBLU-RN Communications Electronic Surveillance Measures

  July-2001

  Joint Command System (Logistics)

  August-2001

  Tractor Wheeled Earthmoving Medium

  August-2001

  C-17—Strategic Airlift

  September-2001

  Joint Operations Command System

  September-2001

  CHUB (Classified project)

  November-2001

  High Frequency Broadcast Modernisation

  December-2001

  SCAD 101 (submarine counter-measures acoustic devices)

  December-2001

  SCAD 200 (submarine counter-measures acoustic devices)

  December-2001

  ASRAAM (Advanced Short-Range Air to-Air Missile)

  January-2002

  BOWMAN Personal Role Radio

  January-2002

  Replacement Precision Approach Radar (RPAR)

  March-2002

  RAF Command Control and Information System (RAF CCIS)

  March-2002

  Sea King MK7

  March-2002

  Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (CATT)

  May-2002

  Lynx Mk 7/9 Aircrew Training Service

  May-2002

  Radar Type 996

  May-2002

  Sea Dart IR Fuze

  July-2002

  SA80 Modification

  August-2002

  PSC 504—portable sitcom terminal

  September-2002

  Tactical Communications Digitisation Programme

  November-2002

  JTIDS (Joint Tactical Information Distribution System) into the SeaKing (w) Mk 7

  December-2002

  Area Weapons Effects Simulation (AWES)

  January-2003

  Tornado GR4 Synthetic Training Service (TSTS)

  January-2003

  Range Airborne Instrumented Debriefing System (RAIDS)

  January-2003

  Auxiliary Oiler

  March-2003

  Attack Helicopter Conversion Training (for aircrew, groundcrew and maintenance technicians)

  April-2003

  RORO—Strategic Sealift

  April-2003

  Secure Comms for the RAF

  April-2003

  Man-Portable Chemical Agent Detector (MCAD)

  May-2003

  Typhoon (agile combat aircraft)

  June-2003

  Heavy Equipment Transporter

  July-2003

  Landing Platform Dock (Replacement)

  July-2003

  DLH Offboard Active Decoy

  September-2003

  Survey Vessels (HMS ECHO)

  September-2003

  AH Crew and Special-to-arm collective training

  November-2003

  General Key Management

  November-2003

  Integrated Biological Detection System (IBDS)

  November-2003

  Directional Infra-Red Counter Measures (DIRCM)

  December-2003

  Very Low Frequency Received Signal Service

  December-2003

  Land System Reference Centre—Internet Protocol

  January-2004

  All Terrain Vehicle (Platform)—Viking

  February-2004

  BOWMAN—Tactical Communication system

  March-2004

  Hunt Mid-Life Update—Sonar Type 2193

  March-2004

  Successor Identification Friend or Foe (SIFF)

  March-2004

  Defence Projects
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all(a), category A, (b) category B and (c) category C projects of his Department that have achieved their in-service date since 31 March 1997; and when the in-service date was achieved. [170560]

  Mr. Ingram
  A list of all Category A, Category B and Category C equipment projects procured by the Defence Procurement Agency and achieving in-service date is set out in the following table. Details prior to 1 April 2001 are incomplete as project information before that time is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Executive Agencies
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list place in the Library copies of the annual report and accounts for the(a) Fleet Air Arm Museum, (b) Royal Marines Museum, (c) Royal Naval Museum, (d) Royal Navy Submarine Museum, (e) National Army Museum and (f) Royal Air Force Museum for financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02. [172123]

  Mr. Caplin
  Yes.

  Equipment Service Dates
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the forecast in-service date was on 31 March 1997 for the Advanced Air-Launched Anti-Armour Weapon; [170366]

  (2) what the forecast in-service date was on 31 March 1998 for the High Velocity Missile System; [170367]

  (3). what the forecast in-service date was on 31 March 1999 for the (a) High Velocity Missile System and (b) Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile. [170368]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the library of the House.

  Royal Naval Engineering Artificer
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the title of Royal Naval Engineering Artificer is to be replaced by Engineering Technician; and whether there will be a change in the standards expected of occupants of the post. [172858]

  Mr. Caplin
  A review of the structure, organisation and training of both the Warfare and Engineering Branches of the Royal Navy is currently taking place. It is probable that the term Engineering Technician will be adopted for all members of the Engineering Branch below the rank of Commissioned Officer, replacing the Artificer and Mechanic titles currently in use. The title Artificer no longer adequately describes the professional role that those personnel undertake in the modern Navy. Replacing them with Engineering Technicians will align the Navy with the standards of competence published by the Engineering Council United Kingdom, and refresh the image of this key role against increasingly competitive recruitment market forces.

  The fleet continues to require highly trained and experienced personnel to provide the necessary technical support to ensure that the Royal Navy delivers its full range of operational capability. An expected outcome from the current review is that training will be better targeted through a career, and that naval Engineering Technicians who complete the training satisfactorily will be awarded a Foundation Degree, reflecting the comprehensive set of skills that they will possess.

  Saudi Armed Forces Project Office
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between BAE Systems and the Department regarding the Saudi Armed Forces Project office of the Ministry of Defence between 2000 and 2002; when these discussions took 558W
  place; what the nature of each discussion was; what the outcome of each was; and if he will make a statement. [171609]

  Mr. Ingram
  The saudi Armed Forces Project, which is a part of the Ministry of Defence, is responsible for fulfilling the MOD's obligations in respect of the Al Yamamah (AY) programme. This includes monitoring the progress and performance of the programme prime contractor, BAE Systems, in the delivery of goods and services supplied to the Saudi Armed Forces. In this role and as the Department's focal point for AY matters, there is daily contact between members of the Project and representatives of BAE Systems on a wide range of issues affecting the performance of the AY contracts.

  Support Vehicles
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the reliability of the Oshkosh support vehicles currently deployed in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [171575]

  Mr. Ingram
  I assume that the Oshkosh support vehicles to which you refer are the Heavy Equipment Transporters. A fleet of 16 was deployed to Iraq in November 2003, and their reliability is assessed on a monthly basis against Key Performance Indicators. To date, these have all been achieved.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to promote the delivery of sustainable development within Government. [171804]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence fully supports the Sustainable Development in Government Initiative. We have been working actively with the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the development of targets in respect of the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate.

  For each of the Framework targets published to date (environmental management systems, travel, water, biodiversity and energy), the Department has published a statement within the timeframe required, outlining the steps it will take to address the targets.

  The MOD contributes data to the annual Government Report on Sustainable Development report produced by DEFRA. Details of the Department's progress are available in the 2nd Annual Report (2003). The MOD will be producing an annual sustainable development report in November 2004.

  We are also engaged in the current review of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy.

  In addition MOD is working on its own Sustainable Development Strategy.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with his Department's Sustainable Development Strategy. [171805]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence has been developing its own Sustainable Development Strategy (which will support its activities) based on the Government's existing strategy. We intend to publish a summary version in the near future.
  559W
  In addition to its own Strategy, MOD contributes to the wider framework for sustainable development on the Government estate led by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. MOD has published a statement for each of the framework targets published to date (environmental management system, travel, water, biodiversity and energy) outlining the steps it will take them to address them.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total strength of the Territorial Army was on 1 May; how many of its members are deployed abroad; and in which countries. [172118]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information requested is not yet available. For the most recent figures relating to the strength of the Territorial Army (TA) and numbers deployed, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 April 2004,Official Report, column 728W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

  The countries in which members of the TA are currently deployed are Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

  Timber
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department plans to contribute financially to the establishment of the second phase of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [167626]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 31W, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Environment and Agri-Environment.

  Weapons Testing
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) his Department, (b) non-departmental public bodies or executive agencies responsible to his Department and (c) consultants contracted to his Department used non-human primates in experiments to test the effects of weapons in each of the last three years. [170996]

  Mr. Ingram
  The only work carried out or sponsored by the Ministry of Defence on non-human primates is that undertaken by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, (an agency of MOD) which has during the last three years conducted work using non-human primates to assess the effects and significance of human exposure to nerve agents and to develop medical countermeasures as appropriate. Additionally, work has been conducted in collaboration with allies to evaluate the performance and safety of protective countermeasures, for example, new vaccines against biological warfare agents.

  Young Service Personnel (Deaths)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the UK armed forces under the age of 18 have died while serving in each of the last 10 years. [171799]
  560W
  Mr. Caplin
  Between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 2003, 28 regular armed forces personnel under the age of 18 have died in service. These deaths occurred in the following years:

  Deaths in regular armed forces personnel aged under 18 years

  Number

  1994

  0

  1995

  3

  1996

  2

  1997

  0

  1998

  3

  1999

  5

  2000

  2

  2001

  5

  2002

  4

  2003

  1

  Total

  28

CABINET OFFICE

  Buckingham Palace Garden Parties
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to his answer of 26 April, to Question ref 168814, on garden parties, whether an exception has been made in the last 10 years to the policy of not permitting nominations for Commonwealth citizens to be made on the nomination form used by hon. Members. [169727]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply

  The arrangements under which Commonwealth citizens are nominated by their High Commissions for invitations to Royal Garden Parties have been in place for well over 10 years. I am not aware of any exceptions having been made.

  Green Minister
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the meetings his Department has been present at regarding the delivery of sustainable development across Government as coordinated by the Ministerial Sub-committee of Green Ministers. [167740]

  Mr. Alexander
  Departmental officials regularly attend meetings to discuss the delivering of sustainable development across Government.

  As regards to Cabinet Committee business, it is established practice under exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose such information.

  Recycled Paper
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of paper for printed publications used by the Department in 2002–03 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained. [167733]

  Mr. Alexander
  Since August 2002 all printing contractors used by the Cabinet Office use the cross-departmental framework contract for the supply of
  561W
  recycled paper for printed publications. Paper supplied is 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum post consumer waste content of 75 per cent.

  Shareholder Executive
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what consultations have been conducted by the Shareholder Executive on corporate finance and governance; and which of these consultations have been published. [171616]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Shareholder Executive has conducted a wide range of consultations on shareholder and governance issues, including with shareholding departments, companies owned by Government and other relevant parties outside Government. The Shareholder Executive is using these consultations to inform its work to improve Government's performance as a shareholder.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the(a) resource budget, (b) administration cost and (c) staff numbers of the Shareholder Executive were for 2003–04; and when the annual report will be published. [171617]

  Mr. Alexander
  The resource budget allocated to the Shareholder Executive for 2003–04 was £2.2 million. The outturn administration cost, currently estimated at £1 million, reflects the Shareholder Executive being created only part way through the year. At the 31 March 2004, there were 12 members of staff in the Shareholder Executive. The Shareholder Executive is an integral part of the Cabinet Office and its activities are covered by the Cabinet Office's annual report.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether the Office plans to contribute financially to the establishment of the second phase of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [167623]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Morley) on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 31W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ethnic Minorities
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to bring the number of employees from ethnic minority backgrounds in(a) the Police Service and (b) the judiciary into line with ethnic breakdown of the population in Britain. [171081]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are committed to achieving a culturally diverse workforce in the police service that is representative of the local communities it serves. We are engaged with the leadership of the police service in addressing diversity and promoting race equality in the areas of recruitment, training and development.
  562W
  We are pursuing a number of positive initiatives to improve representation in the police service. We have introduced national recruitment, assessment and selection processes that are fair and transparent and designed to weed out applicants with racist attitudes. Within this, we are encouraging, for example, all forces to use members of their minority communities as assessors in their selection processes.

  In January we launched a new action plan "Breaking Through—Promoting Minority Ethnic Employment in the Police Service" to help forces focus on steps to improve recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minorities.

  We have recently conducted advertising aimed at ethnic minorities and have produced a new ethnic minority recruitment leaflet for forces. Our relaunched police recruitment website encourages applications from ethnic minorities and women.

  In terms of the Judiciary, my right hon. noble and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor has introduced a bill to create a new, independent, Judicial Appointments Commission which will inspire a more diverse range of applicants through a more open, transparent and accessible system. The Department is also examining whether other barriers exist to deter applicants from minority groups, while continuing to run its comprehensive outreach programme.

  Active Communities Unit
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who the recipients of grants made by the Active Communities Unit were in(a) 2003–04 and (b) in each of the previous five years. [171064]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  A full listing of Active Community Unit grant recipients in 2003 04, and in each of the previous five years, has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Active Communities Unit's budget is for 2004–05. [171066]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Active Community Unit's budget for 2004–05, rounded to the nearest million pounds, is currently £84 million. In addition, the unit is responsible for £57 million of the Futurebuilders Fund, which is being distributed by an independent provider under contract to the Home Office.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) anti-social behaviour orders, (b) curfew orders and (c) other measures have been used to ban individuals from railway stations without intent to travel in each year since 1997. [171904]

  Ms Blears
  (a) Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)—Introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) ASBOs have been available to the courts since 1 April 1999. The statistical database does not identify the type of restriction imposed on orders.
  563W
  (b) Curfew Orders—It is not possible from the information collected centrally to identify the individual requirements of Curfew Orders imposed at magistrate's courts and the Crown Court.

  (c) Other measures—British Transport Police advise that it is their policy to ask for extended conditions to keep offenders of the railway when a Football Banning Order (FBO) is applied for. Currently there are 30 subjects whose FBO has conditions stopping persons from travelling upon the railway.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been issued against businesses in each of the last five years, broken down by region. [172427]

  Ms Blears
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) cannot be made against businesses, they can only be made against named individuals.

  Asylum/Immigration
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors prevent his Department from removing failed asylum seekers from the UK to(a) Afghanistan, (b) Iraq, (c) Somalia, (d) Zimbabwe and (e) Eritrea. [164109]

  Mr. Browne
  All asylum and human rights claims are considered on their individual merits in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Should a claim be refused and any appeal before the independent Immigration Appellate Authority be unsuccessful, it means that for that individual it is safe to return.

  We have an agreement with the Afghan Authorities which enables us to return significant numbers of Afghan failed asylum seekers to Afghanistan each month.

  We have also reached an agreement with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to begin enforced returns of Iraqi failed asylum seekers.

  We are currently working on the practicalities of the returns programme, and will commence returns as soon as these arrangements are finalised.

  We are currently facilitating the return of those Iraqis who wish to go home through the International Organisation for Migration.

  We also have a returns agreement with the Somaliland authorities and have also begun to return small numbers of failed asylum seekers to Somalia.

  We are currently in discussion with the Eritrean Government on improving the issuing of re-documentation to Eritrean nationals who we wish to return.

  The only country to which, as a matter of policy, we do not at present generally enforce the return of failed asylum seekers is Zimbabwe. This policy is based not on asylum or human rights reasons but on our view that in the wider context of the Government's position on Zimbabwe, it would be inappropriate forcibly to return failed asylum seekers applicable at this time.
  564W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what mechanisms are in place to ensure asylum decisions affecting nationals of EU accession countries, including outstanding cases where an initial refusal was given but which are subject to further process, are expedited after 1 May when National Asylum Support Service and local authority provision for such asylum seekers ends. [167327]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]: In relation to the small number of asylum seekers who may not yet have received an initial decision on their asylum application, these cases will be dealt with as a priority. Nationals of EU accession countries who have outstanding appeals against the decision to refuse their asylum claim will be advised of their rights as EU nationals and invited to withdraw their appeals. If they do not formally withdraw their appeals and are issued with a residence permit, their appeal will automatically be treated as abandoned.

  In relation to the ending of support on 1 May, the National Asylum Support Service (MASS) wrote to all NASS-supported cases on 5–6 April and all interim cases on 16 April informing them of their options, namely that they can work, become otherwise self-supporting, or leave the UK.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have(a) applied for and (b) been refused help under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. [171346]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available and could be produced only at a disproportionate cost.

  When it is not possible for a failed asylum seeker to return to their country of origin following a negative decision, an application may be made for support under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which came into force on 11 November 1999. There are no published statistics on the number of failed asylum seekers who have applied, and have been accepted or refused, for accommodation under Section 4.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by the National Asylum Support Service is published quarterly. The next publication covering the first quarter of 2004 (January to March) will be available on 25 May on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have applied for judicial review in the last 12 months; and how many have been(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful in their application. [171347]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of asylum seekers who have applied for judicial review, for the latest 12-month period for which data are available, are given in the table. The table shows the total number of applications, decisions and grants of permission to apply for judicial review as well as the outcomes of judicial review hearings. Decisions do not necessarily correspond to applications for permission to apply for judicial review in any given period. Only a small proportion, nine per cent. of applications for permission to apply for judicial review were granted in 2002.
  565W

  Application for Judicial Review, and outcomes, excluding dependants, 20021

  Applications for permission to apply for Judicial Review2

  Applications

  3,075

  Decisions3

  2,980

  of which:

  Granted permission on to apply

  260

  Percentage of applicants granted permission to apply4

  (9)

  The outcome of judicial review hearings2

  Allowed5

  Total

  25

  As percentage of total determined

  (30)

  Dismissed6

  Total

  60

  As percentage of total determined

  (67)

  Withdrawn

  Total

  5

  As percentage of total determined

  (3)

  1Provisional figures

  2Figures based on Administrative Court data. Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest 5 with *=1 or 2

  3Decisions do not relate to applications in any given period

  4The number of which granted leave to move as a percentage of decisions

  5The decision of the respondent (in this case, the Home Office or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal) was quashed. These figures include consent order where the JR was conceded by the respondent

  6The decision of the respondent was upheld

  Statistics on judicial review are published annually; data covering 2003 are due to be published towards the end of August 2004. Copies of the most recent publications are available from the Library of the House or on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice. gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Immigration and Nationality Directorate caseworkers dealt with asylum claims in each of the past three years; what the(a) target and (b) actual maximum case load was in each year; what staff turnover was in each year; how many days' work was lost through sickness in each year; and what provision has been made for staff to receive stress counselling. [170104]

  Mr. Browne
  During 2003 there were 570 full time equivalent staff employed as asylum caseworkers in post. This compares with 556 and 632 caseworkers during 2002 and 2001.

  The Home Office's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target for 2003–04 was to ensure that 75 per cent. of new substantive asylum applications (excluding withdrawals and third country cases) were decided within two months. This was an increase from the 65 per cent. and 60 per cent. targets met in 2002–03 and 2001–02 respectively, and reflects the Government's commitment to, and success in, speeding up the initial decision-making process.

  The total number of applications received during 2003, 2002 and 2001 was 49,370, 84,130 and 71,025 respectively.

  The number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision as of December 2003 was 24,500 (the latest date for which published figures are available), the
  566W
  lowest level for 10 years. This compares to 42,200 and 41,300 for 2001 and 2002 respectively and is a significant reduction from the 1997 level of 51,795.

  Information on the number of asylum applications outstanding and the timeliness of initial decisions is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Data are not recorded for staff turnover or absenteeism of caseworkers in contrast to other members of staff within the Home Office and would be available only at disproportionate cost. Sickness absence for the Home Office is recorded and published by the Cabinet Office.

  Advice, support and counselling on dealing with stress is available to all members of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. This is provided through the Home Office Health and Welfare Service.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many EU citizens have been removed from the United Kingdom in each year since 1997 in circumstances where they are deemed to be unable to support themselves and are an unreasonable burden on the state, broken down by EU member state. [161402]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the number of EU nationals removed from the UK and on the personal circumstances of theose people who are removed is not available.

  Under EEA regulations an EU national can be removed and excluded from the UK if it is decided that their removal is justified on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Any right of residence is subject to that individual demonstrating that they can exercise a specific treaty right to reside.

  The number of people removed from the UK in 2003 is due to be published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2003" on the Home Office web-site at the end of August. www.homeoffice.gov uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Brain Fingerprinting
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 5 May 2004,Official Report, column 1541W, on brain fingerprinting, if he will evaluate the effectiveness of brain fingerprinting technologies that monitor the involuntary electrical waves emitted by the brain. [172049]

  Ms Blears
  There are no plans at present for the Home Office to evaluate brain fingerprinting technologies. However claims about the effectiveness of this technology will be considered in the Police Science and Technology Strategy Group with a view to deciding whether any research should be considered.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 5 April with regard to Mrs. Rahmat Bibi. [171780]
  567W
  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 12 May 2004.

  Crime
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in(a) overall recorded crime, (b) recorded violent crime, (c) burglaries and (d) vehicle thefts in Oldham, West and Royton has been since 1997. [170954]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Oldham West and Royton comes within the Oldham Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. Data at CDRP level has only been published from 1999–2000 onwards. Detailed statistics at CDRP level are available for 2002–03 on the new Home Office website: http://www.crimestatistics org.uk

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in(a) overall recorded crime, (b) recorded violent crime, (c) burglaries and (d) vehicle thefts in South Ribble has been since 1997. [171658]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  South Ribble is a Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. Data at CDRP level has only been published from 199902000 onwards. Detailed statistics at CDRP level are available for 2002–03 on the new Home Office website: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change since 1997 is in West Lancashire in(a) overall recorded crime, (b) violent crime, (c) burglaries and (d) vehicle thefts. [171722]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  West Lancashire is a Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. Data at CDRP level has only been published from 1999–2000 onwards. Detailed statistics at CDRP level are available for 2002–03 on the new Home Office website: http://www.crimestatistics. org.uk

  Crimes Against Business
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the prosecutions brought as a result of National Criminal Intelligence Service operations in the last 10 years related to crimes against business. [172287]

  Ms Blears
  Prosecutions brought as a result of National Criminal Intelligence Service operations cannot be identified in the court proceedings statistics collected centrally.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on which dates he met small and medium sized enterprises and manufacturers to discuss crimes against business in(a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003 and (d) 2004. [172413]
  568W
  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, Junior Ministers and officials in the Home Office have many meetings with small and medium sized enterprises and manufacturers to discuss a range of business crime issues.

  Recently we have established a Small Business Forum with members from a wide range of organisations to hear at first hand the particular crime problems small and medium sized enterprises face, and to develop and implement practical and effective measures to reduce those crimes.

  Departmental Response Times
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of(a) Written Answers, (b) replies to hon. Members' written correspondence and (c) public correspondence with his Department was (i) seen and (ii) cleared by special advisers before being published in 2003–04. [170530]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Special Advisers in this Department have access to material produced by permanent civil servants in accordance with paragraph 14e of the "Model Contract for Special Advisers". Ministers approve answers to all Parliamentary Questions and replies to hon. Members' written correspondence. They also approve replies to public correspondence except that dealt with directly by permanent civil servants.

  Entry Clearance Standards
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Statement of 30 March,Official Report, column 1433, on entry clearance standards, whether (a) the hotline and (b) the website he announced has been set up. [172439]

  Mr. Browne
  I can confirm that the telephone hotline and website have been set up as announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 30 March 2004,Official Report, column 1433.

  Hirst v. UK
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hirst v. United Kingdom concerning a violation of Article 3 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [172394]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have noted the judgment and intends to request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many biometric identifiers will be used on national identity cards. [170261]

  Mr. Browne
  There has been no firm decision made on how many biometric identifiers will be used on the identity card.
  569W
  These decisions will be made in the light of work under way on the feasibility of different technologies and the design of processes around identity enrolment and verification.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship between the proposed National Identity Register and the proposed population register. [170343]

  Mr. Browne
  Legislation on Identity Cards—A Consultation (CM 6178) explains that the National Identity Register and the population register are separate but complementary proposals. The Home Office is working closely with the Registrar-General for England and Wales on the development of the two proposals.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) preparatory work and (b) testing he is planning to assess the (i) requirements for the design of identity cards and (ii) arrangements for application. [170348]

  Mr. Browne
  Over recent months the Home Office has been in wide ranging discussions with both the public and private sectors about their potential requirements for the ID cards scheme. As explained in CM 6178—Legislation on Identity Cards— A Consultation, this will now be followed by a programme definition phase. We intend to undertake volume testing from 2007 that will cover the end to end process.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the application process for identity cards will be(a) monitored and (b) assessed. [170349]

  Mr. Browne
  Legislation on Identity Cards— A Consultation (CM 6178) invites views on the governance options of the scheme.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what alternative eye technologies his Department investigated before concluding that the iris should form the basis for an identity card. [170552]

  Mr. Browne
  Both retina and iris recognition were considered by the National Physical Laboratory in their evaluation of biometric technologies. It has not yet been decided that iris recognition will be used in the identity card scheme. The feasibility of using iris recognition for identity cards is under investigation.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which companies are being considered as potential suppliers of systems for issuing identity cards. [170814]

  Mr. Browne
  The Home Office has not yet made any decision about which companies would be considered potential suppliers of systems for ID Cards.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the categories of private sector organisations that will be able to apply for accreditation to access the National Identity Register under the Draft Identity Card Bill; and whether this includes overseas(a) private sector organisations and (b) governments. [173010]
  570W
  Mr. Browne
  No decisions have yet been taken on the precise arrangements for accreditation of businesses or other organisations seeking verification of an individual's identity from the National Identity Register.

  Identity Theft
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the international standards of biometric data were agreed; and how many countries have agreed them. [173050]

  Mr. Browne
  In May 2003 the Air Transport Committee of International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) agreed world-wide standards for the introduction of biometrics in travel documents to protect against fraud and forgery. ICAO is a United Nations organisation with 188 contracting states.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what standards the new passport biometrics will be required to meet; and whether they are compliant with US standards. [173051]

  Mr. Browne
  The Air Transport Committee of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) agreed that the primary biometric identifier should be a facial image stored on a contactless radio frequency chip. Also that additional biometrics may be used by nations on a bi-lateral basis; fingerprints and iris being agreed for this purpose. These standards were accepted and endorsed by the Committee as the globally interoperable standard and implemented through the International Standards Organisation (ISO), Standards Committee SC37. The USA along with the UK are active participants in this standards work.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are in place for staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to raise matters of concern with(a) their superiors and (b) ministers. [160515]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 11 March 2004]: Home Office staff can raise concerns or matters of conscience either with the Head of Department or confidentially with a nominated official outside their line management chain and, if still dissatisfied, have the right to raise the matter with the Civil Service Commissioners. If events develop so rapidly that it is not possible to follow this procedure, staff may write to the Head of Department who will advise the Departmental Minister, if applicable, and inform the Head of the Home Civil Service. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 30 March column 1433 that a telephone hotline would be set up alongside the existing procedures for staff to raise concerns or matters of conscience.

  National Identity Register
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he proposes to ensure that information stored on the National Identity Register concerning and individuals' address is up-to-date. [170260]
  571W
  Mr. Browne
  The draft Identity Cards Bill published on 26 April includes a requirement under clause 12 for an individual to whom an ID card has been issued to notify prescribed changes which affect the accuracy of the Register. This will help to ensure compliance with the Fourth Principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 which states that personal data should be accurate and, where necessary, kept up-to-date.

  Drivers are already used to the requirement to notify a change of address to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and we expect that people will want to keep their details up-to-date otherwise their card will be less useful to them. Failure to update prescribed details may result in the imposition of a civil penalty not exceeding £1,000 under clause 12(6).

  Online Advice
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is available online giving guidance to people from EU accession states on living and working legally in the UK. [165055]

  Mr. Browne
  Full guidance about the rights and responsibilities of accession nationals wishing to work and live in the United Kingdom for accession nationals was published on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate websites, www.workingintheuk.gov.uk and www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk on 27 April 2004.

  Police
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police community support officers were employed by the Metropolitan Police on 1 January 2004. [170871]

  Ms Blears
  On 1 January 2004 the Metropolitan Police Service employed 1157 Community Support Officers.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fully qualified police officers were employed by the Metropolitan police on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 January. [170872]

  Ms Blears
  Information on police numbers is collected quarterly. The Metropolitan Police Service had 26,677 police officers on 31 March 1997. This had increased to a record number of 29,441 officers on 31 December 2003. All police officers are available for duty from the day of joining the force.

  Additionally the Metropolitan police had 12,093 police staff and 1,431 Community Support Officers at the end of December 2003.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the total Metropolitan police uniformed force is accounted for by police community support officers. [170997]

  Ms Blears
  The Metropolitan Police Service does not keep records of which Police Officers and staff members are currently working in uniform. The table shows the total strength of Police Officers, Staff, Traffic Wardens and Community Support Officers as of 1 January 2004. Community Support Officers account for 2.7 per cent. of the total strength of the force.
  572W

  Personnel

  Strength

  Police officers

  29,886.27

  Police staff (excluding CSOs and Traffic Wardens)

  11,772.59

  Traffic Wardens

  543.30

  Community Support Officers

  1,157.14

  Total

  43,359.3

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) traffic police, (b) mounted police, (c) police dog handlers, (d) armed response team officers and (e) Criminal Investigation Department officers there are in Lancashire. [171232]

  Ms Blears
  Published information on police strength by police force area is available for rank, gender and ethnicity but not function. Figures on Police Strength for March 2003, were published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 11/03, copies of which are available in the library or on the internet site: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hosbpubsl.html.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in South Ribble has been since 1997. [171659]

  Ms Blears
  South Ribble is in the Southern Basic Command Unit (BCU) of Lancashire Constabulary. BCU strength figures are only available for March 2002 and 2003. The information is given in the table.

  Strength

  Percentage change

  31 March 2002

  462

  —

  31 March 2003

  500

  +8.2

  Racial Equality Councils
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the racial equality councils that have been successful in securing section 44 funding; and what the total funding allocation was. [169737]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Commission for Racial Equality notified applicants of its funding decisions on Thursday 6 May.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racial equality councils are estimated to be in danger of closure as a result of recent allocations of Commission for Racial Equality section 44 funding for 2004–05. [172860]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) advises me that following its initial assessment based on grant previously awarded and local knowledge, potentially up to 11 racial equality councils may be in danger of closure. In the event of closure or significant reduction in services provided, CRE staff will work with local councils, Government Offices and Local Strategic Partnerships where appropriate to ensure there is local ownership, support and continuity of services in the areas affected.
  573W
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the Commission for Racial Equality has decided to grant its section 44 funding to groups other than racial equality councils. [172861]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Section 44 of the Race Relations Act 1976 sets out the purpose for which grant may be awarded. It does not prescribe which types of bodies may receive financial assistance and therefore does not limit such assistance to racial equality councils.

  We warmly welcome the Commission for Racial Equality's policy of using the Getting Results programme to support any innovative project which is making a difference to race equality and race relations within its local community.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were received for Commission for Racial Equality section 44 funding in each of the last five bid rounds. [172862]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Commission for Racial Equality is collating this information. The chair of the CRE will write to my hon. Friend in due course.

  Small Retailers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much has been spent through the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas initiative in each year since 2001, broken down by region; [172429]

  (2) what targets are in place to measure and assess projects undertaken as part of the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas scheme; [172430]

  (3) when he will publish the review of the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas scheme. [172431]

  Ms Blears
  The £15 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund for the Small Retailers in Deprived Areas initiative was made available as follows; 2001–02—£3 million; 2002–03—£6 million; and 2003–04—£6millon. A small amount was set aside for administration and evaluation, with the regional allocations as follows:

  £

  Region

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Total

  Eastern

  196,620

  393,475

  393,475

  983,570

  East Midlands

  236,060

  471,052

  471,052

  1,178,164

  London

  454,720

  910,515

  910,515

  2,275,750

  North East

  248,530

  496,244

  496,244

  1,241,018

  North West

  470,670

  942,209

  942,209

  2,355,088

  South East

  246,500

  493,580

  493,580

  1,233,660

  South West

  194,300

  389,604

  389,604

  973,508

  Wales

  190,820

  381,257

  381,257

  953,334

  West Midlands

  333,210

  666,182

  666,182

  1,665,574

  Yorkshire and Humber

  327,410

  655,882

  655,882

  1,639,174

  All the funding, other than a small amount in the region of £250,000 due to slippage on some projects in 2003–04, has been fully disbursed. This equates to 1.7 per cent. of the total capital allocation.

  Individual projects are developed by local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in conjunction with Regional Home Office Directors. Part of this process is
  574W
  to ensure adequate local targets have been set and systems put in place to measure performance against them.

  The evaluation of the scheme will pull out key best practice and learning points from eight case studies, plus four other regional sites. The evaluation will examine ways in which the scheme has impacted upon businesses, such as changes in levels of retail crime; fear of crime among businesses and their customers; business viability; partnership working; and improved security behaviour among businesses.

  We hope to publish the full evaluation of the Small Retailers scheme later this year.

  Stolen Goods
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the role of(a) pawnbrokers and (b) shops dealing in second hand goods in providing a market for stolen goods; and if he will make a statement. [172400]

  Ms Blears
  In 1998, Dr. Mike Sutton produced, on behalf of the Home Office, a report entitled 'Handling stolen goods and theft a market reduction approach'. This identified five distinct markets for stolen goods, one of which was commercial outlets such as pawn brokers and second hand goods shops.

  Under the Targeted Policing Initiative (part of the Crime Reduction Programme, which ran from 1999 to 2003), we provided funding totalling around £1.4 million to projects in Stockport, Kent and West Mercia aimed at reducing the market in stolen goods. The second hand goods trade was just one of several distribution channels for stolen goods that these projects targeted. In particular, the Stockport and Kent projects used local legislation, which regulates second hand goods outlets Under the terms of the Kent and Medway Acts 2001, Kent and Medway Councils must also present the Home Office with a report on the working provisions of the Acts by 1 December, which will subsequently be laid before Parliament.

  The Home Office has also commissioned the University of Kent to evaluate the effectiveness of these and similar pieces of legislation and we are planning to lay a summary of the results of this research before Parliament at the same time.

  We are also aware of further research that is being undertaken into thieves' preferred method of disposing of stolen property and we will be looking to see what this adds to our existing knowledge.

  Our programme of work to drive down the market for stolen goods includes, amongst other things, activities aimed at those pawn brokers and other second hand goods outlets that deal in stolen property.

  Stolen Vehicles
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to bring forward legislative proposals to make the drivers of stolen vehicles that have been immobilised remotely and which cause an accident legally responsible for any liability. [172048]
  575W
  Ms Blears
  There are no plans to bring forward such legislation.

  Although the remote stopping of moving vehicles is technically possible, achieving this in a way that is safe and secure is some way off. Further research is being conducted into this technology and this will include the examination of legal liability issues.

  Stowaways
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of undetected stowaways entering the UK in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [160372]

  Mr. Browne
  There is no official estimate of the number of clandestine entrants to the UK.

  Illegal entry action is initiated against those people who are detected having entered or attempting to enter the country clandestinely or by means of deception, either verbal or documentary.

  The available figures include those people who were identified as having entered the country clandestinely, they are not separately identifiable as such information would only be available by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost.

  Wormwood Scrubs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken to identify and interview members of staff of HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs who were employed in the months leading up to and including the day of the death of John Boyle in December 1994, who may have witnessed or been involved in bullying and abusive behaviour. [155659]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 2 March 2004]: Mr. Boyle's death at HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs in December 1994 predates current Prison Service policy for investigating deaths in custody and, from the information currently available, there is no evidence to suggest that an investigation was conducted. However, staff working on the Segregation Unit on the day of Mr. Boyle's death were asked to submit incident reports at the time. A coroner's inquest into Mr. Boyle's death, for which several members of staff were called as witnesses, returned an open verdict in May 1995.

HEALTH

  Animal Welfare
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department issues for experimentation on non-human primates in order to improve cures to illnesses shared by primates and humans; and what plans he has to introduce alternatives to the use of primates in medical research. [170995]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, no animals can be used in scientific procedures if alternatives are available and primates can only be used if no other species are suitable 576W
  and readily obtainable. Every effort will continue to be required to minimise primate use and find alternatives where practicable. The United Kingdom legislation regulating animal experiments is widely regarded as the toughest in the world. The Government's policy is never to allow the use of great apes.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC) has established the Centre for Best Practice for Animals in Research (CBPAR) as part of its continuing commitment to high standards in laboratory animal use and welfare. Following consultation with vets, scientists, experts in primate welfare, and animal welfare organisations, CBPAR has developed guidelines on best practice in the accommodation and care of primates used in scientific procedures. These guidelines have now been published and will shortly be available on the MRC website at www.mrc.ac.uk.

  Baby Food
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence he has collated of a link between consumption of high sugar content baby foods and obesity in children; and if he will make a statement; [170252]

  (2) what plans he has to require baby food labelling to show prominently the sugar content; [170253]

  (3) what representations he has received on the labelling of baby foods to show sugar content. [170254]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have not collated evidence of a link between consumption of high sugar content baby foods and obesity in children.

  Labelling rules for baby foods are agreed at European Union level. The presence of sugar added as an ingredient to baby foods must be declared as an ingredient—as part of the list of ingredients appearing on the product label.

  Additional specific labelling requirements for these foods require the actual amounts of certain nutrients present, such as protein, fat and carbohydrate, to be declared. However, a declaration of the actual amounts of sugar present is not mandatory and there are no plans to introduce such a requirement at this time.

  There have been no representations on the labelling of sugar content for baby foods over the past year.

  Bounty Packs
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Bounty packs were distributed to new mothers within maternity units in Britain in each year since 1995. [171042]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally. Bounty is an independent commercial organisation that distributes free product samples and packs containing information to expectant and new mothers.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many anonymous complaints about care homes have been received since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [171607]
  577W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department does not collect information on complaints about care homes. Since April 2002, all care homes in England have been regulated by the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC), which was replaced by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) in April 2004. The NCSC and CSCI collects information about complaints.

  I understand from the Chairman of CSCI that the number of anonymous complaints about care homes recorded on the Registration and Inspection database are as shown in the following table.

  Number

  2002–2003

  1596

  2003–2004

  1914

  Departmental Staff (Drugs)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of his Department's employees received counselling for drug use in 2003. [171626]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has a contract with Corecare to provide a counselling service for its employees. Corecare received no requests from the Department's employees requesting counselling for drug use in 2003.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many administrators are involved, and at what annual cost in each trust, in dealing with the resulting paperwork from emergency service staff captured on speed cameras contravening speed limits; [170729]

  (2) on how many occasions in each of the last 12 months ambulances on emergency calls in each health trust area have been captured on speed cameras contravening speed limits. [170731]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  However, the Department is aware that speeding tickets issued to ambulances on emergency journeys are creating extra administration costs in some areas. Officials have already had useful discussions with the Home Office and are working closely with them to provide a workable solution.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Home Affairs on the annual cost to health trusts of dealing with the paperwork generated by ambulances on emergency calls captured on speed cameras contravening speed limits. [170730]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department is aware that speeding tickets issued to ambulances on emergency journeys are creating extra administration costs in some areas. Officials have already had useful discussions with the Home Office and are working closely with them to provide a workable solution.

  Gender Pay Gap
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the pay gap between men and women employed by his Department and its agencies in(a) Southampton, (b) Eastleigh, (c) Winchester and (d) Romsey. [171620]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department, and its agencies do not employ any staff in Southampton, Eastleigh, Winchester or Romsey, except for the NHS Estates agency which employs 15 staff in Winchester.

  It conducts an equal pay assessment each time a new employee is appointed or when an existing employee is promoted and the proposed salary has to be agreed by the chief operating officer who conducts a "benchmarking" exercise via the human resources department.

  Gloucestershire Tri-Service Centre
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on setting up the Gloucestershire Tri-Service Centre at Quedgley; when it became fully operational; and if he will make a statement. [172364]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]The Gloucestershire Tri-Service Centre has been fully operational since April 2003. It was set up with £2.6 million of funding from the Government's Invest to Save budget. The local fire, police and ambulance services jointly contributed a further £1.9 million.

  Health Development Agency
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effect on residents of Manchester, Gorton of the Health Development Agency; [167377]

  Jim Dobbin
  if he will make a statement on the effect on residents of Heywood and Middleton of the Health Development Agency; [168494]

  Mr. Benton
  if he will make a statement on the benefits for residents of Bootle of the Health Development Agency; [170537]

  Tony Cunningham
  if he will make a statement on the effect on residents of Workington constituency of the Health Development Agency; [170715]

  Mr. Neil Turner
  if he will make a statement on the effect on residents of Wigan of the Health Development Agency; [169351]

  Mr. Hendrick
  if he will make a statement on the effect on residents of Preston of the Health Development Agency; [168105]

  Mr. Pike
  what assessment he has made of the effects on residents of Burnley of the Health Development Agency; [167955]

  Mr. Meacher
  if he will make a statement on the benefits for residents of Oldham, West and Royton of the Health Development Agency; [170894]

  Mr. Burrow
  if he will make a statement on the benefits for residents of South Ribble of the Health Development Agency. [171670]
  579W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The work of the Health Development Agency (HDA) is focused on service delivery that supports the whole of the region's public health development.

  The HDA manages the national healthy school standard, which is part of the Government's national strategy to reduce health inequalities for children.

  The North West HDA organised the largest ever regional public health conference in March 2004 to address the problem of obesity. Over 300 regional public health professionals, including representatives from health services responsible for Gorton, will have learned of the latest obesity data for the region and will collaboratively plan a regional obesity action plan. The workshop will draw together best practice from across the region and in addition to the HDA guidance on obesity, this will provide the basis for local and regional work to tackle obesity in the coming years.

  The North West HDA is currently working with the North West public health observatory and the regional cancer registries to review the main causes of cancer related deaths across the region.

  The HDA, in partnership with Liverpool John Moores University and the North West Public Health Observatory, is currently completing a regional report Alcohol: A Situational Analysis for the North West.

  Health Funding (Manchester)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on health in Manchester. Gorton in each of the last seven years. [167380]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head in the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area, which includes the constituency of Gorton, has increased from £582.33 in 1997–98 to £992.61 in 2002–03 (the latest year

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff in the Greater Manchester strategic health authority area as at 30 September each specified year

  headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  5,701

  5,796

  5,956

  6,248

  6,589

  7,029

  7,170

  5J5

  Oldham PCT

  n/a

  n/

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  122

  133

  QC9

  West Pennine HA

  1

  1

  1

  2

  4

  n/a

  n/a

  REX

  Oldham NHS Trust

  347

  346

  360

  393

  417

  n/a

  n/a

  REZ

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  244

  249

  243

  259

  308

  n/

  n/a

  RM4

  North Manchester Healthcare

  281

  288

  306

  323

  337

  340

  315

  RMN

  Bury Health Care NHS Trust

  216

  225

  230

  242

  267

  n/a

  n/a

  RW6

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  900

  853

  n/a—not applicable

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been to NHS waiting list times for the residents of Oldham, West and Royton in the last seven years. [170886]
  580W
  available). This does not represent the total expenditure per head as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  Health Services
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Oldham, West and Royton are receiving drug treatment. [170958]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2000–01, there were 737 people receiving drug treatment in Oldham. This is the latest available data. Data broken down by drug action team for 2001–02 and 2002–03 has not yet been finalised and published.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many senior citizens in Oldham, West and Royton have access to free eye tests; [170882]

  (2) how many residents in Oldham, West and Royton aged over 60 years have benefited from the abolition of charges for eye tests. [170883]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures for the number of sight tests by constituency, or senior citizens are not collected centrally.

  In 2002–03, the total number of national health service sight tests paid for patients aged 60 and over in Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority was 189,900. The total number eligible for free sight test for those aged 60 and over was 493,100.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in Oldham, West and Royton in each of the last seven years. [170884]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) therapists and (b) scientists there were located in Oldham, West and Royton in each of the last seven years. [170885]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not collected on a constituency basis but at national health service trust level. The information is shown in the table.
  581W

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  NHS Trust

  Total number of patients waiting for admission

  Less than 3 months

  3–5 months

  6–8 months

  9–11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  18+ months

  March 1997

  Oldham NHS Trust

  8,436

  3,837

  2,293

  1,339

  967

  —

  —

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,464

  2,472

  868

  577

  374

  173

  —

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  5,787

  2,961

  1,506

  708

  427

  157

  22

  6

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,223

  1,471

  399

  196

  120

  37

  —

  —

  March 1998

  Oldham NHS Trust

  8,332

  3,954

  1,976

  1,650

  736

  16

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,684

  2,702

  924

  581

  305

  132

  40

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  6,002

  2,911

  1,253

  827

  528

  308

  175

  —

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,437

  1,581

  375

  251

  128

  91

  11

  —

  March 1999

  Oldham NHS Trust

  7,338

  4,156

  1,904

  895

  315

  67

  1

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,168

  2,351

  873

  484

  257

  167

  36

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,699

  3,342

  737

  369

  148

  76

  27

  —

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,153

  1,210

  367

  240

  127

  158

  51

  —

  March 2000

  Oldham NHS Trust

  6,484

  4,012

  1,364

  682

  371

  50

  5

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,032

  2,102

  841

  568

  330

  130

  61

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,262

  3.131

  653

  230

  150

  78

  20

  —

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,103

  1,218

  341

  219

  164

  105

  56

  —

  March 2001

  Oldham NHS Trust

  6,427

  4,092

  1,478

  601

  213

  43

  —

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,039

  2,456

  876

  397

  249

  45

  16

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,016

  2,884

  680

  303

  119

  27

  3

  —

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,916

  1,250

  367

  181

  118

  —

  —

  —

  March 2002

  Oldham NHS Trust

  6,297

  3,830

  1,631

  611

  225

  —

  —

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,530

  2,675

  1,029

  527

  254

  45

  —

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,008

  2,804

  795

  265

  114

  30

  —

  —

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,045

  1,411

  336

  218

  78

  2

  —

  —

  March 2003

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  15,872

  10,226

  3,607

  1,575

  464

  —

  —

  —

  February 2004

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  15,892

  9,720

  4,536

  1,491

  145

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO7 and monthly monitoring.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of patients with suspected cancer in Oldham, West and Royton saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [170887]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not collected on a constituency basis but at national health service trust level. Information from 2000–01, the earliest available, is shown in the table.

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent general practitioner referral

  Seen within two weeks

  Quarter

  NHS trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2000–01

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  93.3

  167

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.0

  200

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  93.9

  200

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  97.1

  374

  2001–02

  1

  Oldham NHS Trust

  94.8

  181

  1

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  97.8

  224

  1

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  94.9

  242

  1

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  96.1

  345

  2

  Oldham NHS Trust

  96.4

  162

  2

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  93.0

  227

  2

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  90.6

  298

  2

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.0

  385

  582W

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent general practitioner referral

  Seen within two weeks

  Quarter

  NHS trust

  Percentage

  Number

  3

  Oldham Trust

  98.9

  181

  3

  Rochdale Healthcaoe NHS Trust

  99.6

  235

  3

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  94.7

  286

  3

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.5

  398

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  98.5

  197

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.5

  209

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.7

  302

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  450

  2002–03

  1

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.8

  1,215

  2

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.1

  1,240

  3

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.4

  1,325

  4

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  95.8

  1,190

  2003–04

  1

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  92.2

  1,214

  2

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  94.9

  1,174

  3

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  97.6

  1,276

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS waiting times for heart surgery in Oldham, West and Royton. [170888]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There was one patient waiting more than nine months for heart surgery in the Oldham Primary Care Trust irea at 30 June 2002. No patients have waited more than nine months since this date.
  583W
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents in Oldham, West and Royton awaiting heart surgery have had the option of choosing an alternative hospital for quicker treatment in the last 12 months. [170889]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of elective admissions to the NHS in Oldham West and Royton in the past five years. [170890]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is shown in the table.

  Primary care trust of responsibility, 5J5 Oldham PCT count of in- year selective admissions (waiting list, booked and planned cases) NHS hospitals, 1998–99 to 2002–03

  In-year admissions

  1998–99

  34,871

  1999–2000

  37,389

  2000–01

  34,386

  2001–02

  30,932

  2002–03

  29,988

  Notes:

  In-year admissions

  An in-year admission is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider, excluding admissions beginning before 1 April at the start of the datayear. Periods of care ongoing at the end of the datayear (unfinished admission episodes) are included. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  Average daily number of available beds, by sector, Oldham NHS trust, 1996–97 to 2002–03

  All specialties (excluding day only)

  General and acute

  Acute

  Geriatric

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  Maternity

  Day only

  1996–97

  764

  579

  441

  138

  124

  —

  61

  73

  1997–98

  740

  554

  554

  —

  125

  —

  60

  65

  1998–99

  756

  573

  573

  —

  116

  —

  66

  73

  1999–2000

  764

  582

  582

  —

  116

  —

  66

  73

  2000–01

  768

  586

  586

  —

  116

  —

  65

  81

  2001–02

  818

  642

  642

  —

  113

  —

  63

  72

  2002–03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03.

  Average daily number of available beds, by sector, Oldham NHS trust, 1996–97 to 2002–03

  All specialties (excluding day only)

  General and acute

  Acute

  Geriatric

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  Maternity

  Day only

  1996–97

  670

  513

  401

  112

  99

  9

  49

  22

  1997–98

  638

  482

  361

  121

  98

  8

  49

  23

  1998–99

  645

  490

  389

  100

  98

  9

  49

  22

  1999–2000

  656

  522

  401

  120

  87

  8

  39

  22

  2000–01

  657

  520

  385

  135

  94

  8

  36

  25

  2001–02

  631

  488

  83

  405

  94

  8

  41

  31

  2002–03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03.

  584W
  Ungrossed Data

  Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Primary Care Trust (PCT) and Strategic Health Authority (SHA) Data Quality

  PCT and SHA data was added to historic data-years in the HES database using 2002–03 boundaries, as a one-off exercise in 2004. Data quality of PCT of GP practice for 1998–99 is poor, with a high proportion missing values where practices changed or ceased to exist. Users of time series analysis including these years need to be aware of these issues in their interpretation of the data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rapid access chest pain clinics there are in Oldham, West and Royton. [170891]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is a rapid access chest pain clinic at the Royal Oldham Hospital, part of the Pennine Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  The clinic is meeting the national service framework two-week target for patients to be seen from date of referral by general practitioner.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there is a diagnostic and treatment centre located in Oldham, West and Royton. [170892]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no treatment centre in Oldham West and Royton. A treatment centre is planned for Trafford Healthcare national health service trust.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS beds were available in Oldham, West and Royton in each year since 1997. [170893]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  585W

  Average daily number of available beds, by sector, Oldham NHS trust, 1996–97 to 2002–03

  All specialties (excluding day only)

  General and acute

  Acute

  Geriatric

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  Maternity

  Day only

  1996–97

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2000–01

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2001–02

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2002–03

  2,321

  2,142

  2,142

  —

  —

  —

  179

  153

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03.

  Average daily number of available beds, by sector, Oldham NHS trust, 1996–97 to 2002–03

  All specialties (excluding day only)

  General and acute

  Acute

  Geriatric

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  Maternity

  Day only

  1996–97

  740

  582

  398

  184

  97

  12

  49

  10

  1997–98

  720

  568

  568

  —

  91

  10

  51

  8

  1998–99

  686

  553

  553

  —

  83

  10

  39

  10

  1999–2000

  658

  539

  539

  —

  78

  10

  31

  8

  2000–01

  653

  534

  534

  —

  78

  10

  31

  8

  2001–02

  667

  529

  529

  —

  84

  10

  44

  11

  2002–03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03.

  Average daily number of available beds, by sector, Oldham NHS trust, 1996–97 to 2002–03

  All specialties (excluding day only)

  General and acute

  Acute

  Geriatric

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  Maternity

  Day only

  1996–97

  849

  669

  669

  —

  134

  —

  46

  23

  1997–98

  826

  633

  633

  —

  137

  —

  56

  20

  1998–99

  766

  625

  625

  —

  108

  —

  33

  20

  1999–2000

  766

  617

  617

  —

  99

  —

  49

  31

  2000–01

  755

  617

  617

  —

  99

  —

  38

  22

  2001–02

  680

  638

  638

  —

  —

  —

  41

  34

  2002–03

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on(a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in Oldham, West and Royton in each of the last five years. [170895]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Allocations of funding for particular treatments are matters for the local primary care trust.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of women in Oldham, West and Royton with suspected breast cancer saw a specialist within two weeks in each of the last five years. [170896]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not collected on a constituency basis but at National Health Service Trust level. The information is shown in the table.
  586W

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment for suspected breast cancer following urgent general practitioner referral

  Quarter

  NHS trust

  Percentage

  Number

  1999–2000

  1

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  8

  1

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  39.6

  19

  1

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  81.8

  45

  1

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  85.0

  34

  2

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  n/a

  2

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  64.1

  25

  2

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  90.6

  29

  2

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  97.1

  66

  3

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  n/a

  3

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  70.6

  24

  3

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  75.0

  30

  3

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  58

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  22

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  88.9

  32

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  94.5

  52

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust100. 0

  64

  2000–01

  1

  Oldham NHS Trust

  88.9

  32

  1

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  84.1

  37

  1

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  98.7

  74

  1

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  77

  587W

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment for suspected breast cancer following urgent general practitioner referral

  Quarter

  NHS trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2

  Oldham NHS Trust

  97.5

  77

  2

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  72

  2

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS. Trust

  89.9

  71

  2

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  77

  3

  Oldham NHS Trust

  93.8

  76

  3

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  77

  3

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  93.9

  77

  3

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  93

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  97.1

  68

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  71

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  98.6

  70

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  88

  2000–02

  1

  Oldham NHS Trust

  98.7

  76

  1

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  85

  1

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  98.6

  68

  1

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  105

  2

  Oldham NHS Trust

  98.7

  75

  2

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  95.9

  71

  2

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  91.3

  94

  2

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  93

  3

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  106

  3

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  93

  3

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  79

  3

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  108

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  100.0

  84

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  54

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  66

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  107

  2002–03

  1

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.4

  357

  2

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.7

  357

  3

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.0

  383

  4

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  97.7

  334

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff in the Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority area by organisation as at 30 September each specified year

  headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Q13

  Cumbria and Lancashiie SHA total

  3,352

  3,486

  3,595

  3,706

  3,759

  3,893

  4,279

  5F2

  Chorley and South Ribble PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  93

  124

  147

  5F3

  West Lancashire PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  45

  48

  59

  QC1

  South Lancashire HA

  2

  2

  1

  4

  1

  1—

  1—

  RJU

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  211

  218

  216

  222

  169

  1—

  1—

  RJV

  West Lancashire NHS Trust

  183

  177

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  RMF

  Preston Acute Hospitals MHS Trust

  378

  410

  435

  460

  468

  1—

  1—

  RW5

  Lancashire Care NHS Trust

  1— 1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  260

  259

  RXN

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  603

  726

  1 Not applicable

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of suspected cancer patients in South Ribble saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [171276]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information from 2000–01, the earliest available, is shown in the table.
  588W

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment for suspected breast cancer following urgent general practitioner referral

  Quarter

  NHS trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2000–04

  1

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.0

  389

  2

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.1

  366

  3

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.6

  449

  Note:

  Where patient numbers are below six, the Department does not publish figures in order to avoid patients being identifiable due to low numbers. Where this would apply, the table reads n/a.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on health in Oldham, West and Royton in each of the last seven years. [170897]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head in the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area, which includes the constituency of Oldham West and Royton, has increased from £582.33 in 1997–98 to £992.61 in 2002–03 (the latest year for which data is available). This does not represent the total expenditure per head, as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) therapists and (b) scientists were located in South Ribble in each of the last seven years. [171274]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral—South Ribble

  Seen within two weeks

  Quarter

  NHS trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2000–01

  4

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  98.8

  320

  2000–01

  4

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  158

  2001–02

  1

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  98.5

  336

  2001–02

  1

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  204

  589W

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral—South Ribble

  Seen within two weeks

  Quarter

  NHS trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2001–02

  2

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  99.1

  325

  2001–02

  2

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  231

  2001–02

  3

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  100.0

  428

  2001–02

  3

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.6

  252

  2001–02

  4

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  100.0

  406

  2001–02

  4

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  291

  2002–03

  1

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  100.0

  435

  2002–03

  1

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.7

  312

  2002–03

  2

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.9

  822

  2002–03

  3

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.4

  822

  2002–03

  4

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  783

  2003–04

  1

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.9

  843

  2003–04

  2

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.9

  887

  2003–04

  3

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  990

  Source:

  DH form QMCW.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS waiting times for heart surgery in South Ribble. [171277]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There were eight patients waiting more than nine months for heart surgery in Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust area at 30 June 2002. No patients have waited for more than nine months since this date.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in Bootle in each of the last seven years; and if he will make a statement. [169264]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents in Taunton awaiting heart surgery have been offered the option of choosing an alternative hospital for quicker treatment in the last 12 months. [172012]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many senior citizens in Wigan have access to free eye tests;[169343]

  (2) how many residents in Wigan aged over 60 years have benefited from the abolition of charges for eye tests. [169344]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number of senior citizens are not collected centrally.

  The total number of National Health Service sight tests paid for by the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority in 2002–03 for patients aged 60 and
  590W
  over was 180,900. The total number eligible for a free sight test for those aged 60 and over was 493,100. Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients.

  Macular Degeneration
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are being made for the funding and delivery of photo dynamic therapy treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration in the Peninsula Strategic Health Authority area; and whether they comply with National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines. [171584]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: In line with our policy to shift the balance of power, responsibility for the funding and delivery of health services now rests with primary care trusts (PCTs). In the South West Peninsula strategic health authority area, the Peninsula Local Specialised Commissioning Group is leading on the implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on photodynamic therapy on behalf of its PCTs. Photodynamic therapy is currently provided by the South Devon Healthcare National Health Service Trust at Torbay Hospital and the service will be expanded from June to accept referrals from across the Peninsula. In addition, consideration is being given to involving some other hospitals in the area so as to improve local access to this service.

  ME
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to improve the provision of essential services for severely affected sufferers of ME. [171343]

  Dr. Ladyman
  On 20 January 2004, I announced new services for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis, (CFS/ME), funded by a £8.5 million cash injection. This money will see the creation of 12 new CFS/ME centres and 28 local support teams throughout England in the coming months.

  Local teams are expected to develop a network of services (health, education and social services) for those more severely affected who may be house-bound or bed-bound. The Department also provides funding to support the work of voluntary organisations working with people with CFS/ME.

  In addition, in response to a request from the Chief Medical Officer, the Medical Research Council produced a research strategy on CFS/ME on 1 May 2003.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been commissioned to develop clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of CFS/ME. These guidelines will underpin the training of health professionals, ensuring people with this condition receive sound advice and support and will address a range of issues including assessment and diagnosis, adjustment and coping, symptom management and the use of rehabilitation strategies to optimising functioning and achieving greater independence.

  Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-regional Strategy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which(a) individuals and (b) organisations will be consulted by those charged with carrying out the studies commissioned by the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Health and Social Care Sub-Group; [172168]

  (2) what the (a) terms of reference and (b) intended date for completion is of each of the studies mentioned in paragraph 53 of the Cross-Government Statement (matters 1, 2, 3, 4) on the draft Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy that the Miltion Keynes and South Midlands Health and Social Care Group has commissioned; and who is responsible for carrying out each one; [172169]

  (3) when he intends to publish a 30-year health and social care vision for the Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-region, as mentioned in paragraph 98 of the Cross-Government Statement (matters 1, 2, 3, 4) on the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy. [172172]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The studies commissioned by the Milton Keynes South Midlands Health and Social Care Sub-group have been funded through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Growth Areas Fund. These studies cover two workstreams. The first workstream is to examine how the interaction between health and the built environment can inform best practice in developing sustainable communities in the MKSM Growth Area. The second workstream is focusing on the delivery of health and social care services in response to the proposed growth in housing and population. The studies will provide a 30 year health and social care vision for the sub-region with a development plan and action plan to achieve the vision. The studies are due to be completed in June 2005.

  The Chief Executive of the Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland Strategic Health Authority is the Chair of the Sub-Group. A full-time Project Director has also been appointed for the studies and to co-ordinate consultation activity.

  The Sub-group has comprehensive representation from the health community, including the representatives of the relevant Primary Care Trusts, local authority social care departments, the three Strategic Health Authorities; the three Regional Public Health Groups of the Department of Health; the three Workforce Development Confederations (WDCs) and from NHS Estates. In addition a stakeholder reference group has been formed which will enable emerging ideas to be tested with a wide range of stakeholders, including health service users. This currently includes representatives from the local NHS Trusts, local authority Health Scrutiny Committees and patient representatives, and the intention is to expand its scope to include District Councils, Local Strategic Partnerships, independent sector service providers, and other interested groups.

  Official Meetings (Mayor of London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what dates(a) he and (b) his predecessor
  592W
  have held official meetings with the Mayor of London since July 2000; and what the subject of each meeting was;[171436]

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

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answers 10 May and 11 May 2004]: My right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health (Mr. Hutton) met the Mayor of London from time to time and discussed a variety of subjects relating to health.

  Productivity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out his policy for increasing the productivity and cutting the costs of his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [171732]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary to Her Majesty's Treasury on 10 May,Official Report, columns 148–49W.

  Radiation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential health risk from exposure to low-level(a) ionising and (b) non-ionising radiation; and if he will make a statement. [170822]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government is advised on the potential health risks from ionising and non-ionising radiation by a variety of bodies. The NationalRadiological Protection Board (NRPB) provides statutory advice to Government (www.nrpb.org). The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) provides advice on health effects of radiation at the levels encountered in the general environment. Low-level internal radiation emitters are the remit of the Committee Evaluating Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters and it is due to report to COMARE in the autumn of 2004. The risks from exposure to low-level internal emitters are also regularly reviewed by international organisations, such as the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic Radiation.

  In addition, the Department runs its own radiological protection research programme in the area of low-level radiation exposure (both ionising and non-ionising), that provides information on the quantification of the risk to public health and the implementation of appropriate preventative measures. Research specifically aimed at investigating the potential health effects of mobile phone technology was set up in 2001 under the mobile telecommunications and health research programme.

  For non-ionising radiation, the NRPB has recently reviewed the scientific evidence relating to possible adverse health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields in the frequency range 0–300GHz (Documents of the NRPB: Vol 15, No 3, 2004). This document provides

  593W
  the basis of NRPB advice on quantitative restrictions on exposure and other measures to avoid adverse effects. It is available on the NRPB web site.

  Sexual Health/HIV
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV; and what assessment he has made of its impact on the sexual health of young people in the UK. [172575]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The national strategy for sexual health and HIV, which is closely linked to the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy, identifies young people as a priority group for action to improve sexual health. The Government's 'Sex Lottery' and teenage pregnancy media campaigns are raising awareness among young people of sexually transmitted 594W
  infections (STIs), and how to avoid them. We are also tackling the most common STI through our national chlamydia screening programme, which already covers a quarter of primary care trusts in England, and is being rolled-out across the rest of the country.

  Vaccinations
  Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on ensuring that there is an adequate provision of serum for children whose parents opt for individual inoculations rather than the combined MMR. [171743]
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not supply single vaccines. It provides the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine because it provides the most effective protection against three potentially serious diseases. The availability of single vaccines is an issue for the private clinics who offer them.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud Inspection (Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council)
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) third inspection report on Sandwell metropolitan borough council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  In 2002–03, Sandwell metropolitan borough council administered some £106.3 million in housing benefits, about 12.5 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.

  BFI inspected Sandwell metropolitan borough council against the performance standards for housing benefits, and concludes that the council's benefits service had not reached Standard in any of the seven functional areas—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud and overpayments.

  This was the third BFI inspection of Sandwell metropolitan borough council, instigated because of a deterioration in the performance of the council's benefits service.

  The report finds that the council's benefits service had failed to fully implement 54 per cent. of the recommendations made in the earlier follow-up inspection report, published in March 2001. This led to poor performance in key areas including customer services, processing of claims and overpayments.

  Since the follow-up inspection in 2001, the council had embarked on an ambitious programme of change. There had been an improvement in the verification of supporting information before benefit was paid, following implementation of the verification framework. However, BFI has concerns about the council's speed of claims processing and its lack of quality checking. New claims were taking an average 86 days to clear compared with 61 days in 2001 and the performance standard of 36 days. Between January and September 2003, the
  26WS
  council had failed to comply with regulations when it made awards of benefit in a significant number of cases when it did not have a claim for the period in question. And in early 2003 it decided to implement changes of circumstances from a current date instead of the date of change.

  Customers experienced real difficulties in accessing the service, either through the council's call centre or in person at the enquiry counters. Limited performance monitoring of this area made it difficult to identify performance issues and target resources effectively.

  There was insufficient training on overpayments and a lack of monitoring. The range of management information collected on overpayments was poor.

  The report finds good practices in the council's counter-fraud work including a history of high levels of sanction activity against benefit fraudsters, publicising its counter-fraud policy and having accurate staff guidance.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Services Estates Agency (2004–05 Performance Targets)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith)
  The targets, which have been set for 2004–05, are based on the strategic aims and objectives of the agency as set out in section 4 of its corporate and business plan. The targets are in line with the Department's policy of seeking to improve the service provided to the agency's clients in terms of both quality and value for money and I am satisfied that they present a demanding challenge for the agency. A copy of the corporate and business plan will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The targets are as follows:

  Quality
  95 per cent. of the service provided by the Agency's Client Support staff to external clients to be regarded as satisfactory, of which 35 per cent. of the service to be regarded as either very good or excellent.
  95 per cent. of the service provided by the Agency's Project Management staff to external clients to be regarded as satisfactory, of which 35 per cent. of the service to be regarded as either very good or excellent.
  95 per cent. of the service provided by the Agency's Trust Consultancy Support staff to external clients to be regarded as satisfactory, of which 35 per cent. of the service to be regarded as either very good or excellent.
  90 per cent. of the service provided by the Agency's Specialist Engineering staff to external clients to be regarded as satisfactory, of which 30 per cent. of the service to be regarded as either very good or excellent.

  Throughput/Service Delivery
  Complete eight Firecode audits on HSS bodies by 31 March 2005.

  27WS
  Complete testing against Health Service guidance and relevant British and European Standards and issue Test Reports to the Authorised Person in respect of 110 sterilizers and washer disinfectors by 31 March 2005, based on an estimate of 99 installed machines at April 2004 and eleven new machines installed in-year.
  Respond to requests for Clinical Engineering support within 10 working days of receipt of a request.
  Issue all Medical Device/Equipment Alerts with an "Immediate Action" level of urgency designation initiated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) within three working days on receipt of final MHRA Alert (provided that no further consultation is involved).
  Issue all Medical Device/Equipment Alerts with an "Action" level of urgency designation initiated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) within five working days on receipt of final MHRA Alert (provided that no further consultation is involved).

  Financial Management
  Ensure that the Agency lives within its running cost allocation for the year.
  Demonstrate that the full costs of the Agency are recouped, on a notional basis, through Service Level Agreements with its clients.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Public Guardianship Office (Performance)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  My hon. Friend, Lord Filkin, has today set the following key performance indicators and targets for the Public Guardianship Office (PGO) Executive Agency for 2004–05.

  KPI 1: To increase the satisfaction of its customers in the delivery of its services.

  Target:
  To achieve an overall customer satisfaction rating, covering professional and lay receivers, of at least 75 per cent. as measured by its annual customer survey.

  KPI 2: To increase the proportion of effective visits by the Lord Chancellor's visitors.

  Targets:

  To maintain a minimum of 6,000 visits per year to include all receivership division clients.
  To achieve 80 per cent. effective visits over the year.
  During 2004–05, to develop and implement a system to measure customer satisfaction in the visitor's service.

  KPI 3: To maintain an effective system to collect and review accounts, and use this process to review the case management regime to ensure that it is meeting the needs of each customer and client.
  28WS
  Targets:
  To collect 60 per cent. of accounts within two calendar months of the accounting end date, 85 per cent. within four calendar months of the accounting end date, and 100 per cent. within six calendar months of the accounting end date, referring cases to the Court of Protection where necessary or taking other steps to ensure proper accounts are produced on behalf of clients (applies to protection clients only i.e. those clients who have an external receiver).
  To complete the review of, or to have requested further information for, 100 per cent. of accounts within 20 working days of receipt (to apply to both receivership and protection clients).

  KPI 4: To deliver an improved service to clients.

  Targets:

  Correspondence

  To respond to 20 per cent. of correspondence within five working days of receipt; 50 per cent. of correspondence within 10 working days of receipt; and 98 per cent. of correspondence within 15 working days of receipt.

  Release of funds
  Where access to a client's capital is requested, the PGO will give directions to the court funds office (CFO), or dispatch directions to an external receiver within five working days in 80 per cent. of cases and within 10 working days in 95 per cent. of cases; or explain why it cannot release funds.

  Applications for receivership
  Providing it has all the appropriate forms and information required in support of an application, PGO will list a case for hearing and notify the applicant within 10 working days in 95 per cent. of cases. The hearing date will be within 35 working days of the date the hearing was listed in 95 per cent. of cases.
  After the hearing, PGO will notify applicants of the outcome of the hearing and request any further information the court requires within five working days in 95 per cent. of cases.
  PGO will issue orders within 10 working days in 95 per cent. of cases where all information and documents have been received.

  Closing cases
  Where a client dies and PGO has a complete application for final directions, it will prepare and dispatch directions to transfer assets to personal representatives within 15 working days in 30 per cent. of cases, within 20 working days in 80 per cent. of cases, and within 25 working days in 100 per cent. of cases.

  Enduring powers of attorney
  To register and return 98 per cent. of correctly lodged EPAs, where there are no objections, within five working days of the end of the statutory waiting period.

  Accuracy of order
  To reduce the level of orders returned with errors to 3 per cent.

  KPI 5: To demonstrate improvements in efficiency by meeting a unit cost target.

  Targets:
  To meet a unit cost target of not more than £510 per case.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Burma: Human Rights
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to reports of continuing violations of human rights of ethnic national groups in Burma by the State Peace and Development Council.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Burma and, in particular, that affecting ethnic groups. The UK co-sponsored a widely supported resolution at the UN Commission on Human Rights on 21 April that condemned human rights violations suffered by ethnic groups in Burma. We fully support the efforts of Sergio Pinheiro, the UN special rapporteur for human rights in Burma, and have called on the SPDC to co-operate fully with him and allow him to visit Burma regularly.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which gives considerable encouragement to the ethnic national groups. However, is she aware that, in two recent visits, I have seen the plight of many thousands of people from those ethnic national groups, such as the Karen, the Karenni, the Shan and the Chin peoples? They are forced to hide in the jungle with no access to shelter, medical care or food, having been forced to flee from their villages because of continuing atrocities by government soldiers, such as torture, rape, murder and forced labour. Can the noble Baroness say whether Her Majesty's Government will consult those ethnic groups with a view to providing humanitarian assistance to those internally displaced people, who are suffering and dying with no aid whatever?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am particularly aware of what is happening to these ethnic groups because I have read the noble Baroness's report. which she kindly circulated following her most recent visit. A terrible situation is, indeed, affecting the Karen and Karenni. Approximately 140,000 refugees—mostly Karen and Karenni—are living in camps on the Thai/Burmese border and many more— up to 1 million, I understand—are living as illegal immigrants in Thailand.
We are the largest EU donor of humanitarian assistance to Burma, and we want to ensure that any humanitarian assistance is properly targeted. One problem that we have at present is that of entering the
382
areas to ensure that any money that is donated particularly to those groups goes where it is intended. I take the noble Baroness's point that these groups are in particular need, but I hope she will also understand our concern that it should be made absolutely clear that money meant for those groups reaches them. That is why my opening Answer placed so much emphasis on ensuring that the UN rapporteur accesses the right areas, as that will enable us to obtain a clearer picture. I hope that there will be a developing dialogue on this issue.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that none of the three bodies charged with reconvening the national conference, which was adjourned in 1996 and is due to meet for the first time on Monday, contains representatives from the ethnic minorities, or of the NLD for that matter') Will minority delegates to the convention be chosen by the ethnic minorities themselves, as they hoped when they met the UN special envoy? And will they be able to discuss the incorporation of rights into the proposed constitution, enshrining rights of ethnic minority civilians, to prevent the abuses which have taken place by the military, as mentioned by the noble Baroness? Those abuses include rapes, torture, murder, forced relocations and confiscation of property, and were cited by the US representative at the recent meeting of the Commission on Human Rights.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my short answer to the noble Lord's question, which is very sensible and properly directed. is that we shall not know what is going to happen until next Monday, when the convention reconvenes in order to draw up the new constitution for Burma. I understand that some of the ethnic groups have been approached, but the main body of exchange is between the regime and Aung San Suu Kyi's party. We do not know whether she will be invited to join the reconvened talks on Monday. As I understand it, a number of the ethnic groups are waiting to see what happens to Aung San Suu Kyi—that is, whether she is invited to join and whether she decides to take up that invitation—before they make their own decisions about joining the discussions.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the meeting held in Rangoon in January between General Bo Mya, who is holder of the Burma Star and has led the Karen for the past 55 years, was at least a welcome first step and that we should do all that we can to encourage the process of dialogue and engagement? Will she also confirm that, if the military junta simply hand-picks representatives from the ethnic minorities, that will not secure a long-term peace? The figures with whom they engage must be legitimate and authentic, as in the case of General Bo Mya. Following my own visits to both sides of the Burma border and to the Karen camps, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred, perhaps I may underline the importance of what she said to the House. Even though engagement and dialogue are taking place, the continuing scale of atrocities there

383
must not be overlooked. Rape continues to be used as a weapon of war, and the destruction of villages and the massive displacement of large numbers of internally displaced people continue.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, and the note of scepticism that he introduced is entirely proper and understandable. I thank him, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for all the work that he has done. Of course, Her Majesty's Government are one of the strongest critics of human rights violations. We repeatedly raise our concerns about all types of human rights violations and about the consistent pattern of violations which have affected the different ethnic groups over many, many years.
The noble Lord is right to say that we are seeking a genuine process of exchange. Of course, we do not want the regime to hand-pick the people in the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made the point that those people must be genuinely representative of their communities. We are sceptical about the regime's motives—there is no doubt about that. However, we have an avenue open and we should work to try to bring some influence to bear in the best way possible, as was the case in the discussions which took place in April, to which the noble Lord referred. During the course of the next couple of weeks, I believe that we shall be in a better position to make a judgment about whether this is a genuine initiative.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, will the Government consider urging the United Nations Security Council to impose an arms embargo on the regime in Burma?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid that this is one of those occasions when we come up against the difficulty posed by Security Council resolutions. As the noble Lord will know, they are not always easy to secure when some on the Security Council do not take the same view as we do. We have been able to make some progress in terms of General Assembly resolutions but, alas, not in terms of Security Council resolutions in the way that my noble friend indicated. That is not for want of trying behind the scenes. I assure my noble friend that we shall continue to do all that we can to draw the human rights violations in Burma to the attention of those on the Security Council who we believe should have a rather more robust attitude.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is Burma not more likely to be responsive to the views of ASEAN than to those of the United Nations? What are the Government doing to persuade ASEAN to express its views on this matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we regularly raise our concerns on Burma with our Asian partners, and we try to encourage them to press for improvements in Burma's human rights record. Most
384
recently, my honourable friend Mike O'Brien did so at the Asia/Europe Meeting (ASEM) of Foreign Ministers, which took place in Kildare on 18 April. My honourable friend was able to issue a very forthright statement. He said:
"If the military regime can deliver what it purports to promise—to release the democratic opposition, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and to allow all parties to participate in a fully functioning and representative National Convention—these will be important steps towards national reconciliation".
We are holding out for that possibility. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. let us not lose our healthy scepticism in view of what we all know has been the record of this regime.
Lord Hylton: My Lords—

G8 Summit: Sea Island, Georgia
11.10 a.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they expect the G8 Summit in Sea Island, Georgia, on 8 to 10 June, to achieve.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the G8 Summit agenda is still under discussion but we expect that it will cover international support for regionally-led development in the Middle East on education and knowledge; democracy building and economic development; a support package of measures to help developing countries to grow economically; further measures to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and polio; security issues, particularly in relation to transport, non-proliferation and counter-terrorism, and measures tackling corruption.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she recognise that many of us who followed what were originally G7 Summits have grown increasingly sceptical about their value as they have become more and more of a media circus and less of a substantive discussion? Can she confirm that there will not be discussion on the issues that these summits were originally set up to discuss, that is, global, economic and financial balances in which the participation of China would be rather important given the vast gap between the Chinese trade surplus and the American deficit? Can she tell the House whether we can still expect a US proposal for a greater Middle East initiative and how actively Her Majesty's Government are discussing with their European partners what a European response to any sort of initiative on the Middle East is likely to be?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question. It implied somehow that this was a fairly pointless exercise and had rather missed its target in not having a sufficiently robust economic component. The first two points which I drew to your Lordships'

385
attention do have robust economic components. There are real economic problems in the countries of the Middle East. The economies are growing more slowly than anywhere else in the world. They have a growing population of young people. Fifty per cent of the people in those countries are under the age of 18. There are growing problems of youth unemployment. So this is enormously important in relation to the Middle East.
The noble Lord will know—I have answered before—of the rather different nuances that are placed on the question of a greater Middle East proposal, but it is under discussion. I was at a Euro-Med meeting last week and discussed this with colleagues from the region as well as with colleagues in Europe. I shall also have the honour to represent the United Kingdom at three forthcoming international conferences involving our Arab colleagues within the next six days.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is high time we seriously considered expanding the G8 format to include as equal partners a number of the leading developing countries? The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned China but there are also India, Brazil and South Africa to consider. Does she not also agree that as the G8 Summits are, by definition, not decision-making bodies, the normal argument against expansion—that this makes taking decisions more difficult—does not apply?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. I have a great deal of sympathy with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on this matter. That is why in the past there have been invitations to others outside the immediate ambit of the G8 to attend G8 Summits as observers or observer/participants. I believe that invitations will be sent out on this occasion. Some may already have been sent. I do not want to prejudice the position by suggesting to whom they may he sent because I am not sure whether they have been sent.
All these matters are still under discussion. We must remember that Foreign Ministers are meeting tomorrow in Washington to discuss the agenda, what it will involve and who might be invited. The Sherpas still have work in progress and the Finance Ministers meet on the 22 and 23 of this month.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the main agenda item on this summit almost certainly will be Middle East reform. Does the Minister agree, first, that this will be a good opportunity to remind world leaders that in Iraq—that is the main problem area along with Israel/Palestine, of course—despite all the horrific prisoner abuses and some of the rather wild and idiotic talk about the coalition effort being doomed or in a nosedive, the security situation is now showing signs of coming under better control as most decent Iraqis unite against extreme violence and barbarism of the kind we read about, to our horror, yesterday? Secondly, is it not also the right time for the Prime Minister, who will obviously attend the G8
386
Summit, to be a little bolder in telling our American allies that they cannot handle the situation alone and that in future the coalition forces must shed their image as an occupying power and work to some kind of clear Iraqi sovereignty?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the agenda will not be dominated solely by Iraq and the Israel/Palestinian issue, although I think that we all freely concede that at virtually any international meeting at present that involves our friends from the Middle East region that is bound to be an important item on the agenda. However, I hope that there will be a broader perspective taken about these issues in the Middle East and about the developments in the way that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in the remarkable speech he made on 1 March.
There are a great number of good signs of reform being generated in the Middle East. Egypt, for example, has just set up a national council for human rights; Oman held its first elections on universal suffrage last year; and the Saudis have announced an intention to hold municipal elections. We hear very little about all of those matters in the very gloomy picture that is put forward. However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is very bold in the way that he states his case. He does not lose an opportunity to do so. He very sensibly does not go in for megaphone politics, which, as the noble Lord will be aware, rarely delivers what it should. I point out, for example, that yesterday my right honourable friend made clear that we would be happy to have a permanent ICRC presence in our sector in Iraq.

Criminal Prosecutions: False Identity
11.16 a.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many criminal prosecutions, in the latest year for which figures are available, have failed because the accused gave false details of his identity resulting in a person unconnected with the offence being summoned to appear in court.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, the Crown Prosecution Service now holds central records of the number of prosecutions which fail owing to lack of identification evidence or doubts over identification. However, it does not include the level of detail to answer the precise Question asked by the noble Lord. That could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost. CPS areas report that defendants give false identification particulars regularly, for example at some London courts. This is said to happen two to three times per week.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer. I fully understand why

387
the detailed information would not be readily available. Does he care to venture an opinion as to whether identity cards would make a significant difference to the problem that he has described?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, whether they would make a particular difference to the problem is one question. However, I would make clear, as indeed the consultation paper issued by the Government on identification cards shows, that false identity is a significant issue in a number of areas, not just this area. False identity is a criminal activity. ID fraud is growing and costs the country more than £1.3 million a year. We believe that multiple or false identities are used in more than one-third of terrorist-related activity, in organised crime and money laundering. So, we believe that as regards crime generally, ID cards would have a significantly helpful impact.
Lord Henley: My Lords, surely the noble and learned Lord could answer the simple question; that is, whether identity cards would or would not make a difference in this case. It seems pretty obvious that there is an answer. Surely he can give an Answer to the question.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the kind of case to which the Question relates is typically one in which someone is stopped for a motoring offence and is asked to produce documents at a police station. At that stage a false name is given, perhaps a brother's or a friend's name. When the police summon that person to court because the documents have not been produced, it is then discovered that the police officer cannot identify that person. That is a specific type of issue with that low-level type of crime where someone is stopped and gives a false name. As noble Lords will know from the consultation paper, the proposal that is put forward is not one, and will not be one, that requires the carrying of identification cards even when those cards become compulsory. So, it is not clear to me that this necessarily would answer that particular point.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not agree that this is yet another example, not of the importance of identity cards but of the importance of the authorities having biometric information about individuals with a number which can relate to them? The card will tell you nothing. Provided the biometric information exists somewhere, that should enable certain identification between the person and the corresponding number on other records, where appropriate.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right, which is why the Government believe that using biometric data is a very important part of the way forward in relation to existing ID cards and the proposals. The noble Lord is right: that sort of
388
information makes it very difficult for an identification to be falsified because the material is particular to that individual.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I understand my noble and learned friend's explanation with regard to some traffic offences, but this Question refers to criminal prosecutions, which I think reflect the seriousness of the situation. Am Ito understand that if someone is apprehended for a criminal offence the police do not get supporting evidence of identity? If that is the case, why are the people not apprehended until they can prove who they are?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the fact remains that traffic offences are still criminal offences and when prosecuted they are criminal prosecutions. So the answer is right in the way that I have given it. The noble Lord is also right to say—and this is why I framed the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in the way that I did—that in relation to more serious cases it is not a question of the police simply stopping someone, taking his alleged name and then waiting to see him in court. They will bring someone in, interview that person and carry out checks and inquiries, which are very likely to identify who that person actually is even if a false name was given in the first place.
Lord McNally: My Lords, whether or not identity cards would produce the result that some noble Lords believe they would, will the Attorney-General clarify what happens when false information is given? He has identified that as a criminal offence in itself. Surely, one way of curbing this practice would be to pursue the matter where wrong information is given and raise the stakes substantially to deter the practice.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. In the example I gave, at the moment if someone gives a false identification and the wrong person is summoned to court, then so long as the true individual can be identified that will be a criminal offence and will be prosecuted either as wasting police time or, in a more serious case, maybe as perverting the course of justice.
As to the more general issue, again the noble Lord will know that the consultation paper and the draft Bill propose further criminal offences in relation to the abuse of identity. Indeed, the Home Office has announced the launch of a website, which will help people to protect their own identities, and that should be going live in the summer.

West Coast Main Line
11.22 a.m.
Lord Bradshawasked Her Majesty's Government:
When negotiations for the new terms for the West Coast Main Line and Cross Country franchises will be completed.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the negotiations for these franchises are complex and there is no fixed

389
deadline for their completion. Intensive discussions between the Strategic Rail Authority and Virgin are progressing, with a view to concluding negotiations as soon as possible.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. People will be relieved that there is progress because I believe that the Government had got themselves into an almost impossible position. The problem is that an impractical scheme was agreed between Railtrack and Virgin for the West Coast Main Line and cross-country upgrading. Is not this a case where Virgin and Stagecoach must win because either they have a scheme which is impossible to deliver, or they must be paid a management fee for continuing to operate the service? Does this not mean that taxpayers, passengers and freight customers must be on the losing end?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House would not expect me to disclose the Government's hand with regard to the negotiations with Virgin, which, as I say, are reaching a fruitful stage and will be completed in the not too distant future. The facts of the matter are not quite as the noble Lord has portrayed them. At present the arrangements are on the basis of an annual budget for the service, so it is under clear scrutiny from the rail authority. Of course we are hopeful that the negotiations will result in a franchise that will be based on the principle of all such franchises; namely, value for money for the taxpayer and for the fare-paying public.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a little odd that the subsidy per passenger on the West Coast Main Line is more than £12 and on the East Coast Main Line the operator pays the Government £1.84? Will my noble friend assure the House that this will be taken into account in the renegotiation of the West Coast franchises and that the best value for money for taxpayers will be achieved on the West Coast Main Line?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall certainly reassure my noble friend on the second point with regard to value for money. The House will perhaps derive the obvious conclusion from the comparative figures between the operation of the East Coast Main Line and the operation of the West Coast. Necessary investment was put into the East Coast Main Line some time ago, with the result that the services work effectively and have attracted a fare-paying public.
There are problems with the West Coast Main Line, which has been neglected for so long. Let me just say in defence of West Coast Main Line issues that it is the busiest, longest, mixed-traffic railway line in the whole of Europe. As such, it is a very difficult line to modernise—and 80 per cent of the line is being
390
modernised. That does not alter the fact that at present the subsidy from the taxpayer is significant and we shall need to improve that with regard to the future.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is it still the Government's intention to limit the term of the franchise to seven years?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Virgin franchise runs to 2012. That of course is dependent on the outcome of these negotiations. A position has been entered into, which is now subject to annual review because of the difficulties that are recognised in all parts of the House. Subject to the negotiations being successful and stringent conditions being met as far as concerns the taxpayer, the franchise will run to 2012.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, notwithstanding the inconvenience to which thousands of passengers have been put by weekend closures and blockades, the SRA deserves considerable credit for at last getting the costs of this project and the timetabling of the works under control? They look as though they will produce some real benefits for the travelling public from this September.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that point. It is important that the travelling public are encouraged by the fact that the new timetables, which are due from September onwards, will result in a 30-minute reduction in journeys from Edinburgh and Glasgow to London and in a 20-minute reduction from Birmingham to London. These are significant gains. The reliability of the service will also greatly improve. I am grateful to my noble friend for emphasising that point in his question.

Hereditary Peers' By-election
11.28 a.m.
The Clerk of the Parliaments: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am now able to announce the result of the by-election to elect a Conservative hereditary Peer in accordance with Standing Order 10.
Forty-five Lords completed valid ballot papers. A paper setting out the complete results is being made available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library. That paper gives the number of votes cast for each candidate.
The successful candidate was Viscount Trenchard.

Housing Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time. and ordered to be printed.
Civil Service (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
  (formerly Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill [H.L.])
  Report received.

  Higher Education Bill
  11.30 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
  [The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 34:
  After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
  "EXTENSION OF SIX MONTH TIME LIMIT
  If in relation to proceedings or prospective proceedings under section 28V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) (enforcement, remedies and procedure), the dispute concerned is referred to a body designated by the Secretary of State under section 13(1) or the National Assembly for Wales under section 13(2) of the Higher Education Act 2004 before the end of the period of six months mentioned in paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 3 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (enforcement and procedure), the period allowed by that sub-paragraph shall be extended by two months."
  The noble Baroness said: I move the amendment on behalf of the Royal National Institute of the Blind and Skill, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities. The issue in contention in relation to this amendment is what happens when two sets of appeal procedures overlap. As your Lordships know, under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, those with disabilities may ultimately appeal to the courts if they feel that their rights under either of those two Acts are not being met. However, once a university or a college's internal appeal procedures have been exhausted, there is only six months left in which to lodge any further appeal to the courts. The question is whether such an appeal to an independent adjudicator counts against the six months in relation to going to the courts.
  The Minister's assurance in debate in the other place was that the clocks will be stayed until all internal procedures—and if necessary any appeal to the office of the independent adjudicator—are exhausted. He said that this should give the organisations who are concerned, and noble Lords, the guarantee and protection that if an individual makes it absolutely clear to the court that the matter is being considered by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, the court
  392
  has the capacity to hold on to the case and not to say that under the DDA the complaint should fall because the time period has lapsed.
  In this amendment, we are asking that just as when there is a referral under the DDA to the Disability Rights Commission for conciliation prior to resorting to the courts, on such occasions not only is the six-month clock not set ticking, but there will also be an extra two months granted to allow for time delays. Here, we are also asking that should there be an appeal to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator after the internal procedures have been completed, and again the clock is not set ticking for that six months, and that as with an appeal to the Disability Rights Commission, they should be granted an extra two months in the cases concerned.
  In effect, this amendment and the following amendment, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would bring student appeals resorting to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator into line with procedures under the DDA and the Disability Rights Commission. It would seem sensible to do this, and I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to our suggestions. I beg to move.
  Lord Skelmersdale: The amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lady Seccombe has been grouped with this amendment, and it covers the same situation as that described by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It will come as no surprise to her or to the rest of the Committee that I prefer our somewhat simpler amendment, which seeks to amend the Disability Discrimination Act rather than this Bill. Both amendments cover a single point. As we established earlier this week, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 ultimately gives disabled students the right to go to the courts within a six-month period if recourse to all other complaints procedures have failed. This obviously will include the new independent complaints provisions envisaged by this Bill. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I welcome the Government's assurance that complaints are likely to be dealt with within the six-month time scale and that anyway a disabled student can lodge a case with the courts and ask for it to be stayed while the case is going through the Independent Complaints Commission.
  Why then, is this amendment, in whichever version it comes, necessary? The answer is that under the Disability Discrimination Act there is already a two-month extension of the time limit of six months that the Disability Rights Commission can take to consider a case before it goes to the conciliation service. If we have both the DDA and the Higher Education Act on the statute book, I know to whom I would refer a disabled student in contention. I accept the assurance given by the Minister in another place, which is in col. 110 of Hansard on 12 February, that the Government are sympathetic to and have been

  393
  considering this issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform us where this consideration has got to.
  Lord Triesman: I rise to intervene early, knowing that other noble Lords might wish to speak on this issue. I want to indicate immediately that the Government are prepared to be helpful, and it is probably as well for the purposes of the debate that I do so now.
  First let me say that these are the last amendments on Part 2 of the Bill, and I thank all noble Lords for the really good debates that we have had on the new provisions on student complaints. I hope that all Members of the Committee have been reassured about the scope of academic judgment exclusion, and we have committed ourselves to come back on Report to address the role of the visitor in some kinds of staff conflict.
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. I understand the concerns expressed by noble Lords that disabled students who have complaints about discrimination should not miss the opportunity to take their cases to court. I am therefore grateful to noble Lords for their amendments, which seek to extend the period by which cases under Part 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act must be submitted to court by two months, from six to eight months. This would apply where the student has referred the complaint to the designated operator. This is similar to the provisions in the DDA that extend the deadline for submitting complaints by two months for those claimants whose cases have been referred to approved conciliation.
  Although conciliation is not the purpose of the operator, because it reaches decisions and makes recommendations, I appreciate the argument advanced by noble Lords that there are sufficient similarities and that the same principles should be involved in extending the time period that applies to both. Where a disabled student's case alleges continuing discrimination, such as how the institution handles a complaint, the student could argue that the six-month time limit should start from when the complaint was finally determined by the institution. However, where a disabled student's complaint relates to an alleged one-off act of discrimination, the six-month time limit will start from when this act was done. It is certainly possible that going through the internal processes of any institution, and then the reviewer, will push up against the six-month time limit.
  Noble Lords will be aware that students can lodge their cases in the courts and ask for them to be stayed where they are being considered by a university or the OIA. We took account of these rights in drafting Schedule 2 to the Bill. This includes a provision in paragraph 3 which makes it possible for the scheme to refuse to hear complaints that have been taken to court if they are ongoing and have not been stayed. If they have been stayed, the scheme must deal with them. The student can seek to resolve the complaint through internal procedures and, if necessary, through the OIA without running the risk that the six-month time limit
  394
  on DDA cases might elapse before the complaint comes. If it is not resolved from before they would get the opportunity to take it to a tribunal.
  Nevertheless, despite these safeguards, noble Lords have made a strong case for having the same right to a two-month extension for disabled students who take their case to conciliation, or those who go to the reviewer. That is why we can be helpful on this occasion. Although I am sure that in every case noble Lords feel that their amendments will answer all the problems, we feel that they do not entirely do the trick. I ask noble Lords to withdraw them, so that the Government can return on Report with amendments of our own that can be considered at that stage.
  Lord Skelmersdale: I am extremely grateful and I am sure that the noble Baroness is too. It is a nice surprise just occasionally to have a chink in the Government's armour. Naturally, I fully accept that the Government's drafting is considerably better than mine.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I too am grateful to the Minister for this concession. It is logical that in these circumstances the two sets of appeals to the Disability Rights Commission and to the office of the independent adjudicator should be aligned. I am very glad that the Minister and the Department have seen the logic, and I am extremely grateful to them for their concessions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean moved Amendment No. 36:
  After Clause 20, insert the following new clause
  "NATIONAL TARGET FOR PARTICIPATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
  (1) Before making any decision or publishing any regulations under this Act relating to student fees the Secretary of State shall, not later than 5th April in each calendar year, lay before Parliament a report, setting out—

  (a) a target proportion of persons born in the United Kingdom in each age cohort from 18 to 21 years who should participate in full-time courses of education at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom for each of the three forthcoming academic years;

  (b) the estimated total cost of providing for the education of those students, together with a statement of what increase in overall funding will be required to meet the target he has set and how he intends to meet that funding requirement.

  (2) Before setting a target of 50 per cent participation or more under subsection (1)(a) the Secretary of State shall conduct or institute an inquiry into the impact of that target on the economy and on British universities and lay the results of that inquiry before both Houses of Parliament.
  (3) In carrying out any inquiry under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) representatives of United Kingdom universities;

  (b) any individual higher education institution wishing to make representations to him;

  (c) representatives of business, trades and professions;

  395

  (d) representatives of students.

  (4) In carrying out the inquiry under subsection (2), the Secretary of State or persons appointed by him shall consider—

  (a) the affordability of his target;

  (b) such skills shortages as may be apparent in the economy;

  (c) prospects of employment for the number of graduates for which he is planning; and

  (d) the quality of courses offered at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom."

  The noble Lord said: We have got off to a very good start this morning, so I live in hope in respect of Amendment No. 36. This amendment provides an opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate on the whole issue of access to higher education and whether the Government are right to set a target of 50 per cent. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be relieved to hear that I am not intending to initiate that myself. But there are a number of points which I would like to make in supporting this amendment.
  First, there is a mistake in my amendment in that it refers to,
  "age cohort from 18 to 21 years".
  That should be 18 to 30. I would love to blame the Public Bill Office or someone else, but sadly there is only myself to blame for that error. That refers to the Government's declared target of having 50 per cent of students in that cohort in place by their deadline of 2010.
  I have no objection at all to us having 50 per cent or whatever percentage of students in higher education. My objection is to setting a specific target and not actually setting the means by which that target will be achieved. It would be difficult for me to object to having 50 per cent of students in higher education, as we had already achieved that in Scotland during my period in office, but we never set out to have that as a target. We achieved it, I venture to suggest, because perhaps the schools were a little bit better than they are in England, and perhaps the universities were a little bit better funded than they are in England. I was delighted when reading the Universities UK brief to see that there seems to be a degree of support for this amendment from Universities UK.
  The purpose of the amendment is very simple. If the Government are going to set a target then they should set out how they intend to achieve that, and they should make clear that the means to achieve it—in terms of resources—are in place. What has happened is that progressively we have seen the unit of resource being reduced for the universities. It is all very fine and grand for Ministers and politicians to stand up at their party conferences and declare that they will have x percentage of young people benefiting from higher education, while leaving the institutions of higher education to do it on the same overall amount of resource, or, in this case, less per student. We had a very interesting debate during our last sitting on the problem of academic salaries. This amendment is, basically, to make the Government—if I could use a rather crude phrase—put their money where their mouth is, and set out how they will achieve it.
  The amendment also focuses not just on affordability but on skills shortages. I will not weary your Lordships with clichés about plumbers, and so on, but there is undoubtedly a skills shortage in certain areas. There are many of us who question whether it really is right to send someone to university who may work very hard and do a degree in some subject which is not immediately attractive to the jobs market. They have worked very hard and under the proposals of the Bill they leave university very considerably in debt. When they go to the jobs market they find that there are no jobs in the way that they might have expected. Whereas perhaps if they had gone into further education, or indeed part-time education. they might have been better placed to help with our economy and help themselves.
  We all know horror stories of people who have turned up to some institutions to find that the course that they thought they were coming to had been changed, and they end up doing a degree or—sadly, for some of them—drop out halfway through the course because of changes of that kind.
  11.45 a.m.
  The other point I would like to focus on—having said that I want to be brief—is that I am very concerned about the Government's 50 per cent target, not just because, other than nice words from the Chancellor, the means have not been willed, but because I see all kinds of additional pressures falling upon the universities which will make it even harder for them to achieve the Government's objectives. Some of the pressures arise from actions by the Government themselves.
  I will draw attention to one area—the accession of the former Communist countries which joined the European Union to much celebration last week. That is a fantastic step forward, but it has implications for the universities and the Government's target. All the students from the 10 accession countries will be treated as home students. They will be paying fees of £1,150 per year instead of the overseas charges of £8,000 to £10,000. I believe in markets and I would be amazed if that did not result in a big increase in supply. Certainly the figures that have recently been published show a very substantial increase in the number of applications. Overall, applications for places in the autumn have risen by 3.1 per cent, compared with the same time last year, and 2.2 per cent among under-21s.
  Of the former Soviet bloc, the biggest increase in applications is from Poland, which have gone up from 95 last year to 442. That is a 365 per cent increase. I suggest that not everybody in Poland may have heard of the opportunity that is now presenting itself. Slovakia's applications are up by 313 per cent; the Czech Republic by 176 per cent; Estonia by 229 per cent, and so on. Interest from Cyprus has more than doubled, with 1,458 students having made applications.
  I know that the Higher Education Policy Institute has forecast an extra 30,000 students from the 10 accession countries. I do not wish to do the

  397
  Government a disservice, but my reading of the House of Commons proceedings suggested that Ministers were not taking these figures particularly seriously. That prediction of 30,000 extra places by 2010—the Government's target date—is in line with this increase. It does not take a Brain of Britain to work out that there will be a huge attraction, that people will talk to each other about the opportunities, people will write articles and that these numbers will increase.
  My concern—and the reason behind this amendment—is that the Government are not providing more funding for these predicted extra EU students. The universities have been told that they must also absorb the loss of overseas fees from about 6,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students from the 10 accession countries presently in the system.
  So the purpose of this amendment is simply to help the Minister in her discussions with the Treasury and to ensure that the resources to which the Chancellor was so keen to give his commitment in his Statement the other day are made available. She and her department will then be able to deliver their declared policy, about which I have some doubts. Should the Minister decide that perhaps it is not wise to set a target of 50 per cent, but instead to concentrate on the principle of ensuring that youngsters are directed to those institutions offering them the best prospect of obtaining employment and making a contribution to themselves, their families and their country, I will cheer them to the rafters. However, while they stick to this policy, I cannot for the life of me see why the noble Baroness would not want this provision included on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Dearing: Long ago, when I was a civil servant responsible for providing briefing material to Ministers on Parliamentary Questions or on amendments to Bills, I was trained to consider whether a dirk might lie behind the cloak of the question. In applying that kind of thinking to the noble Lord's amendment, it occurs to me that this is a crafty wheeze on the part of the noble Scot to give advance warning to his compatriots in Scotland if there is any risk that England might ever catch up with Scottish participation rates.
  I was invited to help on the review of the future of higher education in the United Kingdom, and as part of that we visited Scotland. I was impressed by two things: first, the rapidity with which participation had advanced there between the end of the 1980s to the mid-1990s—indeed, the years when the noble Lord was in office. Participation doubled in those years. In 1996, participation by Scottish 18 to 21 year-olds—the original wording of this clause until it was amended just now—stood at 42 per cent compared with around 30 per cent in England. The second good thing was the heavy emphasis placed on vocational higher education; that is, the proportion of students working for HNC and HND qualifications. In the Government's White Paper, the proposal that mattered to me was that the bulk of the expansion in England should be in vocational degrees.
  398
  Perhaps I may comment in regard to the White Paper that I recollect that the aim is not a target of 50 per cent participation, but progress towards that percentage among 18 to 30 year-olds. Indeed, I suggest to the noble Lord that, should he wish to amend his proposed new clause, it should include not only young people between the ages of 18 and 30, but also part-time higher education. If, as the noble Lord says, participation by full-time youngsters in Scotland now stands at a little over 50 per cent, then I would guess that were he to include part-time students between the ages of 18 and 30 years, the figure is probably cracking on towards 60 per cent. I congratulate the noble Lord on that.
  I am glad that the noble Lord is not taking the line that it is a bad idea for England to follow the path taken by Scotland, but rather to ensure that the means are willed by the Government. Of course we all endorse that. I hope very much that we shall learn from Scottish practice. Recently I read the policy adopted by the Australian Government towards higher education. As I recall, it is entitled something like "Higher Education: Backing Australia". In his introduction to the report, the Minister quoted Winston Churchill from an address given to Harvard University in 1943:
  "The empires of the future are the empires of the mind".
  It is very important that we create in all parts of the United Kingdom that wealth of the mind, which is the real wealth of any people.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: From these Benches I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. We feel that it will be to the advantage of this country to expand the levels of achievement of our young people. Just as, in the 1880s, primary education and the attainment of basic levels of literacy and numeracy were regarded as necessary, today we want more than for our young people just to leave school able to read. write and understand the instructions on machinery which was perhaps the case in the 1950s when universal secondary education was introduced. Today we must go further than that. We need young people who can think for themselves, which means going beyond what is known as level 3—A levels and their vocational equivalents. Our young people need to be trained to levels of skill and technical competence that are the equivalent of level 4, which embrace—and it is important to make this clear—the old concept of the HND, comprising two years' study post A-levels. The HND was a highly regarded vocational qualification.
  We regret the fact that, in a sense, the government White Paper reinforces what is already implicit in the English system, which is that the way to attain a qualification in higher education is to take A-levels and move on to university. What Members on these Benches would like to see is a far wider range of qualifications. We call this the "climbing frame to learning", which should be put in place from the age of 14 onwards, the point at which young people begin to think about what qualifications they will need for the

  399
  future. So we welcome the widening of the agenda set out in the Tomlinson proposals on education for 14 to 19 year-olds being put forward by the Government.
  We are very much with the proposed new clause in spirit because we see an inherent contradiction in what the Government are seeking to do—to widen participation and increase the element of social inclusion within our universities and yet at the same time to raise the money for those aims by increasing fees. As I say, to us this demonstrates an inherent contradiction in what the Government want to do. We feel strongly that the Government are willing the ends without willing the means. It is no bad thing to persuade them to do the latter as well.
  Nevertheless, we have reservations because, like the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, we believe it necessary for the expansion to embrace part-time study as well as full-time education. The wording of subsection (1)(a) proposes targets relating to 18 to 21 year-olds,
  "who should participate in full-time courses of education at higher education institutions".
  It is essential to widen that aim so that it embraces many routes. A young person at the age of 16 should be able to commit themselves to an apprenticeship and, from there, move on to take an HND. Perhaps the young person will take some time off, but they will be able to use that HND qualification as a stepping stone to taking a full-fledged honours degree and then, perhaps, a PhD. Such routes must be open to young people.
  It is important to recognise that many young people consider it more attractive to think in terms of earning and learning. They may not be sure whether they want to pursue the university route. They should be able to dip their toes in the water by taking part-time courses to see whether they work for them, and then move on from that point.
  We share many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and for that reason have some reservations about the amendment. In spirit, however, we are very much with it.
  Baroness Perry of Southwark: Like other noble Lords, I welcome the expansion in higher education, provided that those who come into it do so willingly because they want to study their chosen subject and if they are properly able to benefit from it.
  The biggest expansion in higher education took place between the end of the 1980s and the early 1990s. Those of us running institutions during that time can well remember both the heady excitement of the rate of that expansion—the numbers doubled in five years—and the quite terrific efforts that had to be made in order to accommodate so many students with dwindling funding per student. Although the money was increasing overall at the time, it worked out at less per student.
  Noon
  Therefore, I support my noble friend's amendment, because if expansion were to take place without the
  400
  money, I do not believe that this time the university system could stand it. There was, as in the frequently quoted phrase, a little fat in the system as the 1980s came to an end, but there is not now, as we have all agreed. If expansion is to continue there must be proper funding to allow it.
  I do not believe that it is right and proper for governments to set targets. Some of us go back a long way in higher education. I remember the time during the 1970s and 1980s when the Government were constantly setting targets by subject for the then-polytechnics. We were told how many engineering and science students we had to take, but the places were never filled.
  However, the Government went on grinding out those targets year on year, which was nonsense and everyone knew that. Nevertheless, funding followed the targets for a few months and then, because the huge numbers of engineers that the Government thought they wanted could not be recruited throughout the 1970s in the great white heat—as I think it was known—of the technological revolution, the money was clawed back again. It was nonsense.
  Expansion of higher education takes place because of decisions by individual young people who apply. It is based on improvement that takes place in schools and not on anything that higher education can do.
  Baroness Lockwood: I was interested in the way the amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I accept the principle. If the Government are setting targets then there is clearly a responsibility to pay for those targets being realised. I suggest that had that principle been applied in the 1980s and early 1990s the universities would not be in the difficult position that they are in today.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Forgive me for interrupting the noble Baroness, but she missed the point that I was making. We never had a specific target of 50 per cent; the Government have set a target of 50 per cent and therefore should be able to set out how it will be achieved. That is what the amendment seeks.
  Baroness Lockwood: As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, pointed out, this target is not a hard and fast target. It is progress towards a 50 per cent achievement. It encapsulates what was taking place in the higher education system. It has been estimated that even if nothing were done on access, by demographic factors alone there would be an additional demand of around 120,000 students by 2010. When we add to that the progress being made and the upward trend that we are seeing in A-levels, we are broadly moving towards the target without some of the policies that are being pursued in the universities to widen participation.
  Nevertheless, having said that, the policies that universities are implementing are important because they are aimed at raising the expectations of young people and they are seeking ways and means by which those young people can attain higher levels of

  401
  education and learning than at the present time. That equation must also be taken into account when we are thinking in terms of 50 per cent.
  I would not wish to do anything that could detract from the importance of this movement forward towards 50 per cent, which I am confident will be achieved by 2010.
  Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: There are undercurrents in this discussion. Having been vice-chancellor of both London and Edinburgh Universities I would not want to be caught in the undercurrents of comparing Scottish and English higher education—a dangerous position to be in. Nonetheless, there is a clear issue here. I make one point about the Scottish expansion, which is that it was significantly aided by the work of the colleges of higher education and the range of courses that they provided. Perhaps there is something there that can be taken into the English context.
  Just to show that I am even handed, I would caution the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to be careful in comparing the merits of Scottish and English schools now. There may be a different story to tell, but that is another matter. The important essence of the amendment is that in either this or some other form there should be a proper reckoning of the gap between aspiration and affordability; means and ends.
  This section of the Bill is set out to identify a means of dealing with a problem that has been widely recognised—including, I am glad to say, by the Government—that universities are under-funded. This is the offer on the table to increase the funding, but there is an inevitable concern, which will come up in later amendments, that any additional funding may not be seen as embodying what we have elsewhere called "additionality".
  If, none the less, there is an annual proper open public discussion about the relation between aspiration and affordability, that will much help the cause to which the Bill is devoted.
  Lord Winston: I want to be on both sides of the argument on the amendment. While I totally support the general idea of the expansion of participation in higher education, I have great sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. There is an issue that needs to be carefully thrashed out. One of the growing concerns within the universities is that we can confuse quantity with quality. One of the issues must be Britain's competitiveness in a global economy. There is a growing concern in our universities that we are not going to fund the quality we need to be competitive.
  I am not going to ask whether that is true of Scotland; that would be an invidious question. But the situation in England is somewhat different at the present time. I am certain that if the expansion is to go ahead there must be a proper mechanism for exploring what it will mean to the economy of the universities and the economy of our country.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who cautioned my
  402
  noble friend Lord Forsyth about comparisons with Scotland. In the past 10 years the rapid expansion has presented problems. In some areas, according to a survey by Edinburgh and Strathclyde Universities, 40 per cent of graduates with jobs work in bars, shops and restaurants—they are not in graduate jobs that need a degree.
  Ten years ago, 8,000 graduates could not find a job at all after obtaining their degrees. Last year, in 2003, 21,000 could not. The fitting of graduates to jobs is a problem if expansion is too rapid. I understand that the rapid expansion has meant that it has been a struggle in the top universities in Scotland to stay at the top of the UK and international league. Last year St Andrews University was the only one in the top 10.
  If the Government are determined to chase that target with their top-down approach, the suggestions in the amendment are essential. It is probable that if universities were told that it was their job if possible to arrive at the 50 per cent target, they would each find their own way of doing so. Many are already doing so, as we know.
  The target could probably be arrived at in a way better than the one suggested in the Bill—I indicated my feeling about this at Second Reading—but, if this is the way in which the Government seek to achieve it, the various parts of the amendment set out what they have to do. They have to work out the extra costs; they have to look at job prospects; they have to look at the effect on the economy; they have to look at the effect on university offerings; and they have to look at the effect on the remainder of United Kingdom university provision. We must always remember that it is a United Kingdom market and not only an England and Wales market.
  The amendment sets out what the universities have to do. It seems to me, therefore, that this is not only a very good subject for debate, but a very good amendment.
  Lord Taverne: I support the spirit of the amendment for a slightly different reason. As everyone agrees, the universities will continue to be very short of funds and there will be a considerable increase in the number of foreign students, particularly those from the European Union. This is to be greatly welcomed. However, in those circumstances, the large expansion in the number of students from Europe and overseas generally could be at the expense of students from the United Kingdom. One would not wish the Government's aim of expanding the number of students from the United Kingdom to be prejudiced by this. The situation should be monitored and the spirit of the amendment should be supported.
  Lord Campbell-Savours: I shall intervene briefly to make what some may describe as a reactionary speech—but, over the years, I have learnt that what might appear reactionary today very often appears to be apposite and accurate in prediction tomorrow.
  I have immense reservations about setting targets—or, as my noble friend described it, "moving towards targets". My reservations are based essentially on

  403
  conversations I have had with my three sons over the last 10 years of their experiences in higher education, and on the experiences of the large number of young people they have brought into my homes in London and the Lake District to discuss these matters, particularly during the period leading up to the 1998 Bill and the changes it introduced. That was the only issue in the previous Parliament over which I had any reservation about voting in the Division Lobbies in favour of the Government's position. But I did so and, as a result, never voted against the Government in the previous Parliament. But on this issue the whole Bill goes far beyond what I regard as acceptable. Perhaps I may explain why.
  My sons and their friends brought home stories of many young people engaged in higher education today who are simply unfit for it and who should never have been led into it. I am frightened that, under the provisions of the Bill we are now considering, many young people will be led into higher education; that they will end up dropping out and incurring debt. It is all right the Minister saying to me that this is not debt and that it comes under some other heading—but it is debt.
  I paid for most of my sons' higher education, but they took out student loans and borrowed money from the banks. These were not large amounts of money, hut they regard the sums as debt. They are debt. Whatever happens in the future, young people will be lured—and I use the term "lured"—into higher education; they will leave it, and then regret the fact that they took on these obligations.
  That is contrary to everything in which I believe as a democratic socialist. I still believe in some core principles. I believe that when young people leave school they should be in a position to fly out into the world as free as a bird and unencumbered by liability. But we are drawing some people into a liability that they will deeply regret in later life.
  12.15 p.m.
  I welcome the fact that there are those who go into higher education, come out, find employment and enjoy the benefits of it, and I welcome the expansion in relevant areas of education. But I am also told by university lecturers whom I know, mostly in the new universities, that they are being obliged to accept students that they do not want, that they do not believe should be there. They are under pressure within departments to provide qualifications that they do not believe the students deserve. If that is the case, why should we set a target that will push more people down a tube where, at the end, there is discontent among some students and lecturers?
  I cannot understand the logic of a system where university lecturers are saying, "It is very difficult. We have these departments and want to build them up but, yes, we have reservations about all these young people coming in. But that is the way things are at the moment; at some stage in the future it will all change".
  404
  Another aspect that I find very worrying is what is going on today under the British apprenticeship scheme arrangements. The Conservative government in the mid-1990s introduced the modern apprenticeship scheme and the Labour Government very wisely developed it and built it into a major programme. I have followed that programme with some interest—indeed, I tabled some Questions recently, which my noble friend answered—but the statistics are very worrying. They show that nearly half of all young people leave modern apprenticeship programmes. Why are they leaving?
  Yes, the other half go out into the world and no doubt develop their skills, as the noble Baroness said, and go on to take HNDs, degrees, and maybe postgraduate work as well—but why are they leaving? I shall tell you why. The pressure is on to increase the numbers going into apprenticeship training. That is all very well, but the intake of those going into apprenticeship training is being denuded of the very people who, years ago, provided our skills base and who, in my former constituency, run the companies that today are producing the wealth of the nation. Many of the companies in my former constituency of Workington in Cumbria are run by former apprentices, the present day equivalents of whom may well be diverted at the age of 18 or 19 into taking higher educational courses in subjects about which, in a matter of only a few years, they will say, "Why the hell did I bother? Why should I be engaged in this? I made a mistake when I was younger".
  There is a responsibility to make sure that that does not happen. We are spoiling our apprenticeship programmes by diluting the currency and quality of the people who are being absorbed because others are being sucked into a regime which will bring them into debt. Many of them will regret going into the system that is currently being established. I am very sorry to say this to my noble friend, for whom I have great respect. I know that many of my colleagues in the House of Commons have immense respect for her and the work that she does, but I believe that this is the worst Bill introduced by the Labour Government since their election in 1997. I deeply regret that we have to debate it today.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: While I do not go as far as the Scottish judge who used the phrase that a change for the better was a contradiction in terms, I share the conservatism of the noble Lord. Lord Campbell-Savours, in some of the comments that he has made. That said—I go back to 1979—I always thought it was churlish of the present Prime Minister when he said in the run-up and aftermath to the 1997 general election, "Education, education, education" and criticised the previous government for their administration of the schools, that he did not give them credit for the extraordinary expansion in entry to higher education which occurred in the 18 years in which we were in power. When we came into power in 1979, we inherited a participation rate of one in eight for those aged between 18 and 21—the figure

  405
  originally quoted in my noble friend's proposed new clause. The rate was of course transformed during the course of the next 18 years.
  In the early 1980s, after the Government had frozen university numbers, there was a significant growth in public sector higher education. As my noble friend Lady Perry said, the unit of resource in the public sector of higher education in the early 1990s steadily fell as a consequence. Then, when public sector higher education was released from the local authorities, it underwent a further. massive explosion, with huge consequences for the unit of resource.
  There were further consequences. In the early 1990s, the Government took the decision—I was unhappy about it and I know that my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking had his own misgivings—to translate polytechnics and other institutes of higher education into universities. On the basis that if the new universities could manage with a lower unit of resource, so could the older universities, the Treasury cut the unit of resource for the older universities as well. That had a minor, and incidental, consequence in your Lordships' House about two years ago, when some of my noble friends were resisting the introduction of auxiliary constables under the Police Act. I remember quoting exactly what I have just said about what happened to the unit of resource in the old universities in the early 1990s. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker. memorably said in reply that that was entirely in line with his experience—that if it were possible for the Treasury to thwart and kill any good new idea at birth, it would take the opportunity. He then, memorably, got into trouble with the Treasury for having said it. However, because of what happened to the unit of resource in higher education in the 1990s, I support my noble friend's new clause vehemently.
  I have one question born of ignorance for the Minister. When did the age cohort of 18 to 21, which was originally quoted by my noble friend in his new clause, give way to the age cohort of 18 to 30 as the figure that we would use for measurement purposes? What effect has that change had on the figures for part-time and mature student recruitment, which was one of the glories of our system—only shared with the United States—when our 18 to 21 figures were being unfavourably compared with other OECD countries?
  Baroness Blackstone: I had not intended to speak in this debate, because I know that my noble friends on the Front Bench want to get on. However, I must respond to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours.
  He admitted to being reactionary. He said it and I agree: he was. I had thought earlier in the debate that we would have some consensus on all sides of the Committee about the need for more graduates in our economy. We need to provide young people with the opportunity to reach their potential and go into higher education. I do not accept for one minute what my noble friend has just said about the quality of what is being provided nor what he said about the ability of the majority of young people who gain university places to benefit from doing so. Of course, some will fall by the wayside, but I remind him that the drop-out
  406
  rates in UK universities are the lowest in the world bar those in Japan. We have a rather good record of retaining students in our higher education system.
  The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was a little unfair on the Prime Minister in suggesting that he had never given credit to the previous government for expanding higher education. I believe that he did. I know that my right honourable friend David Blunkett did so as well. and I certainly did when I was the Minister who had responsibility for higher education. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is nodding his head in agreement. However, we did say that insufficient funding was provided to back that expansion. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who was involved with it, would accept that it would have been good if the Treasury could have been persuaded to provide more funding. In the future, if we are to expand higher education further, we must of course try to ensure that the resources are there to make it really work.
  In that sense, I am in some agreement with what I think lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. We are in Committee and we should really focus on the amendment rather than go into the subject of apprenticeships, which is not part of the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that apprenticeships are important and should be developed and expanded. However, I do not agree that there are not enough young people among the next 50 per cent who will not go into higher education with the potential to do well in apprenticeships. He was being far too gloomy about that.
  I have no idea what the Minister will say about this amendment. The first part of it seems to be quite helpful, but it would not make much sense to legislate for an inquiry into the impact on the economy of the 50 per cent target. Hundreds of reports have been written on the economic advantages of investment in higher education. Surely we do not need to legislate for another one. I am sure that further studies will he done as we move towards that target.
  Finally, I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, who suggested that it was wrong to set targets. We have too many targets—that is a mistake that the Government have made—but this target is a general one and we should not have a problem with it. If one has a target of this kind, which has been set by the Government, one is far more likely to secure resources from the Treasury to support it than if one aims merely for a general expansion. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, looks surprised by what I said, but he should look back at what happened during the government of which he was a member, when rapid expansion took place, but the money was not found because no clear target had been set. The Secretary of State was unable to go to the Chancellor and say, "Look, we've made a commitment here and we really do need to find additional funding".
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I thank the noble Baroness, but perhaps I may gently point out that I think she was the Minister for higher education who first introduced the idea of tuition fees. The unit of resource per student remained unchanged as a result.

  407
  The additional resource that went into the system was pocketed by the Treasury, even though the Government had a target.
  Baroness Blackstone: No, I do not accept that. The 1997–2001 government inherited plans in the Conservative government's Red Book for a reduction in the expenditure in universities; that is, the unit of resource was going to be further cut by, I think, 6.2 per cent. The Government were able to reduce those "efficiency savings"—a term used by the Treasury—to 2 per cent as had been recommended by the noble Lord. Lord Dearing. Additional government funds were provided. One could argue that perhaps they were not enough, but it is not true that a simple balancing act was done between the extra money that came in from fee income and what was provided by the public purse.
  Lord Quirk: While I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that there is little point in trying to institute an inquiry into the impact on the economy of the 50 per cent target, it would be highly relevant to have an inquiry into its impact on the economy of the universities. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. Of course, this is not a suitable point at which to discuss part-time students. However, part-time students are relevant to that target, because universities are being encouraged, and will be financially helped, to increase their numbers of full-time students, but they will not be encouraged to increase their numbers of part-time students.
  Just as it has been mentioned that EU applications will affect the fulfilment of the target within universities, so also a decline in the number of part-time students—which might be encouraged by the legislation which we have in front of us—will affect that target. When I say it will affect the applications by part-time students, of course the Government will say, "No. part-time students are not affected by this". But they will be affected.
  Whether the Universities UK acknowledges this or not, universities up and down the country cannot afford to go on charging the same fees for part-time study as they do at the moment. It is much more likely, as has been announced in the University of Leeds, for example, that they will seek out pari passu increase, so that they will be charging £1,500 a head for part-time students. The University of Leeds has demonstrated that this will mean that many students currently doing part-time courses—sometimes with the help of their employers—will no longer be able to do so.
  It is perfectly possible that the Government will be able to reply convincingly that some part-time students will get additional help. I know this is not the point of the debate to be discussing part-time students, but it is relevant in connection with targets. Some part-time students will indeed get help, but the point of growth—the point that we surely wish to encourage in the development of higher education with this major segment of part-time education—is the people that are going to be disadvantaged by this particular target.
  12.30 p.m.
  Lord Sewel: I hope the Minister in replying to the debate on this amendment will address whether in fact the amendment is capable of being implemented. The amendment is phrased throughout in terms of the United Kingdom. There is a real sense in which the higher education system is a United Kingdom system, but the fact is that higher education is devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive.
  I wonder whether the requirements placed on the Secretary of State by the amendment would be capable of being carried out by him, when he has no locus in terms of higher education in Scotland—and, I think, very limited locus in terms of higher education in Wales. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State would be able to do what the amendment asks and requires him to do, and in that in case it would be a fundamentally flawed amendment.
  Lord Eatwell: I made the plea in our debate on Monday that the resource being generated by the increase in fees should not be spent over and over again. There has emerged a consensus in this debate that any expansion should be accompanied by resource. Will the Minister acknowledge when she replies to the debate that the increase in fees is intended to attack under-funding of universities as currently constituted, and not to fund the expansion that is being discussed? How will the expansion he funded?
  Lord Wilson of Dinton: I, too, endorse the question of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and add a word very briefly on the question of targetry. We now have quite a lot of experience of targetry over the past few years, and we can now learn that it is a much more difficult activity than perhaps used to be thought.
  There are three particular dangers which I think are relevant in this debate. First, if you set a target and pursue it too rigidly, you may well find that you distort other behaviour and that other things get lost in the process. Second, if you do not provide the resources, or resources are not available, for meeting the target, you have the law of unintended consequences—other things happen which you have not foreseen but which do damage. We have heard some of the dangers now, such as the effect on quality of teaching, the danger of drop-outs and the growth of debt.
  The third danger is that if you meet your targets, you sometimes actually miss your objectives. You sometimes find that you hit the target but the thing you were trying to achieve in broad terms is not actually what you have achieved. I hope the Minister will address these issues when she sums up.
  Lord Baker of Dorking: I remember the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, being in the Civil Service on the expenditure side when we Ministers went in to

  409
  negotiate our expenditure. I seem to recollect that he was not entirely against targets in those days. As he is now against them—
  Lord Wilson of Dinton: I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that I am saying, "we have learnt".
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Baker of Dorking: "A Daniel come to judgment!" I quite agree.
  I am against targets of all sorts in higher education, or in further education. When I was Secretary of State for Education, I did not give targets. Right at the end of my time there, I made a speech at Lancaster in which I forecast—it was not a target—that by 2000, university participation of the 18 year-old cohort, would go to about 33.3 per cent. It went to 35 per cent.
  I did not set that as a target. What I said was that if you create the conditions within the universities—and in the polytechnics as well—you will get the sufficient demand welling up from 16 and 18 year-olds. What is really striking over the last 20 years in higher education history is that many young people at 16 believe that education does not come to an end there. It is probably one of the biggest social changes, and it does not necessarily come to an end at 18 either. They want themselves to go on, because they are sensible people and they know that if they get trained or get an additional skill they will get a better job and do better in life. Therefore, you have got this welling-up.
  I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said. I did not agree with his final comment that this is the worst Bill the Government have introduced—there is quite a long candidate list for that particular description. However, I do believe that people are tempted into higher education who could he better off in further education. This is one of the reasons why I was the last Secretary of State to defend the boundary line between polytechnics and universities. The polytechnics were doing an excellent job, and I tried to elevate their status and support them as much as I could as Secretary of State. They had a noble and dignified role in the educational structure of our country. However, they were very worried about their status. If you go to the universities now, you will find that more than 50 per cent of the courses are vocational, and in some of the universities as high as 70 per cent are vocational.
  To sum up, I think the Government are wrong to set a target of 50 per cent. Higher participation is going to come about as long as the universities are properly funded, as long as they have an ability to draw funds. This is why I support the Government's thrust on fees, as I believe the Minister knows, because this gives the universities an additional source of income, and that is what they need.
  I am therefore against all such control. I believe the system should be free in itself. Students should have a student entitlement —a voucher, if you like—for arts, science and medicine. They should shop around themselves—that is the state's support to the
  410
  student—and decide which course they want to go to. The universities should be free to select which children they want, to teach what they want, to appoint who they want and to charge what they want.
  Baroness Blackstone: I want very quickly to respond to one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. Some of what he has just said about 18 year-olds is probably true, but this target is not about 18 year-olds. It is about young people aged between 18 and 30. The vast majority of the additional numbers coming in will not he 18 year-olds going on to conventional courses in universities; they will in fact be 24, 25 and 26 year-olds, doing highly vocational foundation degrees which are being done not in universities but in FE colleges. We should remember that and bear it in mind when we think about the meaning and implications of this target.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his clever amendment. I accept what he has said about the unintended part in relation to the 18 to 21 age group—which helped me to cross out quite a lot of my speaking notes—and his wish for it to involve 18 to 30 year-olds. My only regret is that this is worthy of a longer debate in your Lordships' House—perhaps of two and a half or five hours. Certainly I would like to contribute for a great deal of time on lots of the issues which have been quite rightly raised by noble Lords. I shall confine myself in some degree to the amendment, not least because it is my job to try to make progress in Committee on the Bill, but I recognise the sentiments. I urge any Members of the Committee who feel that I fail to do justice to their comments, or that the passion with which they have spoken has not been recognised, to put the matter down for further debate in the House. We could do it justice, with so many noble Lords who have such wide-ranging experience on it.
  Let me begin by talking about the wonderful new word "targetry", which I did not know until today. I am very pleased to now have it in my arsenal of words. Let me be very clear: the 50 per cent target is for the Government, not institutions. I know that Members of the Committee have made that point, but it is very important. The target is working towards 50 per cent for 18 year-olds to 30 year-olds, which picks up the point made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but I have with me the statement made by Margaret Hodge regarding the Government's intentions. She said:
  "The Government's policy is to increase participation so that by the end of the decade, 50 per cent of 18 to 30 year olds have the opportunity to experience higher education".— [Official Report, Commons, 11/2/02; col. 95W.]
  It is not a move in a direction or a trend, but a specific and clear target.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am referring to the White Paper, which is not a change but a clarification—if the noble Lord wishes—about what

  411
  we want. The White Paper is published by the Government about their intentions. It is very important that, if we read words that an individual Minister says, we remember that we do not know what the debate or context were. It is very difficult to be as clear as one would wish. Therefore, if I return to the text of the White Paper, I believe that I shall give clarity to the Committee about precisely what the Government meant. It is on that that we should rely in this context.
  I make no apology for having ambition in the world of higher education to ensure that those able to benefit from it do so. However, we are not holding individual institutions or universities to account for that target. It is the aspiration of the Government. I am very pleased to say that we are moving towards that aspiration. The figures that we have for 2002–03 are that 44 per cent of that cohort is involved in higher education. Regardless of what the noble Lord said about the difference between Scottish and English schools, I think with tongue slightly in cheek, some credit should be given to the education system, which has improved. Members of the Committee will have heard me say many times that, in our primary system, the school that was best in 1997 was average in 2002–03. That is an important aspect of why young people now have the confidence and ability to go forward to university.
  Robert Reich is often quoted in the House. I have had the privilege of listening to his work. Indeed, in the late 1980s, I was involved in global scenario planning. We looked very carefully, from outside of the government sector, into what the world would look like and where our position in it ought to be. It is very clear that we wish to position ourselves with a highly skilled workforce. To compete appropriately in a global economy, we need to make sure that we have the best possible skilled workforce.
  Part of that skill is within our graduates. Evidence shows that, of the 13.5 million jobs expected to be filled by 2012, 6.8 million will require graduates. It is important to look at our place in the world and in the OECD countries. Many other countries already have higher participation rates than the UK. My first assertion to the Committee is that it is the job of government to look across the world economy, and to make some ambition a reality for where we wish to see our universities fitting into it and where we believe that the skills ought to be.
  Many Members of the Committee have great experience of higher education from their work in the university sector, so I do not need to remind them of the benefits that come to the individuals from such education. Not least is the intrinsic value of the education, but they are more likely to be healthy, to vote in a democracy and to participate in our society. That should not be underestimated for our population.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and my noble friend Lady Blackstone said—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also referred to it on earning and learning—we are also thinking around the relevance and importance of foundation degrees. They
  412
  are vocational. I shall need to write to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on at least the first of the specific questions that he asked, to be absolutely clear about the change and when it came in. However, it is important not to mix up vocational and academic. Those doing medicine, veterinary science or whatever are pursuing vocational degrees. We sometimes try to juxtapose the two kinds of experience as though they are somehow very different. It is not as straightforward as that, but foundation degrees are critical. Last year, 12,000 people studied for foundation degrees. By 2006, there will be 50,000 places. It is worth saying that the target is for full-time and part-time students; we are not simply saying that everything has to be in one direction.
  12.45 p.m.
  Modern apprenticeships are critical. There are 250,000 young people on apprenticeships at the moment. About a quarter of all school leavers start an apprenticeship by the age of 21. Notwithstanding the comments made, we could have a separate debate—I would look forward to it—on apprenticeships. We are not talking about either/or, but both. We need to ensure that our young people have the opportunity to pursue the course appropriate for them. It is not our job to cap ambition in any way.
  It is also worth remembering that, for those who wish to go into vocational trades—plumbers are usually mentioned at some point in our debates—we need to look at the levels of qualifications. I believe—I shall stand corrected on it if necessary—that if one is looking for a CORGI-registered plumber to fix one's central heating system, one is looking at level 3 qualifications in any event. We should recognise and support people being able, within their trades, to do more complex work and to get the benefit of pursuing their trades to a higher education level.
  The amendment, with the correction given by the noble Lord, is about a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the "target proportion". We provide details of projected student numbers, together with information on planned institutional expenditure and student funding. There are already a number of opportunities for Parliament to scrutinise that work, such as the annual departmental report, where we set out planned spending and past performance. That is laid before Parliament and considered by the Education and Skills Committee.
  The department is subject to regular scrutiny on value for money and efficiency by the National Audit Office. Those are important ways in which we are scrutinised. Examining the policies set out in the White Paper, the Select Committee invited a wide range of witnesses to participate and ask questions, including representatives from the universities and student representatives, and I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also participated in that discussion. Within the system already, real efforts have been made to make sure that there is parliamentary scrutiny of the right kind.

  413
  The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, set out a question, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, about affordability. That was right and understandable. The intention of the Government is to inject real funds. That is what the Bill is about. It is based on background that Members of the Committee know very well by now—the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—about how one gets a university system that is able to function, grow and develop. However, it is also important that universities be very clear that they wish the funding to give them flexibility.
  The issue is not about expansion, as asked about by my noble friend Lord Eatwell; it is about giving universities the flexibility to be able to decide on what they wish to spend the resources. They might wish to improve academic salaries, an issue that will be of great importance on the fifth day in Committee. They may wish to expand, or have other kinds of investment. Our purpose is to try to improve the position of universities financially, through the Bill and the increases that we have already indicated that we shall be making. Members of the Committee will recognise, as I do, that we all have more to do, but those arc important steps.
  I shall repeat the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said in his Budget Statement that,
  "our university and student finance reforms will be matched by rising real-terms funding, to progress towards the 50 per cent target for students in higher education that would give thousands more students with qualifications the opportunities that they deserve. The settlement will maintain the level of real-terms student funding per head, and ensure that universities receive in full the benefit of additional revenue from the Government's higher education reforms-.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/04; col. 335.]
  That is as plain as it can he, and I am pleased to be able to read that out for the record. We absolutely accept that we need to make sure that we have the right kind of scrutiny in Parliament. We believe that we have that. We also have made statements about ensuring where the funding is coming from and indeed, making sure that the Chancellor's words are noted.
  Noble Lords focused too on the issues of the European Union and the accession countries. It is worth saying that, in looking forward, we are monitoring very carefully and working very closely with UCAS to see what actually happens. Our projections are that we will see a one-off increase of about 8 per cent.
  It is worth also saying that coming to the UK to study is not a cheap option. We do not provide support for maintenance costs, so those coming here need to meet those costs themselves. It is important that noble Lords realise what it is that those coming here will actually be receiving.
  I hope I have addressed most of the points that have been raised, with apologies where I might not have done so. I will reflect on what has been said and follow up by correspondence any not dealt with to the satisfaction of noble Lords. We are committed to this government target. It is based on looking across the global economy and our place within it. It is based on looking at our colleagues in the OECD and seeing
  414
  where we think our universities, working with us, will hope to see that expansion. We recognise that it is about working with the sector to ensure that, as we develop our plans, we are working as allies to support our students.
  It is not about saying that those who go to university are one group and that those who do not are another. It is about recognising, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, recognised, that the strategy for 14 to 19 year-olds and the work of Mike Tomlinson is critical in this. It is also about ensuring that we have an economy that is fit for the 21st century. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: We have had a very interesting debate. I am slightly puzzled by what the Minister had to say about whether the Government do indeed have a target, or whether the target is an aspiration, or whether it is something between an aspiration and a target. This is rather an important point. My own position, like that of my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, is that we should not have a target, and that has been the position of the Opposition. I for one will cheer the Minister if the Government are moving their position from what it was declared to be in a Written Answer by Mrs Hodge only 18 months ago.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will read exactly what is in the White Paper, which I believe is the situation:
  "We will continue to increase participation towards 50 per cent of those aged 18 to 30, mainly through two-year work-focused foundation degrees".
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am grateful to the Minister, but Mrs Hodge said:
  "The Government's policy is to increase participation so that by the end of the decade, 50 per cent of 18 to 30 year olds have the opportunity to experience higher education".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/02; col. 95W.]
  Is that no longer the Government's policy? When I read that out to the noble Baroness, she said that the Government's policy is set out in the White Paper. What is the position?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The policy is set in the White Paper. One can take different ministerial statements out of different contexts. I do not know the written response that the noble Lord has. I think that there is very little difference between what my right honourable friend said and what I have just repeated from the White Paper. But if the noble Lord is confused then I will be categoric that it is the White Paper that sets out the Government's policy.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I realise that in this House people are very courteous, but if I may gently suggest to the Minister that it does not sound to me as if it is me who is confused. I thought that the

  415
  Government had a clear policy. The noble Baroness has quoted from page seven of the White Paper, but on page 57 it states:
  "National economic imperatives support our target to increase participation in higher education towards 50 per cent of those aged 18 to 30 by the end of the decade"
  Now that is not an aspiration; that is not "moving towards"; that is a specific target which is meant to be reached. I think it is extremely important that we are clear about whether the Government still have that target. If they have that target then I think they are mistaken, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking spelled out. But if the Government's position is changing then I for one would welcome that.
  It has been a curious debate. I suspect that if we were to test the opinion of the Committee the amendment might well find considerable support. I was very struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, had to say about the wording. She wanted more emphasis on the vocational aspects. Perhaps it might be better for us to return to this subject at a later stage. The noble Baroness and I might be able to find common cause on this matter, along with many others who share the concern that the spirit is willing but that the flesh, in the form of the Treasury, has proved particularly weak.
  I was very struck by the strength of feeling on all sides of the Committee on the issue of targets and whether they work. Perhaps I may tell a story against myself. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland, my wife had an unfortunate accident while carrying one of my Red Boxes upstairs and she had to go to casualty at St. Thomas's Hospital in London. The following day I went to the tea-room and said, "A funny thing happened to me yesterday. I took Susan to the hospital, and we were seen within three minutes, but then sat there for five hours". One of the Back-Benchers said: "Which planet are you Ministers living on? You should realise you were being seen immediately to meet the targets, and the manager of the hospital is probably being given a bonus on the strength of it."
  That is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was talking about in terms of the law of unintended consequences and the dangers of targets. I hope that the Minister, having listened to speeches from around the Committee from noble Lords who are so directly involved in this area, might say to her colleagues that perhaps there is some wisdom in moving away from the Government's position on targets. Listening to her own remarks, perhaps she has already taken that on board.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: At the risk of the anecdote getting out of hand, as the former chair of a health authority, the reason for that would have been to assess whether the noble Lord's wife was seriously injured, and then determine whether she should be triaged.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Strangely enough, that is what my officials told me at the time, but it did appear
  416
  that the patient was seen within 15 minutes of going to hospital. But being seen is not the same thing as being treated. Institutions, if offered targets, rewards and resources on a particular basis, will organise themselves to meet the targets. That is sometimes not the same thing as was intended by those who set the targets.
  I was hugely amused by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He and I have been sparring partners in the past. He began by describing himself as a reactionary, saying that he felt very strongly about these issues as a democratic socialist. I think I must be turning into a democratic socialist, because I agreed with almost every word he had to say. One point on which both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, laid emphasis is the issue of vocational education and apprenticeships and people not being cheated into doing the wrong thing and being landed with a very substantial financial commitment. The section of the White paper quoted by the noble Baroness actually lays emphasis on these so-called two-year foundation degrees.
  I do not know whether the Minster is aware that there is actually great pressure to phase out the HNC and HND qualifications which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and to replace them with these two-year foundation degrees. So here is another example of the law of unintended consequences of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson: that in order to meet the targets, we actually have people destroying the very courses which everyone agrees attract so much sympathy both in the House and elsewhere.
  1 p.m.
  Baroness Blackstone: It is a matter of a name change. HNDs and HNCs are higher education, so the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is wrong in suggesting that foundation degrees have been introduced in order to reach the target and that there is an unintended consequence. When the decision was made, it was clear that HNDs and HNCs would be rebranded as foundation degrees. They are part of higher education, although they are undertaken mainly in further education colleges.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: After the noble Baroness's rather unkind attack on her noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, and, as I am supporting him, I suppose I deserve that. The noble Baroness said that it is a matter of a name change, and "vocational" versus "academic" is a matter of a name change. The point which I and her noble friend are trying to make is that there is too much emphasis on the academic for people who are not academic and not enough emphasis on the vocational. That is at the root of the failure of the Government's policy.
  My noble friend Lord Brooke lamented the abolition of the binary line. I was in government when that was done. In politics, it is always a mistake to say that you have made a mistake, but on reflection it was a mistake and we are where we are now. Only the other day north of the Border, the Scottish Executive

  417
  announced that it was to abolish the term "university" and to manage the funding councils. It seems that history is about to repeat itself in an undesirable way.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, kindly brought us to the central issue of discovering whether this really is a target. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and despite the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, I was not setting out to argue that there was something inherently better about Scotland as compared with England, although I could well do so. The fact that education has been funded 25 per cent better per head, thanks to the generosity of English taxpayers, has probably been a factor in the improved performance, although it has not been improved by 25 per cent.
  When the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, counselled me not to make comparisons between Scottish and English schools and suggested that there had been a change, I was not arguing that English schools had improved or that Scottish schools were worse. That would be a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Parliament to account for.
  The noble Lord, Lord Winston, indicated his huge sympathy for the amendment and he made a key point; that we should be concerned about quality and not about quantity and concerned about putting round pegs in round holes.
  My noble friend Lady Carnegy said that if the expansion was too rapid, graduates would not be able to get jobs. That has been a feature of the more rapid expansion in Scotland.
  The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, was concerned to have an inquiry into the effect on the economy. Perhaps we could get our heads together on a suitable wording at a later date. There will be an opportunity in our considerations today to pick up some of the important points made about part-time students.
  I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who indicated he was sympathetic. He made the point about the money being spent several times. Wherever I go, every letter that arrives seems to spend the money several times. The Minister's response was a little disappointing because she did not answer his specific question about how the resources are to he deployed and whether expansion will be funded separately. She focused on what the Chancellor had said, but I do not believe that in any way he made that kind of commitment.
  It is a matter to which we shall return. I began my introduction of the amendment by saying that we did not want to have a wide-ranging debate. We have had a wide-ranging debate because I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that this is one of the worst Bills brought forward by the Government. We have had a wide-ranging debate because there are far too many loose ends around this Bill which are not being addressed. I look forward to the Minister and
  418
  her colleagues addressing them as the Bill continues its passage through the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 37:
  Before Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
  "NATIONAL BURSARY SCHEME
  (1) The Secretary of State shall undertake to pay by way of bursary the totality of the qualifying fees, including both the basic amount and the higher amount, payable by a student admitted to and following a qualifying course at a publicly funded university in England or Wales who is a member of a specified group which is under-represented in higher education.
  (2) In this section "specified group" in relation to students following any qualifying course means students resident in the United Kingdom whose own income and parental and spousal income when assessed by means of a means test as set out in student support regulations is less than a figure prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is about access as much as it is about funding. I want to stress the point that the threshold I have in mind is £15,000. In other words, it is proposed that students from families whose income is less than £15,000 should not be obliged to pay tuition fees.
  Curiously enough, although the Bill is involved with access it does little to deal with access directly. We have complex measures of checks and balances, universities are expected to provide bursaries, and there is £300 here and another sum there. However, those of us who have experience of university admissions are aware that for financial reasons many students are deterred even from applying to university.
  Many of us who are in full agreement with the Government's views and have advocated them ourselves would like to see a higher intake of students from lower income families into higher education. The struggle is to obtain the applications, which is why so many resent the observations made, for instance, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Laura Spence affair. The problem is to get the applications from the lower-income-group students to the universities.
  Nothing could be more of a deterrent to students to know that they are going to acquire a substantial loan because they have to borrow to meet the tuition fees. I believe that it was a retrograde step when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is in her place, for the first time in post-war years broke the Robbins convention that tuition fees were paid for.
  I shall not go down the path of the Liberal Democrats—this amendment is not intended to be a wrecking amendment. In many ways, I have much sympathy with the view that tuition fees across the board should still be paid for, even though maintenance should be dealt with otherwise. But that matter has been extensively debated in another place and it is not my intention today to introduce what might be regarded as a wrecking amendment.
  However, it is an extraordinary transformation when up until 1998 all students from the UK who were properly qualified obtained state studentships and

  419
  their fees were paid. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, gave us a 30 degree turn. Now we are turning another 150 degrees and all students are expected to pay top-up fees, even though there are arrangements for loans.
  However, anyone who has discussed these matters with students from lower-income families knows that many of them are what is described today as "debt averse" and many students are wise to be so. Indeed, those students from lower-income families who aspire to go to university, who are prudent students and who would rather live by the rubric "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", are very much troubled by the obligation to take a substantial loan.
  My amendment would do something about that. It is a modest step only, but in cases of students from families with an income of less than £15,000, it would cut through the Bill's monumental architecture of loans, Directors of Fair Access and so on. I am sure that if the appointed Director of Fair Access finds that all students with a familial income of less than £15,000 do not have to take out a loan as the fee is effectively waived, he or she will be very happy, as much of his or her work will have been achieved.
  Moreover, if the amendment were agreed, I should be astonished if it did not find very substantial favour in another place. It seems iniquitous that, until just five years ago, Jimmy qualified for university, got his state studentship and then his fees were paid. Now the converse is the case in this monumentally retrogressive legislation.
  I have spoken about admissions; I am surprised that we have come so far. I said that this was not a wrecking amendment, but I would like to make clear my intention, first, that the Government would pay for these bursaries. I do not intend that they should somehow be siphoned off from the universities themselves. Secondly, I was impressed by the remarks made at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, about part-time students. Nothing in the amendment excludes part-time students; I intend that it should include them. If the amendment is put to the vote and finds favour with the Committee today, there will be time to introduce any necessary supplementary amendments. I doubt that any would be necessary, as it is perfectly clear that the amendment would apply to part-time students also.
  I have said nothing about maintenance; nor do I expect to say anything on it. If I were rewriting the Bill, I might well ensure that it was written into the legislation that students in this very underprivileged group would also receive maintenance in some similar way. But one can only go so far in an amendment, and my intention has been to keep this one simple.
  I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to the wording of the amendment. I have found it difficult to implement my intentions clearly. I have had to say that the intention is the £15,000 threshold; that is how the
  420
  amendment reads. I should also mention that I have drawn on the wording of Clause 31(4) when I refer to the phrase,
  "members of groups which, at the time when the plan is approved. are under-represented in higher education".
  I have had to define that. It is not defined in the context of the Director of Fair Access. I would be very interested to hear what the Director of Fair Access will do about groups defined in other ways, such as ethnic minorities. I would be very happy for my amendment to apply to ethnic minorities, but I have tried to keep it simple and have set out to define such groups. The definition in the amendment is purely in financial terms, as I have already said. I have followed the wording elsewhere in the Bill and tried in that way to express the intention in the amendment.
  I do not believe that my amendment conflicts with Amendment No. 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, with which it is grouped. The noble Lord speaks about a national bursary scheme, aspects of which might be funded through the universities. I have discussed the matter with him. As I understand it, the noble Lord does not disagree with me that, so far as concerns the threshold in the amendment, the intention is that the finances should be drawn not from universities but from the Treasury. It should increase the overall unit of resource.
  That brings a second benefit: those universities expected under the Bill to set aside a significant proportion of their fee income to provide bursaries under the Bill's very complex architecture will be at least saved the expense of setting aside those finances for students in this most underprivileged group, up to the £15,000 threshold. That input will be by increasing the unit of resource.
  1.15 p.m.
  I very much look forward to hearing noble Lords' responses. I was so discourteous at an earlier stage as to refer to a very distinguished noble Lord opposite as complacent. I withdrew that remark and will not repeat it again. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth commented, Universities UK sometimes seems keener to support the Government than it is to support the universities—in earlier stages of the Bill, at any rate. The term "complaisant"—I shall not make the same mistake twice—might well be assigned to Universities UK. I have had the privilege of seeing its briefing on these amendments. I can anticipate—though, I hope, not inappropriately—what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, will say. I am a little shocked that Universities UK does not at once see the merit of the amendment, because it should be regarded as progressive rather than retrogressive.
  The amendment, if agreed, would be welcomed by many in another place, including many government supporters. I suggest that if the amendment is agreed in this Committee it is unlikely to be brought back to the House of Lords after a vote in another place. I cannot imagine how the Government can justify the abolition of state studentships—that is what we are talking about—for students whose familial income is less than £15,000.
  I do not feel the need to go any further, as that would he to call into jeopardy the structure of the Bill. This is not intended as a wrecking amendment but it is deeply critical of the Government. They have gone so far down the course initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that they will now impose a burden of debt on even this underprivileged group of students, who are most in need of encouragement in access terms. I beg to move.
  Baroness Perry of Southwark: My name is also attached to the amendment. I should like to add my thoughts only briefly, as most of the points have been covered so well by my noble friend Lord Renfrew.
  We welcome the Government's proposal to include some bursary assistance for the maintenance of students in the very poorest categories. The amendment is in no way intended to remove from universities the duty being laid upon them to continue to offer a proportion of their fee income for bursaries to students.
  This additional proposal is very much welcomed by the new, post-1992 universities and supported by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE). The post-1992 universities and NATFHE have made the point strongly that there will he inequality in the funding of students if it relies entirely on the universities' contribution from their fee. Universities that charge less than £2,700 in fees under the Government's proposals will not have any obligation to provide bursaries. I am sure that they will want to do so, but they will inevitably have less money with which to do it. The wealthier universities, which are also the ones most likely to be able to charge the full £3,000 fee and still recruit, will be able to provide generous bursaries, whereas poorer universities, which take in the majority of poorer students, will have less funding with which to provide bursaries. That is inequitable for the students.
  I want to see poor students guaranteed the same size of bursary, no matter which university they go to and even if they pay slightly lower fees. The only way to do that is to have a national scheme that guarantees the same amount for every student. I support the amendment wholeheartedly, and I hope that the Committee will do so as well.
  Lord Rix: My amendment, Amendment No. 86, is grouped with Amendment No. 37, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, so I hope that this is an appropriate time to intervene. I shall speak in support of the noble Lord's amendment, and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 86. Both amendments are about bursary schemes, and both are capable of standing by themselves.
  The principal tasks of universities have been, are and will be teaching and research. Additionally, for centuries, universities have provided financial support for students by means informal as well as formal, but that is not one of their principal tasks, nor should it become so. I have been asked whether my amendment proposes that universities should he banned from continuing to make their own arrangements for such
  422
  support. That is neither my intention nor the effect of my amendment. My amendment would remove the possibility of the Director of Fair Access interfering in the particular arrangements that universities make for themselves, in order that the Government may more naturally turn to the possibilities of making fair national arrangements.
  Since Beveridge, if not before, we have looked to the state to be the main provider of redress against financial inequalities, either directly or with the assistance of local government. That provides for fair and consistent treatment for all. The Government's proposals do not provide for fair and consistent treatment for all in the matter of bursaries. Rather, they inevitably lead to a situation in which students in similar circumstances receive different—perhaps significantly different—packages of support.
  Under the Government's arrangements, universities such as the University of East London, of which I am chancellor, may end up administering a small bursary of £300 to as many as 60 per cent of their students, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, said. Universities that have yet to make the progress in widening participation that East London has will be asked to do more. That inevitably means that the size of the bursary will vary from university to university. Elite universities will have a lot of money to spend and few students to spend it on. Universities with a widening participation mission will be able to spend less but will have many more deserving candidates for bursaries. Ability to pay is not even remotely matched to need to pay. That arises, not, as we are used to seeing, because some benefactor in the 18th century has created a fund that may be applied only to the sons of distressed Anglican clergy from Suffolk, but rather as a deliberate act of government policy.
  How can such a policy have been adopted by this Government? Has the spirit of Screaming Lord Sutch found sanctuary in the appropriately named Sanctuary Buildings in Great Smith Street? The Government have strongly defended their proposals, but I have yet to hear a government spokesman acknowledge that variable bursaries for similar students will be the outcome of their policy.
  We face the irony that a Bill designed to promote variable fees is likely to produce a near-universal standard fee of £3,000 a year but highly variable bursaries. It would be fairer, less costly and less open to fraud were the Government to take the 10 per cent of the extra fee income that, they suggest, universities should devote to bursaries and apply it themselves to student support, either through supplementing the reintroduced student grant arrangements or through a national bursary scheme of the sort proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn.
  The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, would secure a national bursary scheme. My amendment would allow, for a national bursary scheme and remove a temptation from government to fall into the second-class policy solution of imposed variable bursary schemes. It is

  423
  debatable, but there is perhaps a role for games of chance in our national life. If so, they should be confined to the likes of Lotto, not OFFA.
  Lord Campbell-Savours: I shall use the debate on the amendment to draw attention to a matter that caused some confusion prior to Report in the other House. The department issued a press release that set out, in some detail in a table, the amount of assistance with living costs that was to be made available to families. I want to ask my noble friend a couple of questions about that. When I asked colleagues at the other end about the matter, no one knew the answer. There was general disagreement about whether my interpretation was correct; some agreed that it was, and some did not.
  The table says that no maintenance grant is available. Then, it says:
  "From September 2004: All those with family income less than £15.200 will get £1000 grants".
  That group is said to be,
  "around 30% of full time students".
  The table then says:
  "All those with family income between £15,201 and £21,185 will get a partial grant (around another 10% will benefit)".
  In other words, all those with family income under £21,185—I have added the two figures together—will get a grant of one form or another, the total figure being 40 per cent of full-time students. Is that the full 18-to-30 group, or is it only the 18-to-21 part? Many colleagues believe that it might be only the 18-to-21 group. If it is, they do not accept the figures.
  Can my noble friend tell us precisely what that refers to? Is it the lower group only? If it is, the press release is arguing that 30 per cent of all United Kingdom HE students between 18 and 31—including those in families in which two people are working—have a gross parental income of less than 15,000 a year. That is a ludicrous figure. I wonder whether we could have clarification today. It will influence what I might want to say when we come to the major debate on student fees.
  Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I was involved in several discussions on the subject as chief executive of Universities UK. I declare that interest. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, chose to attack Universities UK for not representing the interests of universities. Although I agree that it is well-nigh impossible to get all 120 vice-chancellors or heads of institution to concur all the time, I can assure the noble Lord that the vast majority of vice-chancellors, including many from the post-92 institutions support the arguments in Universities UK's briefing.
  In our discussions, we considered several models for the best way of ensuring that students were properly supported, including a national bursary scheme. All the schemes that we considered had problems and would have raised objections from parts of the sector. Top-slicing income, which would be one way of achieving what the noble Lord suggests, would compromise the issue of additionality, which, I hope,
  424
  we will return to. The idea that all universities should contribute to a central pot would limit the potential for universities to use bursaries in support of the recruitment efforts of individual higher education institutions. Under the current system, they can do so now.
  I think that, in his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, is suggesting full-fee support for poor students. A poor student will pay no contribution to fees while a student, and, even as a graduate, will repay the fees that they owe only when they can afford to do so, in the same way as any other students will, when they reach a certain level of income.
  The graduate contribution scheme, which is what the Government propose, allows us to shift our focus away from the cost of fees, which are not payable when a student is at university, to the cost of maintenance, which is. Does the noble Lord not agree that it is better to provide support for students to help them with their living costs and allow them to repay their fees only when they can afford to do so?
  1.30 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend Lord Renfrew was not referring to the question of the effect on the poorest families of paying back later when someone has graduated. He was talking about an inducement for the poorest families to encourage their young people to go to university. This is about an incentive for young people. Many people in another place and I suspect here, are very worried about whether that inducement is contained in the Bill. My noble friend is talking about extra money from the taxpayer to provide that inducement.
  Some universities, the ones with a large number of people who will not have to pay anything back, will gain from the Bill. That was said at a meeting with Universities UK, which I attended. One vice-chancellor said that around 70 per cent of his students would not incur a debt in relation to fees. That was very interesting. However, surely this is about universities which are not in that position. It seemed to me that coming from the University of Cambridge my noble friend would understand very well the position of the poorest families who might have someone who would qualify for Cambridge and would benefit enormously from going there but would be completely put off by the prospect of incurring a debt. This is a very worthwhile amendment as an inducement for such people.
  Lord Dearing: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for letting me off the charge of being complacent. He may be less satisfied with me today, but I shall do my best. I shall concentrate, if I may, on his amendment.
  It seems to me that we have to go back to basic principles. I begin with the principle that to be admitted to a university is a privilege that is not open to all citizens. It is open only to those who, by attitudes and standards of learning achieved as a young person,

  425
  qualify for entry. In gaining entry they get benefits that are denied to most of our young people. First, they benefit from an enhancement in the quality of life they will have because of what higher education has given to them, which is precious. Secondly, research has shown that graduates are able to enter areas of employment which are less subject to unemployment than the generality and in most cases, not all, will have the prospect of higher earnings throughout life. So, whether the entrant comes from a poor or wealthy background, higher education confers benefits which are not available as a right, such as the National Health Service, to all citizens.
  Therefore, it is equitable to turn to young people after graduation, not before, and to say, on an income contingent basis, "We are looking to you to contribute something in return". That is a form of contribution, paid through the tax system. It is equitable to ask those young people whether from poor or rich backgrounds to contribute on an income-contingent basis. However—this is relevant to attracting students—that should be upfront money. The repayments are made afterwards. The upfront money needs to be for maintenance because their families cannot afford to support them in a way which more prosperous families can. That is the logical way to help young people from poor families, not by saying, "You should not have to contribute afterwards, but here is some money upfront".
  Perhaps the Government were not crafty enough, but they have not received credit for one thing they have done for those who want to promote access—I dare say all of us in this House belong to this club—and who want more people from poor backgrounds to come into further and higher education. The key to that is getting children to stay on at school after 16. We have a very low retention rate over the age of 16. The Government announced in the White Paper that they would provide grants of up to £1,500 per year for boys and girls of 16 plus to help with maintenance. That has given their families £3,000 which has not been available in the past and which is very relevant to encouraging them to stay on until 18 to obtain their two A-levels and GNVQs.
  The Government's package starts off by saying that they would provide £1,000 towards maintenance and £1,200 towards tuition fees. They increased the £1,000 to £1,500 so the £1,200 plus the £1,500 has become £2,700 upfront. It is said to those universities whose departments have chosen to go for the top level of fee, £3,000, "You must, as a minimum, grant a bursary of £300". So, a boy or girl from a poor home knows that they will be no worse off than they are at present. They will have come forward with an extra £1,500 per year in the previous two years and the terms of the loan scheme have been improved.
  The structure of the Government's proposals is right. It is fair and equitable to all young people in our society and is the right way to go. Although I may be seen as complacent, I hope very much that the noble Lord will see that it is based on the principle of equity and of encouraging access to our universities. I shall
  426
  not comment on the standard bursary scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has already commented on that.
  The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My rumbling stomach makes me reluctant to intervene and I shall be brief. I have been watching—I hope this is parliamentary language—the Forsyth/Ashton Punch and Judy show this week. I cannot declare an interest as a governor of Portsmouth University because I no longer hold that post, but the Board of Education of the Church of England has considered this area. When I first read the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I realised straightaway that it had very noble aspirations. However, unless I am totally mistaken, I think it will have the unintended consequence of causing unfairness when it wants to do the opposite; that is, it will provide everything for a few and much less for many others.
  On previous occasions I have highlighted the need for more attention to be given to the cut-off point in the Bill. However, I am not sure that the amendment will achieve what it intends to deliver. Therefore, after much careful thought, I am unable to support it.
  Lord Winston: Like the right reverend Prelate, I, too, missed my breakfast and I will be extremely brief. I always seem to miss my breakfast when coming to this place. I feel very strongly that universities like the one represent as Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam might be at a disadvantage with a national bursary scheme of this kind. There is always the possibility that the university might end up having to pay bursaries from its own funds. It seems to me that a university which may have 50 per cent of its students funded would be at a very severe disadvantage. The money would be spent on bursaries and not on the education of its students. Therefore, we need to consider the amendment very carefully.
  Baroness Blackstone: I should like to follow up on what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has just said. Essentially there are two choices. You can say to students from poor families that you do not expect them to contribute to tuition fees, but that you do expect them to take out loans for maintenance—the scheme introduced by the Labour Government in 1998. Or you can say, as the current Labour Government are going to do, that you are going to give students loans for fees because you want them to contribute to tuition costs; that they will only have to pay them back on an income-contingent basis after they graduate; and that you will give them bursaries for maintenance. There are merits in both routes. The Government have decided to go down the second of those routes.
  It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is slightly confusing the incomes of parents. who (lid have to contribute under the old scheme if their incomes were above a certain level but not if the) were not, with the later incomes of graduates. I think that we need to be absolutely clear that there is a distinction. So I am not able to support the noble Lord's amendment.

  427
  However, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, a question that he can perhaps reply to later. This morning we have talked a lot about unintended consequences. I believe that there is an unintended consequence of what he proposes—that, were the amendment to be agreed to, the British taxpayer would have to provide support for European Union students, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said are going to come into this country in large numbers. The cost of that would be considerable because, under the Treaty of Rome, EU students have to be treated like home students with respect to fees. They do not have to be treated in the same way regarding maintenance. We should be very careful about that matter. That alone makes the amendment very risky and dangerous.
  However, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I am sorry that the amendments have been grouped together, as they really are about very different things. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is talking about the requirement that universities charging more than £2,700 should contribute to bursaries for poor students. That will lead to variable amounts of support for poor students, which I think is inequitable—and I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said about that. In that respect some universities will be left with far bigger bills than others will.
  I am sorry not to agree with what my noble friend Lady Warwick said about Universities UK. She made its position clear. I recognise that there is a lot of disagreement among vice-chancellors on this.
  However, I hope that the Government will take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said and look at the matter very carefully. In that context can the Minister tell the Committee the position regarding the investigations about whether the Student Loans Company can provide individual universities with data on parental incomes of students who might be eligible for bursaries? We really should not pass a Bill to legislate the proposed changes until we are clear about that.
  If we were to do so, as I understand it, every university in the country would have to carry out a means test. That would be extraordinarily wasteful and a displacement of the work they ought to be doing in teaching students and undertaking research. It may well be possible to do this—but we have not been given any clear statement of that in relation to data protection problems. Until we have that, it makes the case for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, even stronger.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I do not wish to hold up the Committee for any length of time because I know everyone wishes to go to lunch. While we on these Benches have some sympathy with the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, we are of course the authors of the wrecking amendments referred to earlier, which we shall be considering later this afternoon.
  Our preference is for a no fee position. I am also at the moment unclear about the position on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, on the
  428
  Government's proposals. Does he propose that his amendment should stand and that in addition there would be maintenance grants, as the Government already propose?
  1.45 p.m.
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: If the noble Baroness will permit me to intervene very briefly—yes.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am glad to have that clarification. I had some considerable reservations about it. We have no reservations about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, which, like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, these Benches support.
  As it stands, I am not confident that the wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is such that it would be possible to support it.
  Baroness Seccombe: I shall also try and be as fast as possible. Although I sympathise with the principle behind these amendments, I am particularly concerned with the centralising effect they would have. Throughout the Bill we are supporting the independence and freedom of the universities. I believe that higher education institutions must make their own decisions about the kind of support that they offer. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in answer to points raised in debate by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, said that the Government provide 75 per cent of the standard national course costs to the Learning and Skills Council to pass on to the further education institutions. Each college is able to set its own policy on how it applies these funds.
  I have difficulty with an amendment that, as I understand it, enables the Secretary of State to dictate who falls into the category of an "under-represented" group. It would give the Secretary of State enormous power and it could lead so easily to social engineering.
  We agree that students should not be discriminated against because they cannot afford to pay fees, but we do not agree that students' circumstances should be judged by parental incomes. In fact, I believe that the proposed government scheme believes that too, as under the legislation before the Committee it is the student who will begin to pay the debt on attaining an income of £ 15,000.
  I should be grateful if my noble friend Lord Renfrew could answer one or two questions. Does he believe that the level of the national bursary should be raised when the cap is lifted on the current £3.000 limit? How much money does he envisage would be needed for the amendment? Would it include fees for those students who have been accepted on a lengthier professional course, such as medicine, dentistry or veterinary science?
  Finally, I assume that, as the Bill devolves power to Wales, the national bursary would only refer to English students. Has it been considered how this may

  429
  fit with schemes in the devolved regions? It seems that it could be helpful if we could discuss this matter with my noble friend.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Perhaps I may begin by answering a few questions that have been raised. Both amendments—and I accept they come from different directions—look at the question of a national bursary scheme. As noble Lords have indicated, we agree that poorer students need support from central government. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was kind enough to tell us that she is producing wrecking amendments later—an interesting admission I thought. but there we go. I am also very mindful of the eating habits of your Lordships and I am very worried about those who arrive here without breakfast. So I intend to be reasonably brief.
  I think that we shall have an interesting debate later today around the whole question of fees. So I hope it is not impertinent to say to the Committee that I shall leave much of my speech on that area until later.
  I think that it is important to indicate that we are providing support from 2006–07 of £2,700 to all of the students indicated. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours asked whether it applies for the 18 to 21, or 18 to 30, age groups—it applies to all students of any age in England and Wales. It is not age-related in terms of the £ 1,000.
  Lord Campbell-Savours: If that is the case, could we have a figure for the 18 to 21s, parental, gross and all income?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sure that we could, but I cannot give that immediately. I will write to the noble Lord and place a copy in the Library of the House.
  Lord Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to press my noble friend, but could that perhaps be done in the next few days?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It certainly can be done in the next few days. My intention with all letters is to ensure that they are sent before the next Committee day. I trust that the noble Lord will have the answer, so far as I am able to give it, before Monday. That may be a promise that I—or others—will live to regret later.
  My noble friend Lady Blackstone put it very well that it is important to be clear that we remove the payment of fees up front, and that students repay when they are able to, with all the cut-offs that we have indicated; that if you do not earn £15,000, you do not pay; if you drop below, you do not pay; after 25 years it is written off; and at the age of 65 it is written off. We are saying that it is for graduates to pay, and it is for us to try to support through university students in the poorest group. We have got that right.
  I know that noble Lords are concerned about whether one has one bursary scheme or different ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, described the
  430
  situation of a student wishing to go to Cambridge. We know that there will be additional bursaries of up to £4,000 that have already been announced. I am proud of those significant steps that are being taken by that university, and by other universities such as the University of Surrey. These are important ways in which we address not only the issue of poverty. but real cultural resistance in some of our communities to students thinking that university is where they should be. Financial incentives of this kind are important. We have always said, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, was right in saying, that it is about not centralising and about recognising the individuality of institutions. Dare I say it, we must recognise that institutions need to go to different lengths in terms of addressing the problems, about which they know themselves, involved with ensuring that they get the right kind of applications from different students.
  I also agree that we should be cautious of the definition that would be indicated. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, talked about ethnic minority students in particular. I refer him to the draft letter of guidance from the Secretary of State. The details are for the institutions to decide, that they will look at many groups of students who might benefit. They might wish to give particular support to under-represented groups, some ethnic minorities, those with children, those with elder care responsibilities, or those with disabilities, but we are not requiring bursaries in the same way that we are proposing for poorer students, and it is for institutions to look at that themselves.
  We carefully considered the issue of a national bursary scheme. This was under consideration in the department for some time. We discussed the way in which that might work in practice with a range of institutions. We decided against it because we think that there are difficulties with the principle and the practice, not least because the purpose of the Bill is to seek to provide greater autonomy for institutions to charge variable fees, hand in hand with the responsibility to protect access for poorer students. A national bursary scheme goes against the principle of institutions being individually autonomous and responsible, not just for their fees, but for how they move to protect access. A national bursary scheme would be taking from one institution to give to another. Those institutions that might be expected to contribute most might understandably feel that it is their students and their own access agenda that should benefit from additional fee income, particularly where they voluntarily go beyond what the Director of Fair Access is looking for in the minimum.
  We could end up with three levels of support; a national bursary scheme, that provided by the state, and any institutional bursaries on top. This is not the way in which we wish to go. Many institutions are becoming increasingly successful in encouraging alumni and other benefactors to contribute to their bursary schemes. A national bursary scheme might be less attractive than individuals or other bodies contributing to the institution's bursary scheme.

  431
  I understand and recognise the concerns of noble Lords that the greatest proportion of students from poorer backgrounds should not he disadvantaged, but that is without foundation. We recognise that those institutions that have an excellent track record in providing for students from poorer backgrounds will have that recognised in the work that the Director of Fair Access undertakes. We have indicated that the minimum of the £300 difference between the £2,700 and the £3,000 for those courses where that maximum is applied may well be for some institutions the most that we are expecting them to do.
  All in all, we have considered this carefully. It is important to ensure that there are examples of good bursary schemes, and we are working with Universities UK on their design, in the hope that we can take those forward. I have noted the question asked by my noble friend about the Student Loans Company. I understand that a working group is looking at that at the moment, and I do not have the detailed information that the noble Baroness has asked for. She has made it plain that from her perspective this is critical information. I shall endeavour to get that information as fast as I possibly can, and not only provide it to the noble Baroness, but put it in the Library of the House so that noble Lords will be able to see it.
  A national bursary scheme cuts across important independent, autonomous decisions by institutions. It is not the right way to go forward. On that basis, we hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am grateful to the Minister for her careful reply, which made a number of important points. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the points that I made, particularly to my noble friend Lady Perry and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I am a little disappointed at the tenor of the debate. I suspect that we are all feeling a shade dyspeptic at this time, and I am a little bewildered at the work of the usual channels in arranging that the lunchtime debate, which is to follow, will take place shortly after 2 p.m., rather than after 1 pm., which might have been to the convenience of noble Lords. A number of noble Lords who have a close interest in the university world were prominent on various Benches until 12.30 or 12.45, but their absence has become somewhat marked.
  I have other disappointments. Having heard a most relevant speech from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, earlier, I thought that I was addressing a matter of principle, and I was highly disappointed that he did not address the principle that I was addressing, although he had a technical question to which it was interesting to hear the answer. I have great respect for the comments of the right reverend Prelate. He is right that when you introduce a threshold, you do come kicking up against it. This is true of all thresholds, and it would certainly be the case with this one. I will refer to that again in a moment. If we are dealing with family income, it always seemed a little unjust that one
  432
  family that may have £500 a year income more than another is saddled with the burdens in this case of student loans, which would not be the case for those under the £15,000 threshold to which I was referring. I agree with the right reverend Prelate, and with my noble friend Lady Seccombe. If we are going to have a threshold, that is the price that you pay.
  My noble friend Lady Seccombe asked me a number of questions. It would be my hope that the principle, if applied, would apply in Wales. I did not dare to venture into Scotland, or Northern Ireland, but it should apply also in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I see my noble friend Lady Carnegy looking a shade suspiciously at me, so I will say no more about that, except that I wish that we had a situation in the United Kingdom where we could think of these things in higher education in aggregate. In reply to my noble friend Lady Seccombe, I intend that this provision would apply to courses of longer duration, such as medicine or veterinary science.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked me a pertinent question. I am not sure if it is possible to frame the amendment in such a way, as one might wish to do, to see the fee waiver accruing to students of United Kingdom origin. The noble Baroness has a valid point. I remind her, and I remind the Government, that there are many of us who wonder whether that is a chicken that will come home to roost with the Government's arrangements.
  I look forward very much to hearing about the recovery schemes which the Government will implement for students of European Union nationality, but not British nationality. I do not know what government agency will operate in Poland, Lithuania, Slovenia or Slovakia, and I will be very interested to hear about that. Although I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has an important point. it is a point that cuts not only into my amendment, but into the Government in general.
  I was puzzled by the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I have great enthusiasm for the University of Sheffield Hallam, and wish him well in his distinguished role. The intention—which I think I made very clear in my speech—was that these funds would come from the Government. I am not in a position to give a precise figure, but it will be a substantial figure. I could go away and do the calculation, and perhaps I should have done, but we are talking of £ 100 million from the Treasury to make that possible. The figure will be substantial. The noble Baroness could probably pluck the figure accurately from the air. But the funds would be from the Government; they would not be from the University of Sheffield Hallam. So I was puzzled by the noble Lord's intervention.
  The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and those made in a most sympathetic manner by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, really go to the heart of the matter. The question is, what is going to work? I agree with the equitability. I agree that if you look at the situation across the board, it is entirely reasonable that all students of whatever background

  433
  will not be saddled with parental income. We are talking about an ideal world where students are not saddled by where they have come from, nor saddled by the parental background. I agree also with the points about education from 16 to 18. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. If she claims to be speaking for British universities, I am sure that she is. It is not my role to question that, but it is my role to question the wisdom of the position being taken.
  If the Government seriously wish to attract students into higher education from the group which I identified very specifically, then they will have to do more than they are now. I agree with the ideal world which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, described. I entirely agree with the equitability. But if you look at those universities—and I am in one—which have been trying consistently for many years to attract students from lower income cohorts in terms of familial income, it is not working. There is nothing which the Director of Fair Access can do other than what he will do, which is, roughly speaking, oblige universities—including the University of Sheffield Hallam if it charges a top-up fee—to make available the bursaries which I have been proposing from their own budgets.
  Lord Winston: I hope, as I was named, that the Committee will forgive me for briefly interrupting. We are considering two amendments and it is not clear from the wording that that impost might eventually land on the universities' finances. That will be a disaster for so many universities and that is the real problem with these amendments.
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I hope I had dealt with that point and so had the noble Lord, Lord Rix. We foresaw that problem. I take the logic of the point made, but I hope that I have made my own position on the matter very clear. Perhaps at the risk of repetition—I realise that we all would like some lunch soon—I will try to conclude. I have made it crystal clear that my amendment would not be an impost on universities. I am sorry that the amendments have been paired. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, whose amendment has found support, was able to distinguish his amendment from mine on that matter, so I am sorry that that point may have caused difficulty.
  I must come to my conclusion, which is that, despite the ideal world with the principle of equitability, as described by the noble Lord and with which I agree, it will not work. The proof that it will not work is that it has not worked. Until 1998, students had state studentships and their state scholarship component for the maintenance. It did not work in encouraging more applications from low-income families, it is not working now, and it will not work. So I am sorry that the Bill will not succeed in its objectives and I am very disappointed that there have not been more voices on this matter. There are not many people on the Benches opposite, so perhaps not many voices could be expected to be raised.
  The noble Lord, Lord Winston, indicates the Conservative Benches. I have had two very stirring speeches of support, although it is true that I could
  434
  have wished to have been more comprehensively supported by my own Front Bench. I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Rix—if the pairing can be dissolved—to leave his amendment in position: I will not go into technicalities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House he resumed and in moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before five minutes past three.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

  United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  2.6 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to accept the first Optional Protocol to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights so as to enable individual complaints about breaches of the covenant by the United Kingdom to be considered by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for participating in this brief, but I hope influential, debate. It seeks to discover whether the Government will at long last accept the first Optional Protocol to the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That would enable British citizens, like the other citizens of Europe and of the democratic Commonwealth, to complain to the UN Human Rights Committee of breaches of the covenant.
  Almost 30 years ago, when I was special adviser to Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, the Foreign Secretary, Tony Crosland, proposed that the UK should ratify the covenant. Whitehall officials were distinctly unenthusiastic, but Tony Crosland, Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey and other internationally minded heavyweights in Harold Wilson's Cabinet were sympathetic. A detailed list of reservations was agreed to meet any legitimate concerns of the various home departments, and in May 1976, the covenant was duly ratified.
  Most of the covenant's rights and freedoms are also protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. To that extent, the covenant adds nothing since victims of breaches have effective remedies in British courts and in the European Court of Human Rights.
  But in several important respects, the covenant is wider. For example, under the covenant, the guarantee of equality before the law and non-discrimination is free-standing. The rights of detained persons to humane and dignified treatment is stronger. The rights

  435
  of political participation in the conduct of public affairs and public service are broader than in the European convention.
  The Human Rights Committee is the guardian of the covenant. It is a body of high calibre, consisting of 18 eminent jurists. British members have included Dame Rosalyn Higgins, now the British judge on the International Court of Justice, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. The current British member is Sir Nigel Rodley. Others include the former Chief Justices of India and Mauritius—Bhagwati and Lallah, as well as one of President Bush's senior legal advisers, Professor Ruth Wedgwood. I think I can say that all the British serving and former members of the committee would support the acceptance of the Optional Protocol. I know that at least two have written to the Government to say so.
  The committee may deal with a complaint only after all effective domestic and international remedies have been exhausted. It does not sit in public. It ensures that member states have the fullest opportunity to state their case before making findings and recommendations. Its recommendations are not binding in the way that judgments at the European Court of Human Rights must be complied with. It relies on voluntary compliance. Its opinions are not radical or overly intrusive; they strike a fair balance between individual rights and the general interest. They provide an important source of guidance on civil and political rights and obligations.
  Acceptance of the competence of the UN Human Rights Committee is optional. Every member state of the European Union except the United Kingdom has accepted that option, as have the democracies of the rest of the Commonwealth, including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand and South Africa. Thirty-nine of the 45 countries of the Council of Europe have also done so. The remaining six are Moldova, which is not a member of the United Nations, Andorra, Albania, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Many countries that have accepted the protocol, including those in central and eastern Europe, have incorporated the covenant rights directly into their constitutions or ordinary legislation, but acceptance would not require the United Kingdom to take that step.
  The keynote address made by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on 4 July 1997—I emphasise the date—explained that, given the Government's support of human rights, they would not wish limitations on their international commitments to remain unless they were strictly necessary. Seven years ago the noble and learned Lord went on to refer to a review which would include whether to accept the right of individual petition under the covenant and under UN human rights treaties.
  When I had the privilege of chairing the United Nations Association 50th Anniversary Committee in 1998, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the
  436
  Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it placed particular importance on this matter in relation to the Optional Protocol.
  In December 2001 the UN Human Rights Committee itself stated that the UK,
  "should consider as a matter of priority"—
  again, I emphasise the words "matter of priority"—
  "how persons subject to its jurisdiction may be guaranteed effective and consistent protection to the full range of Covenant rights. It should consider, as a priority, accession to the first Optional Protocol".
  On 7 March 2002 the Government at last announced a review of the UK's position. That review was meant to report in the spring of last year. In a Written Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, on 21 October 2002, the noble Baroness explained to me that the review was on schedule to report to Ministers by the spring of 2003:
  "I would expect to be able to report the outcome shortly thereafter".—[Official Report, 21/10/02; col. WA 75.]
  The Written Answer given by her on 6 May 2003 was that,
  "recommendations will be made to Ministers shortly".—[Official Report; 6/5/03; col. WA 131.]
  The Written Answer given on 18 July 2003 by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin—who I am glad to see is to reply to this debate, even though I have a certain sympathy for the position in which he finds himself—stated:
  "We will report the outcome of the review as soon as reasonably possible".—[Official Report, 18/7/03: col. WA 195.]
  We are still awaiting the outcome of that review.
  On 8 December 2003, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, I pointed to the fact that we are in unsplendid isolation compared with the rest of Europe and the democratic Commonwealth. The noble and learned Lord undertook to consider the matter. I also wrote to him and to the Foreign Secretary in January of this year, but I have not even received the courtesy of a formal reply. I cannot think of any cogent reason for refusing to take this step, and I would be glad to be told—not in generalities but in the particular—of any legitimate objection which any government department has come up with.
  I await the Minister's reply with keen interest in the hope that he will be able to inform the House today that the Government have at last decided to give British citizens the same right of petition to the Human Rights Committee as is enjoyed by the other citizens of Europe and the democratic Commonwealth. That would greatly enhance the credibility of the Government, here and across the world, in supporting the protection of human rights.
  I want to make two further points before I finish. The first is that I am delighted to see that our proceedings are enriched by the presence of the former Lord Chancellor, to whom I have just referred. He hinted at this move as long ago as 4 July 1997 in his speech at University College, London, which I commend to the House. Secondly, I have already

  437
  indicated informally to the Minister that I would be perfectly willing to meet all the officials in Whitehall who can think of any possible reason not to take this step, to listen to their objections and seek to reply to them in front of any Minister the noble Lord cares to nominate who can adjudicate on the matter because, with the utmost moderation, I have to say that the present situation is wholly unacceptable.
  2.16 p.m.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill on introducing this subject, one that he has pursued with great assiduity over the years. It was interesting to listen to his resumé of the history of our accession to the UN ICCPR and the discussions that took place in the Cabinet of 30 years ago. One would have thought that with this Government. committed as they are to human rights, we should have moved on. I certainly welcome both the establishment of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and the announcement that every government department is to review its own activities to ensure that human rights are mainstreamed throughout all their activities.
  However, as my noble friend has explained, the question of whether we should accede to the Optional Protocol has been around for many years. I had always understood that governments of every complexion were against the idea on the grounds that it would overlap with the ECHR. I may be wrong about that, and I hope that the Minister will correct me if that is the ease. However, my noble friend has pointed out that almost every other country in the Council of Europe which subscribes to the ECHR has also accepted the Optional Protocol. Moreover, my noble friend could have added that in Latin America, which has a similar system under the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, most if not all of the states which are parties to that procedure have also signed up to the Optional Protocol.
  It is not argued that the number of cases would be very large. I note that in November 2003 the committee had before it 253 communications from the whole spectrum of signatory states, some of which had been carried over from previous years. The rules of procedure allow for the joint examination of admissibility and merits in most cases, and the committee may adopt views or decisions declaring the communications admissible or inadmissible. As my noble friend has explained, the committee has no power to enforce its decisions, and it has to rely almost entirely on publicity for implementation. If the United Kingdom did sign up to the protocol, it is almost inconceivable that the Government would not comply with any views that the committee might express.
  The UN International Covenant is the most authoritative expression of what is meant by human rights, one to which almost every country in the world subscribes, even if most of them do not live up to it. The UK should do everything it can to consolidate respect for the covenant and universal observance of its provisions. By continuing to hold back from acceding to the Optional Protocol we appear to be
  438
  saying to the rest of the world that we are not fully committed to the additional rights which appear in the covenant, but not in the ECHR.
  When he appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that Mr David Laming was ensuring that the Audit Commission saw to it that local authorities were mainstreaming human rights activity. He gave that as just one example of a general process taking place throughout government. Reference was made to a letter which has gone out to all departments on the process of mainstreaming, but the noble and learned Lord confirmed that when the departments dealt with the public authorities within their remit, such as the Audit Commission, their attention would be directed only towards the Human Rights Act, which covers the ECHR, and thus, by implication, not to the ICCPR.
  When the noble and learned Lord said that he would concentrate entirely on the Human Rights Act because it was part of our law he was giving the game away that we did not intend to enforce the rights in the ICCPR through the process that has been described as mainstreaming. But the discussion between the JCHR and the Lord Chancellor also touched on our other treaty obligations, which are binding even if they have not been enacted. The courts can refer to them, as they did to the ECHR before the Human Rights Act.
  Both the courts and the public authorities had to consider that if they did not satisfy the provisions of the ECHR before it was enacted in the Human Rights Act, the matter would be dealt with in Strasbourg. That was the incentive to comply with the ECHR, for which there is no equivalent in the case of the ICCPR unless we sign up to the Optional Protocol.
  Where the new Equality Commission appears to be a longstop for ICCPR issues—though not individual complaints—is that it will have a general power to conduct free-standing human rights inquiries not specifically related to equality issues. That was stated by the Lord Chancellor when he appeared before the Joint Committee.
  The inquiries would clearly need to look at any matters covered by the ICCPR hut not by the ECHR, as also on other human rights issues such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Those investigations could throw up questions that could not be directly addressed under our domestic law.
  The only other country that has signed up to the optional protocol recently of which I know and have been able to look at in the short time available is Australia, which acceded to the Optional Protocol in 1991. Since it came into force in December of that year there have been 14 individual communications against Australia, four of which were declared inadmissible and seven of which have yet to be considered by the Human Rights Committee. Of the remaining three cases, only one was upheld on its merits, which was a case involving Article 2 on the prohibition of discrimination coupled with Article 17 on the right to privacy.

  439
  Those articles have equivalents in the ECHR, so one might assume that if the same circumstances had arisen in the UK the complainant would have had a remedy under the Human Rights Act. However, it has also to be observed that the language of the two instruments is not identical. In general, we could take it that fewer complaints would arise proportionally in the UK than in Australia because of the existence here of the ECHR remedies.
  Where the ICCPR rights are to all intents and purposes identical to those in the ECHR, the Human Rights Committee would have to declare inadmissible any complaint that had already been considered by the European Court. It would be useful to know what the experiences in that regard have been in other European countries.
  I considered the case of a Swedish citizen, Mr Asbjeörn Skjoldager. It was said that the Swedes had entered into a reservation on the Optional Protocol that the Human Rights Committee would not consider any communication from an individual unless it had ascertained that the same matter was not or had not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. In that case Mr Skjoldager had already been before the ECHR.
  If the noble and learned Lord was concerned about the possible duplication of cases under the ECHR and the ICCPR he could deal with that issue by entering a similar reservation to that used by Sweden. If there was any fear that cases might be disposed of at Strasbourg and then started over again in the Human Rights Committee we could deal with it in that manner.
  The Government have been seized by the matter for many years. My noble friend Lord Lester mentioned the review by the Lord Chancellor in 1977 and the second review by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in 2003, neither of which have led to any Statement to Parliament. It is time for the Government to come before Parliament and state plainly what matters they are taking into consideration and why they are of such a nature as to require lengthy deliberation behind closed doors.
  Would it not be in accordance with the principle of open government of which they claim to be such ardent champions if the Minister now put their cards on the table and opened up the subject to parliamentary and public scrutiny rather than presenting us with a decision that would be difficult to vary, whatever the merits of the arguments put from outside Whitehall?
  2.25 p.m.
  Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, it is obvious that there are limits on what and how much can be done by the United Nations Human Rights Committee under the procedures available to it. I do not want to repeat the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, but I fully share his view that it has long been time that we should have adopted the optional protocol. It seems to be entirely consistent with the attitudes this country has shown in adopting
  440
  the Human Rights Act and in our support for the UN Universal Charter of Human Rights at the Nice conference. The Government should he urged at this stage to adopt the additional protocol.
  2.26 p.m.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we all know that committees take minutes and years, but it seems to us and certainly to me having looked through the series of Answers to Questions we have had since 1997 that it is not unreasonable to ask the Government now either to decide or to set a clear time-scale during which they will decide whether Britain is going to ratify the first optional protocol.
  I know that when Lord Williams of Mostyn was Minister in the Home Office he said in a reply to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill in December 1998:
  "I expect the review to be completed by the end of 1998".—[Official Report, 9/12/98; col. WA 91.]
  I note that some months later, in a general reply to another Written Question from my dogged noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, he said:
  "We shall announce the results of this review shortly". —[Official Report, 1/2/99: col. WA 186.]
  In a reply in another place by Mr Rammell to a question from Adam Price MP, we were told:
  "We will announce the outcomes of the Review to Parliament as soon as is reasonably possible".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/4/04; col. 1352W.]
  It seems that "reasonably possible" does not entirely cover a full seven years and I am not sure that it would cover eight, nine or 10 years without beginning to verge strongly on the level of unreasonableness. I hope that the Minister in his answer will give us a slightly tighter time-scale than we have had in response to those inquiries.
  I am conscious that there is a question about the overlap and occasional inconsistency between European and global obligations on human rights. I was chair of the Lords sub-committee that considered amendment 13 to the Amsterdam treaty that extended European Community law on anti-discrimination to a wide new area. The Government may feel that our European obligations are the ones that count and that we therefore do not have to join the optional protocol, although it seems odd that all other member governments of the European Union have thought it appropriate nevertheless to ratify the optional protocol. If Her Majesty's Government are following different advice from that given to all other member governments of the EU we should be told and given an explanation.
  We are also conscious that the global regime on human rights is weak. There is a great deal wrong with the UN system and most member states of the UN pay little attention to their human rights obligations. We have been deeply embarrassed to see Libya elected as chair of the UN Human Rights Commission. We see a range of other regimes around the world simply sweeping aside their concern with human rights.

  441
  There is also the question of example. It is very important that the states of this world which wish to show that they adhere to the highest possible standards, demonstrate that they do so. In the past three years, the United States has had an Administration which has not thought it necessary to do so and a Secretary of Defense who has not thought it necessary to observe the Geneva Convention. We are now beginning to see where that has led the United States.
  Now is therefore not the time for Her Majesty's Government to signal in any way that they do not wish to sign up to the fullest level of obligations in terms of international law. I find it difficult to understand why the Government have spent so much time considering whether they wish to ratify the Optional Protocol. I also find it difficult to understand why they have not yet been able to agree that they should ratify it.
  2.31 p.m.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing this important and worthwhile debate. I commend the noble Lord for his determination in pursuing on so many occasions the question as to whether Her Majesty's Government will accept the first Optional Protocol to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The noble Lord has continually held the Government to account for their delay in concluding this matter and his resolve should be applauded. He has certainly received strong support from his two noble colleagues and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, today.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been told time and again by the Government that they are reviewing the issue of the first Optional Protocol and that they will report their findings in due course. However, we remain no closer to any firm response. When the noble Lord last questioned the Government on this matter, in a Written Answer the Minister stated:
  "The very wide scope of the review, and the number of government departments involved, have caused the review to take longer than expected".—[Official Report, 2/2/04; col. WA 71]
  That was more than three months ago and we still have no answer.
  Her Majesty's Government are beginning to run out of realistic excuses for any further delay. Will the Minister explain when we are likely to have a definite conclusion and what that conclusion might be? With their ethical foreign policy objectives, why is it so difficult for Her Majesty's Government to come to a decision about the Optional Protocol, one way or the other? Given that the Government have long proclaimed their support for human rights, it seems strange that they are unwilling even to account for their lack of enthusiasm to sign up to this Optional Protocol.
  It also seems that Government Ministers have been remiss in continually refusing to provide the noble Lord, Lord Lester, with answers to his questions on this matter. They have been saying that the review of
  442
  the first Optional Protocol will be made available to Ministers "shortly" since March 2002. The word "shortly" is certainly being used in a curious way. The noble Lord has already told the House that he took up the matter with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in December last year; he then wrote to the Lord Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary in January but is yet to receive an answer. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation as to exactly what is now happening.
  2.34 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, despite the fact that he has put us in a challenged position by introducing the debate, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for doing so and for his unstinting contribution, along with others, to the cause of human rights in our society.
  As noble Lords will know, the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one of the many instruments being considered in the interdepartmental review of human rights instruments announced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as long ago as 7 March 2002. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others have been patient—perhaps that patience is wearing thinner—in waiting for the outcome of this review. I am apologetic for the time that it has taken to reach a conclusion.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, the review has a very wide scope and the number of government departments involved has caused it to take longer than we had hoped. The review has considered a huge number of instruments—some 67 reservations, interpretative declarations and treaties, unsigned and unratified—from the most wide-ranging, such as Protocol 12 to the ECHR, to the most local and specific, such as the United Kingdom's reservation to Article 23(3) of the ICCPR concerning marriages on the Solomon Islands.
  We clearly want to get the review right. This is one instance where perhaps there has been a need to take time to have discussions across government on these issues. We are taking on new international obligations and we must be 100 per cent clear about the implications, benefits and burdens that will flow from them.
  I can assure the House that we are now very near to completion. That impression has perhaps been received previously, but we hope to announce the outcomes of the review to Parliament very shortly. In an attempt to forestall too many interruptions at this point, I should perhaps be a little sharper and indicate that I will be personally deeply embarrassed if I or my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer do not do so before the Summer Recess. Clearly these matters will benefit from coming to a conclusion and no doubt we will have a good debate on them. However, the review is not concluded; it is not public and at this stage obviously we cannot pre-empt its conclusions.

  443
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the concern that people in Britain should be granted the widest possible spectrum of civil and political rights consistent with a society that also values the virtues of community spirit and social responsibility. I also share his concern that the citizens of the United Kingdom should enjoy the fullest possible protection of those civil and political rights.
  It was for that reason that, in 1998, we introduced the Human Rights Act so that UK citizens could uphold their rights under the European convention. I believe that most thoughtful people celebrate the benefits that we as a society have achieved as a consequence of that. It has by no means been otiose.
  As has been mentioned, the majority of the rights contained in the ICCPR are already protected in the United Kingdom under the Human Rights Act. Without in any way wishing to underrate the significance of the UNHRC, it is a fact that the Human Rights Act gives UK citizens a far greater level of protection and redress for their rights than the more limited protection provided by petition to the committee. Nevertheless, I would not pretend that there is an exact synchronicity between the two jurisdictions and that therefore there is a wider scope in some respects for the UNHRC than for our own ECHR.
  We have not been passive on human rights since 1998. We have signed up to several important international human rights treaties. In doing so, we have continued to show the way to the world at large. On 3 May 2002, as soon as it was opened for signature, we signed Protocol 13 to the ECHR, finally abolishing the death penalty in all circumstances. We ratified Protocol 13 on 10 October 2003 and only yesterday, 12 May, we took before the Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation an amendment to the Human Rights Act which incorporates Protocol 13 into UK law. We intend to bring that amendment before your Lordships in the very near future.
  On 10 December 2003 we ratified the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture. We were one of the first countries to sign the protocol and to date we are one of only three countries to have ratified it. This protocol enables the establishment of a system of regular visits by independent national and international bodies to places of detention. Its ratification by the UK shows three things: first, that we are not standing still on human rights; secondly, that we are not afraid to subject our actions and policies to international scrutiny; and, thirdly, that we respect the United Nations and take positive action to support its measures.
  I turn to a number of the questions or points that were raised in debate. I was grateful for the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the Government's commitment to human rights, while he was clearly not implying satisfaction with all that we had done or not done. Clearly, the Commission for Equality in Human Rights, announced yesterday, is a significant move forward. It is right that the
  444
  commission will be responsible for challenging discrimination across society and, for the first time, promoting human rights. The White Paper which my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer published jointly with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it clear that the new body will be expected to promote and give guidance on human rights beyond the ECHR. While that is not a total answer to the point being raised in this debate, it is relevant to it. Clearly, that would include the issues in ICCPR.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I thank the Minister and I fear that I may have to ask another question a little later, but I cannot find any reference to that in the White Paper. Will his advisers tell him where one finds it? My reading of the White Paper suggests that the new commission will be confined to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR in its human rights mode. I may be mistaken, but I cannot find reference to any further remit in the White Paper. If I am wrong about that. I would be grateful to be told.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is wrong or I shall have to apologise. I hope to give that answer shortly. If not, I shall respond to him in writing.
  The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, signalled that he thought that the volume of references to the United Nations was likely to be small. He is right in that respect, as evidenced by the experience of other countries. He further suggested that for those countries that were signed up to ECHR, he expected it to be smaller still. The evidence bears him out on that. I shall not spend a lot of time quoting the evidence from New Zealand, Canada, Sweden or Denmark over reasonable periods of time. I accept that point.
  On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the White Paper, I am advised that I shall write to him rather than give him the answer now. I hope to come back to him before the weekend on that point.
  In conclusion, I hope that the House will bear with the fact that the Government have taken their time on this measure. As I have indicated, we shall put before the House our response to the review by the Summer Recess. No doubt we shall have a further debate on those issues at that stage. However, at this point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for reminding us of the importance of these issues and for holding the Government to account for them.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I thank him for what he has told us so far. On the point about the Equality in Human Rights Commission, when his advisers re-read the White Paper, they will find not even a reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in it. I think that the only human rights international instrument to which reference is made is the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated by the Human Rights Act. That is clearly an important matter on which further thought will be required.

  445
  However, what troubles me about the Minister's reply is not the further delay—I would be willing to wait for a further six months if I thought that the result would be the right one—but the process. I ask the Minister the following question. If the Government will not publish a Green Paper, will they give those of us who regard ourselves as knowing a bit about it, and those who know a lot about it like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shinn, the opportunity at least to know what sticking points, objections and problems the Government perceive as preventing them doing what the rest of the democratic world has done? It would not be satisfactory to wait for a fait accompli. Can we not, please, in some way —it does not matter if it is in private or in public—know what are the issues so that we can help the Government to be well informed when they take this important decision?
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, I noted with interest the noble Lord's suggestion of a discussion with officials. As he would expect, I affirm that Ministers carry the responsibility for decisions and therefore they are to be held to account for these issues. Without doubt, when we bring forward for debate our response to the review, I expect that either I or my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will put into the clear public domain our reasoning for whatever decisions we come to.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that was not my experience when I was in government with Roy Jenkins as my boss. If outside expert bodies or NGOs had something to say, they would come and see him and me and his civil servants in order to thrash it out. I remember well people such as Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt from the NCCL doing precisely that. Surely a better decision would be made if Ministers had the benefit of a dialogue. Surely that would help them to come to right conclusion.
  Lord Filkin: My Lords, it depends on how it is done. As a Minister, I spend most of my time trying to bring outside organisations into my room for discussion, because that best informs me in my judgment about what are the issues in the real world. Unless I misinterpreted him, that is different from the position of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that it was officials who deal with the issue and that he therefore needed to have a discussion with them. I shall take away and reflect on his point with the clarification that he has given to it.
  Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.5 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 2.46 to 3.5 p.m.]

  Higher Education Bill
  House again in Committee.
  Lord Triesman: In the interests of pressing forward a little this afternoon, lunch was very late and I know
  446
  that everybody will have refreshed themselves, but I hope not so much that we will need to spend quite so long on some of the amendments. I put the point very respectfully.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Condition that 'nay be required to he imposed by English funding bodies]:
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 9, line 7, after "course" insert "for which unconditional offers of places have been made to students after 1st April 2006"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 38 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 49. In the interests of making some progress, I will try to be brief. The purpose of these amendments is to add a duty to the governing body of the relevant institution under Clause 23(1) to ensure that those students who are awarded a deferred unconditional place through the UCAS system prior to 1 April 2006 will pay only the basic amount of fees. That means that students who gain a university place and take a gap year will adhere to the current system of fees rather than the one which the Bill seeks to introduce. That follows the precedent set by the Government in the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 which was implemented by Regulation 6(8)(a) of the Education Mandatory Awards Regime. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is not in her place, but she was responsible for making that concession and at the time she said that students who had,
  "an agreed firm or conditional deferred entry place for 1998—taking a 'gap-year' in 1997—will be treated as if they are entering higher education in 1997. This will mean that they will not be required to pay tuition fees for the duration of their course".
  I appreciate that the circumstances are slightly different, in so far as the vessel that is this Bill has been spotted on the horizon and has been sailing into port over a longer period of time. However, it does not alter the fact that nowadays most students wish to take a gap year. Indeed, when reading the Scottish papers this morning, I found in the Glasgow Herald—or the Herald as it likes to call itself—a statement about a new initiative by the Scottish Executive to give up to £40 a week to students from poorer families who wish to take a gap year, and marvellous statements from the executive about the importance of gap years.
  It could be argued that under the new regime poorer students will be entitled to some support through maintenance grants, and that that would be an improved position from their point of view. However, the fact is that they will face fees which are £2,000 a year more for three years. While people might argue that these will be deferred for payment, that still involves an obligation to pay them off over a 25-year period with a higher effective rate of tax being paid by the graduate, and it must act as a disincentive for some students to take a gap year. I do not need to declare an interest because my youngest daughter is currently studying for her A-levels and will be applying for university on a deferred basis and having a gap year.

  447
  But were I in that position, I think I would be encouraging my offspring perhaps to consider having a gap year at the end of their university education and not at the beginning. If I were a parent who felt that I did not want my children to start life with large amounts of debt, I would be even more concerned about that. The issue is serious and I hope, even if the Minister cannot tell us today that he would be prepared to accept the amendment, that he will recognise that it matters a great deal.
  There is a whole industry out there that exists to put youngsters into all kinds of weird and wonderful places around the world, doing marvellous work. We have seen that most recently demonstrated by some of the younger members of the Royal Family. It would be greatly damaged—I am sure that it is an unintentional consequence—if we found that many of the students were no longer available to take those gap-year places. The organisations clearly would not be able to put people in placements. There is another side effect, which is that, if the whole cohort of people who were previously going to do a gap year decided instead that they would go to university, there would be a huge additional demand in one year. That will mean that many students who would otherwise have got a place on the course that they really wanted to do at the institution to which they really wanted to go would get a rejection notice from UCAS.
  For all those reasons, I very much hope that the Minister will think about the matter, discuss it with his colleagues, and come back with a proposal to repeat what was done on the previous occasion in 1998. We should treat those students who meet the conditions that I have described and who are taking a gap year exactly as though they had started without having a deferred year before beginning university. I beg to move.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support Amendments Nos. 38, 42 and 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and shall speak particularly to Amendment No. 53, which stands in my name.
  The noble Lord put the case for a gap year briefly and concisely. Every year approximately 29,000 students take a gap year. Such a year gives the student, as well as the advantages of the gap year itself, a degree of time to reflect after they have done their A-levels on whether they are really going for the right course. It also gives them time to make applications and know for certain whether they have been accepted at the university. Many of them have that certainty during their gap year, which helps them to make greater use of the experience. It also gives the universities greater certainty. They know by about Christmas whether a student will be on their books. I know that the universities also welcome the greater maturity shown by many students who take a gap year in their approach towards study.
  448
  The gap-year experience, whether in Britain or abroad, widens horizons and broadens the mind. That increasing understanding of the way in which the world works often helps to make students better, both in individual terms and in terms of participating in the team. The only exception, interestingly enough, is mathematics. Mathematicians are not very keen on students taking a gap year because, in a sense, they forget too much in that long period. It is obviously a subject where sequential development is of considerable importance.
  The difficulty with which we are confronted in the Bill is that, as in 1998, a cohort of students will come through who would have taken a gap year and are now confronted by the choice of dropping the gap year and not having to pay the fees. When the matter was discussed in the other place, the Minister immediately said, "Ah, yes, but they are also going to lose the opportunity of having maintenance grants", as, alongside having to pay fees, the opportunity is there for the students to have the higher maintenance grants if they come from lower-income families. That is the issue that we discussed just before lunch. One problem with it is that, perhaps disproportionately, those who take gap years come from higher-income rather than lower-income families. Therefore, the advantage of being able to get the maintenance grant will not appeal that much.
  3.15 p.m.
  Before I finish, I want to quote from a letter received by my honourable friend Mr Phil Willis, who is my party's spokesman for education in the other place. We have the writer's permission to quote from it. His name is Sammy Driscoll, and he is a sixth-form student at Dame Alice Owen's School in Potters Bar. He writes that he will be finishing his,
  "A levels in July 2005. I have always planned that I would take a gap year and do some voluntary work overseas before going to University in October 2006. As a result of the Government's proposal … I am now faced with a really difficult choice. If I go on the gap year placement in Africa, which will cost about £2,000. I will have to pay the higher tuition fees and end up with an extra £6,000 loan at the end of my degree.
  "I think this is really unfair. When tuition fees were first introduced, special provision was made for students taking a gap year so that they were not worse off. There are thousands of us who would want to do a gap year in 2005 and we are all going to be faced with this choice. I think many of us will be forced to miss the gap year, which is not only going to be worse for us, but will also mean there are a lot fewer volunteers for all the projects round the world … It probably also means … a lot more competition for university places in 2005, so we all lose out again".
  That very neatly summarises the arguments in favour of some movement on the gap years. Last time there were adjustments. There will be losses all round. The students and universities lose the benefit of the widening experience, the voluntary organisations lose the volunteers, and there will be more competition for places, which will squeeze some 18 year-olds and 19 year-olds out. I ask the Minister to think again and to consider whether some more encouragement could be given to students in this case.
  Lord Lewis of Newnham: I support the amendment. In addition to all that has been said—I completely

  449
  agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—another very important role is played by such a year off, if it indeed is a year off. It is simply that in subjects such as engineering, although it is not mandatory in all universities for students to take a year to get experience of industry, in Cambridge it has been a very successful operation. A large percentage of the students who read engineering take the year off and provide themselves with a very good background on which they can then proceed with their studies.
  Lord Triesman: I accept that the issue is important. We share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the value of gap years, of the experience that they engender, and of the maturity that they manage to produce in the students who take them. All the amendments are about the position of people who wish to take a gap year before they go to university. Before I speak to the amendments specifically, I should set out the Government's thinking on gap years. I ought to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on inventing a few months ago the post-university deferred gap year. It is a rather ingenious concept to suggest taking such a year at the end of university.
  The points made by Members of the Committee, including the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, were about ensuring that young people should be able to take a gap year if they chose. However, the amendments assume that variable fees will deter them from doing so.
  I should like to explain why the Government do not believe that this will be the case. The support package which we have announced for new students from 2006–07 is, we believe, a generous one. The poorest students, for example, will receive a grant of up to £2,700 as well as a bursary support from the institutions themselves. This support, and the removal of up-front fees which will prove to be a real financial obstacle, may actually encourage some students to take a gap year. We believe that is what will happen.
  In addition to bigger grants and bursaries, we are providing higher loans for living costs; introducing fee deferral; and we have announced that loans will be written off after 25 years. So, in many ways, starting a course in 2006–07 is more attractive.
  The intended effect of this amendment may be to achieve transitional arrangements for gap year students similar to those when tuition fees were first introduced in 1998. That was the case that was put.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I am not sure I understood what he was saying. Is it that because the poorer students will get a package of £3,000—if we take the elements that make up the maintenance grant, the deferred fees and the bursary—they might want to take advantage of that and wait to go to university? It is true that they will get that package of £3,000 but it
  450
  is also true that in many universities they will have to pay fees of £3,000. So it is cost-neutral, albeit that the fees are paid "post graduation".
  Is that the Minister's argument—that there is an additional liability that is post, which is matched by the grant, and that therefore they might want to take advantage of that rather than go for the present position, where they have a liability of only £1,100? Is that what he is saying?
  Lord Triesman: It is the combination of all of those factors: the amount, the deferral and the fact that unlike at present, they will not have to find that money at the beginning. That we believe should be at least neutral, and possibly better than neutral in encouragement terms.
  There are key differences between the circumstances which surrounded the introduction of tuition fees in 1998–99, and of variable fees that are proposed for 2006–07. In order to illustrate why we have not proposed similar arrangements in the Bill I will say a word or two about those differences.
  By the time the decision to introduce tuition fees in 1998–99 was taken and made public in the summer of 1997, many students had already decided to do a gap year. They had committed themselves to activities: some had even made financial commitments in relation to those activities. They had done so on the entirely fair assumption that the student support arrangements for 1998–99 would be the same as they were for 1997–98. That is why we felt it was right that these students should not have to pay tuition fees for their first year at university. I know that my noble friend Lady Blackstone was concerned that that unfairness and unpredictability should not be a burden for those involved.
  But the introduction of variable fees is being proposed in very different circumstances. First, students will have had three years' notice of the intention to allow universities to introduce variable fees. Secondly, the system is changing from one of upfront payment of fees to one in which students can get loans for fees—and they start to repay those loans only after graduation when they earn more than £15,000 a year. Thirdly, in a fixed fee regime, universities had no choice but to charge gap year students the standard fee unless we legislated to allow otherwise. That is not the case now. Universities under a variable fee regime will have flexibility to decide how to treat gap year students in exactly the same way as they have the flexibility to set fees for other students below the cap of £3,000. Indeed we know that Universities UK, on behalf of the sector, has supported previous amendments, and therefore the principle of transitional arrangements for gap year students entering higher education in 2006–07.
  Under the legislation, the universities have freedom to make such arrangements themselves. They are not prevented from doing so if they wish. I believe it is right to give institutions this choice, and right that they should have responsibility for setting their fees at levels which are appropriate to them.

  451
  The student support package which we have announced for students from 2006–07 will ensure that all those with the ability to do so may participate in higher education. We are firmly committed to widening participation, as indeed are Members on all sides of the Committee, and our proposal has been put forward to that end.
  I shall turn to the individual amendments, but there is a point which has to be made. Were we to accept any amendment, however generously in spirit that amendment had been put, that automatically exempted gap year students from variable fees, it is the universities that would lose as a result. They would get less fee income from each and every student to whom the exemption applies, and there is no question of the Government making good the loss.
  To complete the point in response to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, it is true that some institutions have said they will give much larger bursaries than £300. We have talked about some of them earlier today: Cambridge University, Imperial College, Exeter University and I think some others have already said that their bursaries will be additional—some up to about £4,000 on top of the maintenance package. I would contend that in those circumstances the fees should not be a disincentive.
  Amendment No. 42 has an unintended consequence. By setting a cut-off point of 1 April for the date by which offers must be made, it may well catch a number of students—who wish to enter higher education in 2006–07 but who are not applying for deferred entry—who have received early offers.
  It is not unknown for institutions to make such offers to outstanding candidates. A cut-off point of April for offers would therefore mean that some students would be exempted from variable fees where that is not the intention.
  Amendments Nos. 38 and 49 have a still more serious flaw. Although I understand that noble Lords want further to protect gap year students, these amendments would exempt both gap year and existing students from the condition of grant. That does not mean that such students are exempted from higher fees. It actually exempts them from the controls that the condition of grant gives us over fees. The amendments thus have the effect of leaving such students open to wholly unregulated fees. I am sure that that is not the intention. There are further technical problems which I could go into at length but I do not think the Committee would welcome that.
  Perhaps I may say a few words about Amendment No. 53. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the way in which the amendment would operate. While I understand its intended effect, the amendment does not provide for a mechanism through which the Secretary of State could exempt gap year students from variable fees. It does not enable him to disapply the higher amount for such students as a condition of grant. As a result, it would not work.
  452
  If the intention is to protect gap year students, then I believe that the amendment also has an unintended consequence. It sets a cut-off point of 1 January for the date by which offers must have been made, and it is very likely to catch a number of students—who wish to enter higher education in 2006–07 but who are not applying for deferred entry—who have received early offers. Such offers are, as I pointed out earlier, quite often made.
  To sum up, these amendments have a number of technical defects which noble Lords perhaps have not foreseen. I am not sure that those are areas that they would have wanted to cover. There is some doubt as to whether students will now be deterred from pursuing a gap year in 2005, given the improvements in student support which are starting in 2006.
  Universities have the flexibility to respond to this issue themselves. The freedom of universities to do that is, I believe, an important freedom in a world which is becoming over-regulated.
  In the light of all that, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw their amendments.
  3.30 p.m.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his responses, in particular that in relation to my amendment. I take on board the technical points he makes, but, more substantively, I am sorry that on the general issue he has not seen fit to be a little more sympathetic to the students.
  While arguing that they will be eligible for maintenance grants, he has not taken on board the fact that a number of them, as a result of their parents' joint income, will not be so eligible. There is therefore a real incentive for such students to do away with the gap year and go to university earlier. That poses problems. At present, 29,000 are taking gap years and there is the potential of an extra 20,000 students or so applying to universities. That can create a bulge in universities and in 1998 the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, conceded on this issue in order to try to smooth that process. However, there is a possibility that that smoothing will not be achieved and that some students will find themselves excluded.
  The Minister made a great deal of the fact that it would be up to individual universities to use their discretion. In other respects, many of us are arguing that we would be delighted to see universities having a little more discretion on a number of these issues. Equally, he makes the point that any reduction in income will he a reduction in the universities' income, but, as he pointed out, the universities need the money in their own coffers. Therefore, the chances of universities making that concession to individual students is probably not that great.
  I thank the Minister for his answer and I am sorry that he was not a little more sympathetic towards these students.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am not as enthusiastic about the Minister's answer as is the noble Baroness. He did not deal with any of the substantive points. I

  453
  did not understand the argument that universities will lose out on income. If the student decides not to take a gap year, the university will not receive the enhanced fees. It makes my brain hurt to try to understand the Minister's point.
  When the Government introduced tuition fees for the first time, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, recognised this as a real problem. She created a precedent by making an exemption for people who had places and I pay tribute to her for doing that. It was appreciated at the time. However, I understand that the Minister's argument for not doing so on this occasion is that students knew it was coming. May I remind him that this Bill has not passed through the House? This Bill is not yet on the statute book, so no one knows what is coming. Whether it is coming is a matter for Parliament. Therefore, the Minister is taking things a little for granted in suggesting that they have had three years' notice.
  The Minister also argued that there is some incentive. I cannot imagine that many parents will say to their sons and daughters, "By the way, we think you should have a gap year because you will get a great deal by doing so. Instead of paying £1,100 in fees, you will pay £3,000 in fees and you will pay it off for 25 years after you have graduated if you get a salary of more than £20,000". Parents who give their children that advice could get a job in Barclays bank persuading people to take out more debt on credit cards. It is not a sensible proposition and I am surprised that the Minister cannot see that there will be a powerful incentive for students to forego their gap year. That would be a tragedy for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
  I do not for the life of me understand why the Minister is not taking exactly the same position as was taken previously. I have dealt with his argument that the universities would lose out on funding, but, equally, that argument applied when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made the exemption. I therefore hope that the Minister will take away the proposal and think about it. He said that on the previous occasion people had already decided to take a gap year, but my experience of my own children is that they decided to take a gap year five years before going to university. It is a major cultural event nowadays.
  We in this House who are considering legislation are of a generation who received their education free; who received grants for their education; and who now pay tax at 40 per cent as highest earners. Yet we are opposing these additional burdens on students for reasons we will debate later in the Bill. It seems a small request that, given there is a transitional difficulty in respect of the gap year, the Government should make a concession. The Minister argued that he will not do it because it will put a cost on the universities if students decide not to take their gap year. It will not do so and that is the weakest of grounds on which to stake his claim.
  454
  The matter was not properly discussed in the House of Commons because of the absurd way in which business is now guillotined there. I hope that the Minister will think again. I am happy to agree to withdraw the amendment, but should he not think again, we will certainly return to it and will want to press the matter very strongly indeed. I hope that he will discuss with his colleagues whether there is room for second thought. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 9, line 7, leave out from "course," to end of line II and insert "no fees are payable by any qualifying person, and"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 39, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48 and 79. Their purpose is to eliminate from the Bill any reference either to basic amounts or to higher amounts of fees and to substitute instead the notion that qualifying persons—namely, the students as defined by Clause 23(6)—should pay no fees at all.
  In the Second Reading debate, I spoke at some length about the reasons why I and my noble friends in this House and my honourable friends in another place support a policy of no fees. I do not intend to repeat that speech. However, I want briefly to reiterate the points we made and explain why we oppose the proposals which this Bill will bring into effect.
  I argued that the proposals were, first, ineffective in their prime purpose for raising money for the university sector. At most, they were likely to bring about £900 million into the university sector at a time when current deficits on teaching budgets alone are running in the region of £2 billion.
  Secondly, I argued that it was an inefficient way of raising these moneys because in order to make the proposals acceptable to their Back Benchers and to overcome the real problems of debt aversion among students from low-income families, the Government were pouring some £1.4 billion into a complicated set of schemes. In effect, they paid the students to enable them to pay their fees. I argued then, and I still argue today, that both universities and students would be better off if the money went straight into the university coffers rather than being diverted in these roundabout ways.
  Lastly, I argued that it was unfair. While we support the notion of students repaying after graduation, the size of the debt that we are now expecting young graduates to shoulder means that many of them are likely to be landed with a repayment, at an effective marginal rate of tax of 42 per cent, for a considerable period of time. Anyone earning less than £30,000 will not be repaying much of his debt during that period. Therefore, many young graduates will find themselves spending 20 or 25 years—the absolute maximum— shouldering a marginal rate of tax of 42 per cent, which is above our current top rate of tax. That is very tough at a time when graduates are trying to establish themselves with jobs, homes and a family. We fear

  455
  many perverse and unintended consequences, such as a complete drying-up of applications to become doctoral students, as a result of the imposition of these fees.
  I have heard two main sets of criticisms about our stance. The first is to ask from where universities will get the resources that they need to gain from fees. My answer is, first, to point out that universities do not receive very much from those fees. They are receiving only £900 million, whereas they reckon that the current financing gap is about £2 billion. On the other hand, our proposals envisage that £2 billion a year should go into the university coffers from 2005 onwards—only £500 million net more than the Exchequer is already having to fork out to fund the Government's proposals. Unlike the Government or, if I might say so, the Opposition, we have made it very clear that we intend to finance that extra expenditure by introducing a higher, 50p-in-the-pound band rate of income tax for those earning over £100,000.
  To those who say that such a tax would make Britain uncompetitive, I respond: show me the evidence. All major European countries have top rates of tax at the 50 per cent level at least and some higher. In the United States, by the time state income taxes are added to federal taxes, very few states have a top rate of income tax as low as 50 per cent. At 1.1 per cent of GDP, Britain spends a lower proportion of its national income on higher education than practically every other advanced industrialised country. The USA, to whose participation rates we aspire, spends 2.6 per cent of GDP on higher education, of which 1.6 per cent is met from government sources.
  I do not deny that we need to spend more on nursery education, although I think that for the moment we are spending about as much as the sector can absorb. But I would argue, along with many noble Lords, that such has been the rundown in spending per student on higher education that unless we put in more resources now there will not be any universities for our nursery school children to attend in 15 years' time. Noble Lords also need to understand that in that case, in the first instance under the Government's plans, most of the money comes from the Exchequer.
  More persuasive is the criticism that argues for finding some stream of independent funding for the higher education sector, so that it can be isolated from the short-term exigencies of Treasury control. But short of ring-fencing a specific stream of tax, I cannot see how that can happen. However, I would argue that the HFCEs of this world, like the old style UGC, should be given greater freedom to make their own decisions.
  What is more, fees or no fees, the higher education sector will be substantially dependent upon the public sector for many a long year. What is particularly hypocritical about that line of argument is that, under the current proposals, which impose a cap on fees that could be lifted only by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, universities are subjected not only to the vagaries of public sector resource management but also to the whims of Parliament. In
  456
  the mean time, all our universities will be exploiting as far as they can the one stream of independent income that they have—foreign students. Indeed, one of the perverse effects of the imposition of top-up fees is that in the next few years they are likely to discourage applications from English students for places in higher education and encourage the recruitment of overseas students.
  In essence, those are the arguments in favour of the set of amendments that I have tabled. I shall end by explaining each amendment. Amendment No. 39 is the key amendment and would alter Clause 23(1)(a) to read,
  "that, in respect of any qualifying course, no fees are payable by any qualifying person".
  Amendment No. 40 would eliminate paragraph (b) of Clause 23(1), leaving only paragraph (c), which provides that some point of access has to be in force. Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 would eliminate paragraphs (a) and (c) of Clause 23(3), leaving it open to the funding body to impose penalties if universities fail to comply with access agreements. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 would eliminate the references to basic and higher amounts in subsection (6). Amendment No. 79 would eliminate Clause 31(1), which establishes a procedure for setting the higher and lower amounts of fees. I beg to move.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I have some sympathy with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, but I have one difficulty. Although I am with her on the no-fees policy, I am not entirely with her on increasing income tax to 50 per cent. Fortunately, it is not for me to respond to that; it is for the Minister, as it is his Bill.
  I am concerned about one aspect of the amendments: they would leave the universities subject to an access agreement under OFFA, which is the part of the Bill that concerns me greatly. I cannot support the amendments, but I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to many of the points that the noble Baroness has made on fees. I shall not repeat them for the obvious reason that we wish to make progress this afternoon.
  Lord Dearing: Perhaps I may speak very briefly. I shall not repeat my argument in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that to seek an after-graduation contribution on an income-contingent basis was equitable. I have not moved from that opinion. However, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, having seen how much Universities UK says it needs—an extra £8.7 billion—perhaps we need also the money that she talks about.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: As I understand it, the £8.7 billion is spread over a three-year period.
  Lord Dearing: Yes, indeed; but it is a lot of money. From what I know of Universities UK, we must watch out for the next round, because it asked for an extra

  457
  £8 billion in the last round. Universities are in sore straits over funding. Here is an equitable means of seeking some relief from their present predicament, and I think that we should take it.
  Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I cannot support these amendments because I fear that they would leave the universities in the worst possible position: no sign of extra cash coming down the system that is clear and unambiguous and, at the same time, an extra layer of regulation and bureaucracy. Tying those two together causes real difficulty.
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I share the views just expressed by the noble Lord. Of course in an ideal world I would not wish to see tuition fees at all, as I have already said. However, the noble Baroness makes the important point that, even if her amendment is rejected, there will be a striking shortfall between what the universities need and what they will get now. In her reply to the amendment, will the Minister tell us what the Government will do about that? Since there is no immediate prospect of the implementation of the tax rates that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, proposes, I predict that the Minister's answer will be that the amendment would result in a colossal shortfall. I would say to the Minister that we will have a colossal shortfall anyway, although the noble Baroness's amendment might double it. Even if it is not doubled, the shortfall will be very large. I wish to hear some words of comfort from the Minister. She made me happy the other evening, but I would be surprised if she made me happy today.
  The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I can do no better than second the Eeyore-like tones of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. I am glad that he said what he said.
  Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I have not spoken in our discussions on the Bill before, so I should declare an interest as Pro-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham. I shall tell the noble Baroness why I cannot support the amendments.
  Most universities—certainly the one with which I am involved—do not wish to become nationalised industries. We do not wish to depend for all our financing on the general taxpayer. Nor do we think that it would be a sound basis, as it has not proved to be a sound basis in the past. So, the noble Baroness takes us up to a high mountain and shows us the many wonderful pastures laid out, after they have introduced a 50 per cent rate of income tax for those earning over £100,000—a move that may be some way off—but, in the end, it is not an attractive vista. The attractions of the Government's proposals, which are not perfect, are that they give us a little more autonomy with regard to the resources that we receive.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and so many other noble Lords who have made important points on what, I presume, are the wrecking
  458
  amendments to which the noble Baroness referred. I sense a shudder from the Liberal Democrat Benches, but I did not use the term; the noble Baroness used it. I am sorry for teasing, but I cannot resist it.
  I am sorry that I will not make the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, as happy as I made him the other evening. In all our debates, noble Lords in all parts of the Committee have recognised the shortfall that universities face. This is part of the answer, not the whole answer.
  I have indicated how university funding will grow over the next few years. We will get to £10 billion by 2005–06, if my memory serves me correctly. It will be additional funding of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, suggested, allowing universities to use as they see fit within the context of what has been said about the Director of Fair Access. I accept that it is not the complete answer, but it is progress. It is important to recognise that. I am sure that Universities UK, an organisation that represents the universities, individual institutions and, not least, noble Lords will say clearly and often to us that it is important that we continue to consider what else we can do to support universities.
  We should reject the amendments because. as noble Lords have said, they would take away not only what we propose in the Bill, which is additional funding, but the £800 million that universities collect in addition in fees. That would lead to job losses and to cuts in the number of places, and it is not in keeping with the spirit of the Liberal Democrats to want to do that. I know that the noble Baroness has moved the amendment from the perspective of a potential Liberal Democrat government. Their commitments, should they be in power, have been made clear.
  I shall concentrate on what I call the art of the possible. It is important that we recognise the number of calls upon the Exchequer and the fact that the things that governments can do across a spectrum of activity are inevitably curtailed by the amount of money available. The noble Baroness should reflect on whether a Chancellor of the Exchequer of Liberal Democrat or other hue would make this area the primary focus for additional spending.
  As it is part of the area for which I have responsibility in the department, I have made much play of the disparity between the amount of money that we spend on younger children and the amount spent on students. However, it is true that we spend far less on our youngest children. As I have said in the House many times, we are aware that, by the age of 22 months, the difference in background between children is evident in their ability to achieve. Our desire is for universities to reach out into communities that have no tradition of university education, but universities have been quick to say—rightly—that it is the responsibility of government to ensure that children get the best possible start in life, in order to obtain the educational qualifications that will entitle them to apply to those universities.
  For this Government, it is imperative that we see that our funding goes to the areas of government expenditure that need it most. As the Committee

  459
  knows, the situation is that the annual sum spent per student is about £5,000, whereas we spend £1,775 on a three year-old. The noble Baroness said that we may be at saturation point. I disagree. There is far more that we can do in the Sure Start programme. I will not take up the Committee's time, but I hope that I have made that point clearly.
  It does not provide much comfort for the universities to assume that a Liberal Democrat Chancellor of the Exchequer would make them the first port of call. I do not believe that that would necessarily be the case. It is important that we go back to where the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, came in on the matter of who should take responsibility for paying. He said that it should be a combination, with society, in the shape of government, paying the most, but we should also recognise that, as we have said, university students gain a great deal from a university education. We should look elsewhere—to industry, endowments and so on—to see what more we can do to support universities. That is important for universities. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank noble Lords who participated in the debate. I am sorry that more did not support me, but I must, like Mandy Rice Davies, say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?".
  It is appropriate that there should be one party in the Chamber that says that there is an alternative. Most noble Lords who are connected with universities have swallowed hook, line and sinker the view that the Government and Universities UK have taken; namely, that there is no alternative. We have argued consistently that there is an alternative. Funding universities from the public purse, from taxation, is a feasible alternative. We are not a highly taxed country, and an extra band of income tax would not be impossible to consider or live with. The Committee has rejected that notion, and I take that on board.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said that universities did not want to be a nationalised industry: they are already. Whether they like it or no, they will remain a largely nationalised industry. They will remain substantially dependent on the public sector for financing. There will be no real alternative to that. We cannot have it both ways. It cannot be argued that universities are not under the control of the government, while rejecting what we say about the cap being lifted as soon as it can be. It will not. The Government control the cap completely.
  I return to what I said: there is a degree of hypocrisy. I understand what has been said, but my job, as an Opposition spokesman, is to point out that there is a viable alternative. It works in some countries; the Scandinavian countries have a system whereby universities are generously financed by the state. It works. In some of those countries, there are extremely highly achieving universities.
  We are contemplating a world that is, in many senses, different from the current one. We are contemplating a world in which there is a more open
  460
  university system. This morning, we talked about the concept of the climbing frame for e-learning and about the ease with which people will move in and out. Those issues are for another day. I am sorry that I did not find more support in the Committee. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
  4 p.m.
  Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 9, line 18, at end insert ", and
  ( ) to ensure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no qualifying fees are charged to any eligible student for any academic year beyond the first three years of a first degree course."
  The noble Lord said: I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who first raised the subject of fairness. This amendment will ensure that under Clause 23(1) the governing body of the relevant institutions will not be able to charge fees above the basic rate for any qualifying course beyond the first three years of a first degree course. In other words, I propose that those studying for courses such as architecture, veterinary sciences, dental sciences and medicine will be able to complete any extra years required without having to bear the cost of the fees.
  I am grateful to the British Medical Association for raising this problem with us. It has calculated that the measures contained in the Bill could lead to a medical student in London incurring a maximum debt of just over £64,000. It claims that the Government have not produced any figures whatever to disprove that, and it argues that a student's family with a residual income of £20,000 will be committing itself to 91 per cent more debt if the student chooses to study medicine rather than follow a three-year degree. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could enlighten me as to her thoughts regarding the position of such students.
  The increased levels of debt that medical students will incur will cause them to think twice about studying medicine, regardless of their social background. Laboratory-based subjects, such as medicine, are among the most expensive courses for a university to provide, with teaching costs per student of around £10,500 a year. Thus, those universities are likely to charge the maximum fee of £3,000.
  It is true that in his wind-up speech at Second Reading the Secretary of State announced that a "gateway to the professions" review will begin, but only after the Bill is passed, in order to assess the impact of variable fees on such professionals and to look into this area further. I argue that we should put this amendment in place to ensure that, in a comparison of the effect of variable fees on such professions, they are on a par with those for other undergraduate courses and between themselves in so much as they can be for this review. We should not wait up to seven years for a medic fully to complete his or her training before a full and proper assessment can be made of the detrimental effect or otherwise of variable fees.
  Architects are in much the same position. The figure of £30,000 of debt incurred by one of my noble friend's research assistants, to whom I referred the other day, would be about half what she would need once this Bill is enacted, should she elect to follow one of these professional degree courses. As I said, not being in the public sector, architects are as badly off, if not worse off. They have to study for live years in the institution and for two years in practice before passing their professional exams.
  I calculate that the average debt per student will be at least £57,000 in London. I accept that that figure may be a little lower elsewhere. But it is not generally realised that during the two years of practical experience that they must undertake as part of their professional course, they are very badly paid. I believe that the average is about £10,000 a year. They have to subsidise their own living costs. and therefore the £57,000 debt that I mentioned is probably on the modest side.
  Whatever happens to student fees once the Bill is on the statute hook, I am concerned that all students, whatever they choose to study, should be treated equally and fairly. I beg to move.
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I support the point made by my noble friend, although I am not sure that I fully agree with the solution that he proposes. As many noble Lords will know, quite a few first degree courses in English universities are now four-year courses. In a number of universities, that is certainly true in the case of the sciences and engineering. That means that many students on those courses will be faced with a heavier debt burden in terms of fees, and no doubt in terms of maintenance. These are sometimes the very subjects that the Government are trying to encourage. In fact, it is not so long ago that I read about a Minister— presumably in the Department for Education and Skills—who said that the Government were giving consideration to waiving, or diminishing in some way, fees for courses in physics. Noble Lords opposite will be aware of the dire situation of applications, and consequently of admissions, in subjects such as physics and chemistry. Therefore, there will be very serious consequential end products when this Bill is implemented.
  My noble friend made the case for medicine. Although some medics may well earn a very healthy income when they graduate, I am not certain that they will earn that much more than lawyers, for example. Some lawyers complete their graduation procedures—certainly their initial procedures—more rapidly than medics. My noble friend also mentioned architecture. That is a very good case in point. As I understand it, the current level of unemployment for architecture graduates is fairly high. One can predict a complete collapse of applications in architecture if the point made by my noble friend is not taken on board.
  The only thing that prevents me giving my wholehearted support to the amendment is that, as on a previous occasion only an hour or two ago, the issue of university income has not been sufficiently considered. The consequence of this amendment is to
  462
  deny additional fee income to the universities. If my noble friend had said that students should be obliged to pay only three years' worth of tuition fees for their first degree, or whatever the correct terminology may be, and that, beyond that, it would be paid by the Government, the consequence of the amendment would not be a reduction in the income to universities. I disagreed only a few moments ago with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. precisely because the consequence would be a striking reduction in university income with no evident compensation in the near future, despite her understandable aspirations to be the Minister for Education in just a couple of years' time.
  I very much take the weight of the point made by my noble friend, but I do not think that the answer is simply to say, "Let the universities take the pain and pay the difference" because, as we have heard, and as the noble Baroness opposite has more or less acknowledged, they cannot afford to.
  Lord Skelmersdale: Does my noble friend accept that I am trying to amend the Bill, not the Red Book?
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: It would have been a simple matter in amending the Bill, with all respect, to table an amendment along the lines that I have just indicated.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope that when the noble Baroness replies to the debate she does not simply say that everything will be all right after the review. This is basic to the Government's policy. They are talking of fees for students. Many students have to study for more than three years and all the circumstances prevail that have been mentioned. The Bill simply must not leave Parliament with those people uncatered for. It is no good hiding behind a review. I hope that the noble Baroness does not do that.
  The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: As with Amendment No. 37, my initial reaction is that the amendment has noble aspirations. However, on reflection I am not convinced that in the long term it would be equitable. I know that architects are not paid as well as general practitioners. I am glad, for example, that noble Lords have repeatedly referred in the discussions on the Bill to the fact that academics are not adequately paid. However, I do not think that that is the way to deal with the problem. Therefore, I am reluctant to support the amendment.
  I should like to ask for a point of clarification. I do not know whether this should be addressed to the noble Lord moving the amendment or to the Minister. I am someone who was sensible enough to go to a Scottish university, rather than to an English one, which had a four years honours course and where an MA is awarded for work rather than for money. I should like to know whether, if I had a fifth child and she or he wanted, from a Fareham base, to study at a

  463

  Scottish university where the four year honours course is de rigeur, that child would benefit from the amendment.
  Lord Winston: Very briefly, it is my impression that in other countries such as the United States where students continue to pay fees for a particular course as long as they are at university, this has not acted as a major disincentive for entry to a particular course. When the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she might address what evidence there is from other countries which have such experience. I think that would help in consideration of the amendment.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: First, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that I do not intend to hide behind anything; that is not my wont. However, I shall be talking about the review because it is important in this context, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has just challenged me to produce evidence from other countries. I am not sure whether I shall be able to do that in the course of my reply. None the less, it is important to look carefully. These are important issues and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for ensuring that we are debating these issues because they are of great significance.
  I understand the issues raised by noble Lords about considering the package of support, particularly in the context raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, of architects and doctors or medics. But, as the noble Lord said, there are other professions in this context too.
  I shall speak briefly about the five main groups which have been mentioned: education—interestingly, education was not raised but noble Lords would be astonished if I did not raise it—medicine and dentistry, which are linked; architecture, and veterinary medicine. I shall speak first about what happens in education because it is important to give a flavour of what is being undertaken. This is not about leaving things until the legislation takes effect; it is about looking at what happens now.
  Those who train as teachers by taking a postgraduate course do not have to pay the standard fee for that course and we provide incentives: a £6,000 training bursary to students on postgraduate certificate of education (PGCE) courses and a £4,000 golden "hello" for those who qualify as teachers in priority subjects, which is about one-third of those students. The department is spending about £230 million in 2003–04 on those measures and we believe that that is working. Noble Lords may be interested to know—I was surprised at the figures—that there are 50 per cent more teachers training than there were five years ago, which is an indication of the popularity of teaching.
  I turn to medical and dentistry students. As noble Lords will know, my department has responsibility for fee support for English domiciled medical and dentistry students in years one to four. During that time those students have the same support as other
  464
  eligible higher education students. They also benefit from the additional week's loan entitlement when their term lasts longer than the usual 30 weeks.
  Currently, medical and dentistry students have their fees paid for the fifth year and, where there is one, the sixth year of their courses by the National Health Service. In addition, as noble Lords will know in years five and six they may also receive a means-tested NHS bursary of up to £2,703 in London. They also remain eligible for the lower level of student loan for living costs.
  We do not anticipate that there will be a significant effect on applications for these courses as a result of the introduction of higher fees, particularly when we look at the existing situation. Applications to medical schools have gone up since 1998.
  The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, talked about the BMA £64,000 debt figures. There are some issues about how those figures were arrived at. We have calculated that the maximum a six-year medical student will owe is likely to be around £40,000. Of course many students will owe far less than that because of the grants and bursaries.
  The average figure for newly qualified medical graduates in hospital posts is about £35,000 per annum. They would be paying back £34.62 per week on the basis of the proposals. I add that at the moment they pay £43.27. In that sense they would be paying back a lower amount.
  As we have said, we shall continue to monitor demand for and take up of places on medical courses after the introduction of fees and we will consider measures to safeguard the supply of students.
  The noble Lord focused particularly on architecture. My next comments will be on that because I believe it is very important. Currently the five-year course of undergraduate study is covered by the same package of student support as that of other full-time students. Interestingly, architecture features one of the biggest increases in accepted applications. Architecture courses have seen a rise of 10.3 per cent in the last year, which demonstrates its popularity as a profession.
  Once an architecture graduate starts working after his or her course, he or she would be no worse off in terms of monthly repayments. In fact, an architecture graduate on £18,000 per year, which I believe is the figure for an architectural assistant, will be £37.50 per month better off than he or she is now.
  I recognise noble Lords' concerns about the professions. We recognise that we need to ensure that we measure the effect on the professions and safeguard them.
  At this point I shall enter the world of the review by Sir Alan Langlands, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Dundee, who is a very eminent gentleman.
  Lord Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend to ask her to clarify something, which

  465
  perhaps many understand but I do not. Are these repayment figures on gross income or on net income after tax?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: it is on gross income. I hope that answers that question.
  Lord Skelmersdale: I thought it was net—after tax, in other words.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The question I thought was when you are earning £15,000 a year, which is a gross figure, that would be the amount that would be paid. If that was not the question that the noble Lord asked me then I shall deal with the one he did ask. But the gross figure when one starts to repay is 15,000 plus. That is the question I thought the noble Lord asked. If it was not, I am quite happy to answer his question appropriately.
  The important purpose of Sir Alan's report is to look at sustaining and improving recruitment opportunities for graduates.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am most grateful to the Minister. I am now confused on this point. The Minister seemed to imply that the sum was gross, which would imply that the repayment was not subject to tax. Surely the position is that it is net; that the loan has to be paid out of income after tax has been paid.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that. I thought I heard a different question, which is whether we were describing the £15,000 as net or gross. It is gross. I hope that clarifies the position. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for doing so.
  Lord Campbell-Savours: The point I am making is that the actual figure is nearer £60 out of gross income.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: If the noble Lord wishes to look at it in that way then he would not be incorrect. Actually, it is quite common to look at net figures in terms of the repayments. I do not think I have misled anyone in what I have been saying. Indeed, I suspect that everyone was aware of what I was trying to say. But if my noble friend has further problems with that, I shall be very happy to write or to discuss the matter with him.
  The purpose of Sir Alan's review is very important. It will be reporting by mid 2005. That is also important in the light of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It is very important that the review takes place. It is looking at the recruitment and sustaining of the professions. Sir Alan is well placed to be able to do that.
  However, that does not mean that in the mean time employers in both the private and public sectors would not he trying to ensure that we do not deter students from joining the professions, which are so important. It is very important in that context to refer back to what the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said about a misinterpretation with regard to physics. It was not the
  466
  Government but some institutions that were beginning to think about variability. The point about variability, as I have said before in this Chamber, is the ability to vary fees downwards, so that universities have the opportunity, if they so wish—and it is entirely up to them—to recruit more physics students and to vary the fee downwards.
  That is an important part of setting universities free to think about opportunities. The disadvantage of a fixed fee is that it is a fixed fee, and that is it. But there are opportunities to do things that are slightly different.
  Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I will develop a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, with respect to physics and engineering, but more generally with respect to the natural sciences, where there are four-year courses. These are not areas where recruitment is buoyant; they are areas where recruitment is difficult because of the numbers of qualified sixth formers. They are also areas where costs of provision of courses are high. They are important to the country and to schools, because these are areas where we desperately need more teachers who have studied the subjects in depth. They are also areas where many universities have closed their departments. King's College, London has closed its chemistry department. A recent casualty is Swansea, which is closing its department. We cannot wait for a review before we know what the terms and conditions for students studying the natural sciences on four-year courses will be.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am not suggesting that we have to wait for a review to look at the terms and conditions. We have set this out clearly. As the noble Baroness will know, many of the courses that she describes are three-year courses. We are clear about the package of student support that we have offered to students. The noble Baroness made an important point. As Minister last year with responsibility for science, I was much taken in talking to people in chemical engineering, civil engineering, physics. and other sciences to ensure that we are able to recruit the right numbers of students with the right kind of qualifications into the right professions.
  That is why in teaching, for example, we offer packages to try to encourage people to think about going into those areas of teaching where we have shortages. That is very important, and it is important to the private sector as well; it is not just a public sector phenomenon. These are issues that are in our minds at all times, in our discussions with universities, and universities in their discussions with other bodies. The point about Sir Alan Langlands's work is to focus specifically on what more we would and should be doing. It is important to allow that work to take place, but it is in conjunction with public, private and voluntary sector employers. It is not just about what the Government do.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Baroness could ease our minds considerably if she acknowledged that

  467
  some of these longer courses are in fact the most valuable in terms of the professions and the subjects taught. There is the corollary, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, of the closure of the science department at Swansea. That is because of the proliferation of the less worthwhile courses. An assurance that these longer, more worthwhile courses will be safeguarded—and similarly that the proliferation of the less worthwhile courses will be discouraged—would be reassuring.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is not for the Government to discourage universities from putting on the courses that they think are appropriate. I would not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in determining that long equals better. For example, in this country we are desperately short of social workers, who have three-year courses. We really need to enhance that profession, for all the reasons that have been too evident in recent times. Noble Lords know well that those are three-year courses, and they are important to this country. There are many two-year foundation degrees that are important. It is not that long equals important, but I accept the critical importance of some of the professions. I do not dispute that for one moment. That is why the NHS plays the part that it does in paying off fees. That is why we are looking to ensure that the professions have the opportunity. We should value that.
  We would not wish to support the amendments for the reasons that have been given. We do, I hope, wish to engender a sense in the House that we recognise the value and importance of the professions, and that as a government we will work with the professions and with the universities, also through Sir Alan Langlands's review, to ensure that we do as much as we can to support, sustain, encourage and grow in all the professions— however long the courses are—to ensure that we have the right numbers of people that we need to create the society that we all want.
  Lord Sewel: Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I advise her to address, either now or later in the debate, the question that was raised on the position of English-domiciled students studying in Scotland, and Scottish-domiciled students studying in England. This question was raised by the right reverend Prelate. Does she have a comment on the pernicious argument that is being heard in Scotland that somehow Scottish universities should limit the number of English-domiciled students attending Scottish universities?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord will understand that I would rather leave a discussion of the second issue until a later stage, when we will have the opportunity to debate that, either today or at another time, but certainly during the passage of the Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is very keen to ensure that we do. At the present time, the Quigley arrangements are in place, which is that the fourth year is paid. Fourth year fees are waived for
  468
  English students in Scotland. The Scottish Executive is considering the future position and we are expecting a report shortly.
  Lord Sewel: Many of us will be influenced in our attitude to the Bill by the view the Scottish Executive takes, and we will wish to have that position resolved before we have to take a definitive view on the Bill.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: That may well be the case, but it is for the Scottish Executive to determine that.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Before the noble Baroness sits down, might it not have been very much simpler if all these matters had been resolved under the "Sewel procedure" and then we would not be in the position where we were having to wait for the Scottish Executive?
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: While we are on the subject of Scotland, have the Government talked to the Scottish universities and, indeed, the Scottish Executive, about their present system and how they deal with fees which are paid later on courses which are four years or more? There is a system which has worked up to now and it will have to be changed because of the Bill. There is a system which has worked regarding the fees for doctors, architects, and so on. Has the Minister talked to the Scottish Executive? Or if she cannot wait for that she could talk to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who is Vice-Principal of the University of Aberdeen, who knows very much more about that than I do.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I have deep reluctance about getting into a debate on Scottish issues at this stage, for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows. But there are always dialogues about what is happening in the UK and Scotland, and I argue that we have in place some very good mechanisms for courses that are four years and beyond. What we have asked Sir Alan Langlands to do, in the light of our new proposals, is to look at a range of issues concerning sustainability and improvement for those we wish to attract into the profession. I believe that is the way forward.
  Lord Skelmersdale: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and particularly, perhaps, to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, for putting her finger on the point I was trying to make, which was about the review and the timing of the review, and things like that. I am grateful too to my noble friend Lord Renfrew for his—how can I describe it?—half-hearted support for my ideas.
  The question by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was very fair. I am afraid I cannot answer it; nor indeed could the Minister. But I am sure that from one or other source he will get an answer in due course, probably in writing.
  As to the English/Scottish border issues, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and my noble friend Lord Forsyth. If the Committee and individual

  469
  Members of the Committee would be prepared to contain their souls' impatience for what I hope will be only a little longer, all—or perhaps not, but certainly a certain amount—-will be revealed.
  The problem with the Minister's arguments was that she was mixing up two things. If this debate were being conducted in a different atmosphere—and perhaps in a different place—I might have commented on the Government producing subsidies, even bribery, to get people to work in the public sector, in the teaching profession, in the university and academic world, in medicine, and so on. But although it was the BMA that raised the problem with me I am much more concerned with those professional courses that rarely lead to public sector jobs. Therefore, I shall have to consider carefully what the Minister said.
  The Minister did not tell me when the department is planning to publish its assessment of the new fees system—either her own department or the Department of Health. Nor did she indicate how long the -gateway to the professions" review will take and when it will report, although she told me who was undertaking it, for which I am grateful. It may be my fault for not hearing her say it, but given that we are more and more pressed for time I do not expect her to answer now. I shall read Hansard carefully and if necessary correspond with her before deciding what to do in the future. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 not moved.]
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment
  No. 46:
  Page 10. line 20, at end insert—
  "( ) In imposing any condition under this section, the funding authorities shall have regard to the position of part-time and mature students."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 88 and 104. Amendment No. 46 is a small and seemingly innocuous amendment. Its main purpose is to add to Clause 23 that for any conditions imposed by the English funding bodies under the clause the same funding authorities shall have regard to the position of part-time and mature students. All the other amendments in this group relate to the position of part-time and mature students.
  I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, would be able to move his Amendment No. 66, but he has unfortunately had to leave for another engagement. I believe he has asked for his amendment to be degrouped and will speak separately to it later.
  Because your Lordships have heard my voice rather often I had hoped that other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rix, would take the main part of the debate. I do not want to spend too long explaining what it is all about because I know that others wanted to say a great deal. But I shall set the scene. As many of your Lordships know there are 1,800,000 students
  470
  in Britain today. Of that 1,800,000 students. 800,000 are part-timers; 42 per cent of the students in Britain today.
  We have two specialist institutions for part-timers. The Open University, which is far and away the largest of any of our universities, has over 200,000 students. Birkbeck College, which is a specialist college for part-timers within the London University complex, has about 3,000 students. But as is apparent, other universities, particularly but not exclusively the post-1992 universities, also cater extensively for part-time students.
  Yet in the Bill there is only one mention of part-time students. That is in Clause 38, where it is proposed that all the provisions should not apply to part-time students. But, as I say, there are very large numbers of such students in this country.
  When we were discussing the 50 per cent target we referred to the expansion of universities, to the development of foundation degrees—I, for one, am sorry that we have dropped the term "HND" in favour of "foundation degree"—and to the fact that many of those whom we are now trying to attract to degree level education and level four training of one kind or another will be part-timers. It is therefore extremely important that we consider the position of part-timers within the package of proposals being put forward.
  Most of these people will be doing precisely what the Government want them to do—that is, improving themselves; upgrading their skills and working for vocational and technical qualifications. Many of them will enter two-year courses as stepping stones to further qualifications. Given the emphasis that the Government place on this new part-time route to higher education and wider participation, it is illogical that they should ignore part-time students in the Bill. As I said, the only reference is in Clause 38(1), which excludes part-time courses from consideration. In addition, there was hardly any mention of part-time students in the White Paper.
  It is a myth that most part-time students are funded by their employers. Only one-fifth are funded by their employers; four-fifths pay their own fees. As has been remarked, part-time students are already paying fees up front and qualify for little, if any, support towards their expenses while they are studying.
  As I said, there was hardly any mention of part-timers in the White Paper; their fees are paid up front and they have little access to loans. Whereas full-time students are now being offered the facility of substantial loans which have to be paid back after graduation, part-timers have to pay everything up front.
  This catches some institutions and part-time students in two ways. Currently the average fee is £570 a year. If there is no increase in the fee level, institutions with part-time students will not gain the increased income of other universities and will be disadvantaged in that respect. As far as the students are concerned, they will have no access to low-interest loans. There is a means-tested £250 grant for part-time students, but many of them have no access to that

  471
  grant and receive no help with living costs. Given the generous terms now being offered to full-time students, many people may prefer not to study part-time and switch to being full-time students. So the present proposals discriminate against both institutions and part-time students to some extent.
  Given the fact that there will now be fees and that living costs are rising, many students who wish to follow the part-time route may feel that the present package discriminates against them and be dissuaded from taking it. Rather than taking on debt, they may feel that they do not want to move into higher education at all.
  In conclusion, perhaps I may make one suggestion as to what might be done for part-timers. As I have indicated, four-fifths of part-time students are paying their own fees. Those fees are paid from taxed income. In most cases, they are paying those fees in order to take courses that upgrade their skills and improve their qualifications. Where that is the case, would it not be reasonable for the Government to grant them tax relief on the fees that they have paid? Will the Government consider that idea? Given that employers are able to write off fees as an expense against their tax liabilities, it would be quite reasonable perhaps for individual students to be able to do so too. With that thought in mind, I beg to move.
  Baroness Lockwood: I have tabled two amendments in this group. Amendment No. 84 is limited in its scope, but it would ensure that part-time courses are included in the plans that higher education institutions have to prepare under the new access arrangements. It would not mean that universities and other institutions have to include part-time courses, but where they do make such provision, those courses would be regarded as a part of their access programme.
  My second amendment, Amendment No. 105, is more extensive in its scope. It would remove the exclusion of part-time education from the provisions of the Act as set out in Clause 38(1). The amendment would provide for the inclusion of part-time courses that last for at least one year and/or part-time courses that do not exceed twice the length of full-time courses. That would enable most university part-time courses to come within the scope of the Bill and enable part-time students to have the same financial provisions on a pro rata basis as full-time students.
  In moving her own amendment on this issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, went into great detail about the disadvantages faced by part-time students when compared with full-time students. I do not intend to repeat what she said, but I endorse completely the case that she is putting forward for the inclusion of part-time students. After all, 42 per cent represents a high proportion of those in higher education. If, as we are led to believe, part-time study is to become a major part of widening access, we surely need to remove the distinction between the two groups.
  472
  The institutions providing part-time courses need the same support for those courses as they do for their full-time courses. Again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has indicated, the institutions which concentrate entirely on part-time study—like Birkbeck College and the Open University—are at a particular disadvantage. Birkbeck in particular feels there is a danger that, if it were to introduce a pro rata increase in fees, its students—who largely pay their own fees—would withdraw from higher education altogether. That is something we do no want to happen. I would like the Minister to comment on this anomaly in the system.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I share some of the concerns that have already been expressed about the differences in treatment between part-time and full-time students. I hope that noble Lords will agree that OFFA ought not to micro-manage institutions' widening participation strategies. OFFA should be concerned with widening participation and efforts to widen access generally, and not with reference either to particular courses of study—which is the subject of other amendments—and which I am very concerned about, or particular modes of study, such as part-time.
  There is nothing in this legislation that would prevent institutions from making specific reference to part-time students in their plans. However, neither is there anything to require it, and I think that is the right approach. I note too that efforts to reach out to potential students are likely to impact on students' decisions to embark on both full-time and part-time courses. In terms of outreach activities, it is as likely that part-time student numbers will be increased as full-time students.
  Noble Lords will know that Universities UK has pressed the Government for movement towards greater equity of treatment between full and part-time students. Part-time students account for 40 per cent of all students in higher education. That proportion is bound to increase, as is movement—and again my noble friend Lady Lockwood has mentioned this—by individual students from full-time to part-time courses and vice versa, as current trends already show. I believe that point has been consistently made by Members of this House, and as I understand it, the Government have taken note of it. In fact, I recall a helpful statement by the Minister in another place, where he recognised that the Government had some way to go. However, I do welcome that statement and I welcome the recognition that there is more to be done.
  To be fair to the Government, they have begun to move in the right direction by announcing real improvements to the support available to part-time students—including the introduction of grants, albeit at a low level. I join noble Lords in calling on the Government to address this at the earliest opportunity. However, I accept that improvements to the support available to part-time students, including fee support, needs to be made on the basis of evidence. We are rather lacking in evidence about the nature of

  473
  part-time students across the board. I support the Government's intention to include part-time students in the Student Income and Expenditure Survey, but I think the Government will be judged on whether—once that survey produces its results—they act on the basis of the evidence produced, and come forward with appropriate proposals.
  One other point is that the costs for teaching part-time students have not been fully recognised in the English Funding Council's funding methodology. I know that that has been a cause of great concern to universities, particularly those with large numbers of part-time students. Noble Lords, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, have spoken eloquently on behalf of the Open University, and my noble friend Lady Lockwood has also referred to the OU and to Birkbeck. I warmly welcome their staunch support of those institutions in this House. I also welcome the review of the HEFCE funding methodology which the funding council is currently undertaking. Can the Minister offer an assurance that the results of that review will be taken into account when the Government consider the funding of the sector in the next spending review?
  Lord Dearing: I do not wish to speak to the amendments and I wish to be very brief. If I recall, more people spoke on the part-time issue at Second Reading than on any other. They and many outside this Chamber will he hoping today to hear some further enlightenment from the Minister on the direction in which the Government's thinking is going.
  Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I yield to no one in my admiration for part-time students hut, in my experience, they are an extremely heterogeneous group that includes the most prosperous students in the country. That is because if one is doing a job that pays reasonably well, one will think twice about becoming a full-time student, but one may have the energy to be a part-time student. Time was—not very long ago—when some universities, such as the University of Essex, at which I then taught, had a rule that part-time study was open only to those in employment who could get minor release from their employers for their study.
  We should not imagine that part-time students are, without exception, among the needier category of students. I hope that their needs will be addressed but I do not think that it can be done, as it were, in passing in this legislation, because of the complexity and diversity of the category's composition. The same goes for mature students, who often include people doing a second BA, having perhaps already been publicly funded for their first BA and now thinking that they will move their interests into a new field of endeavour.
  Of course, there are extremely needy cases among part-time students, as among full time-students. That often owes to caring or childcare obligations.
  474
  However, there are very complicated issues about the incentives for part-time and full-time study, so I hope that we will not hurry in that area.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On the other hand, the Open University, on the council of which I had the privilege of serving for 12 years, as well as serving on its finance committee, has a very large number of students who either do not work or earn low salaries. The Open University takes a great deal of trouble to test the market when it sets its fees. It has variable fees, and they vary very much according to what it thinks that potential students will pay.
  I had not prepared a speech about the Open University because I hoped that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who is its chancellor, would have done so. However, she has not been able to at tend this afternoon. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is not in her place either; she knows the subject very well because of Birkbeck College. I cannot fill in all the details at the moment, but I note that the Open University is very anxious that there be some first-aid measure in the Bill to carry it through until the review is complete, so that it can take advantage of it.
  The Open University has estimated what would happen if it set its fees at £1,500 per part-time course, which would match the £3,000 for full-time students. It now has 140,000 undergraduates, and it would have only 14,000 as a result of those fees, taking into account the recent announcement of grants. There is a very serious problem for the Open University. Everyone in the Committee knows that it is hugely important in our undergraduate provision. It would be disastrous if the Bill, in attempting to help full-time students, had that effect on the Open University.
  I hope that the Government are taking the matter very seriously. Representatives of the Open University have apparently met Ministers twice so far, and have not had much help. I do not believe that the Government realise quite what they are doing to the Open University with the Bill. It is such a success. with its variable fees, that it is easy to think that that success will continue. However, the Bill will have an enormous effect on it. I hope that we will see some amendment before the Bill leaves Parliament.
  Baroness Seccombe: The question of funding for part-time students was eloquently raised, as we have heard, by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. She highlighted the fact that despite this Bill's proposal to raise £1 billion, not one penny of that money will go to institutions such as the Open University or Birkbeck College. Part-time students make up just over 40 per cent of all students in higher education, almost all of them being aged over 21.
  This seems to me just another example of a lack of joined-up thinking by the Government. There is a technical flaw in the Bill: the Government cannot impose top-up fees on the higher education institutions who cater for full-time students without giving special consideration to the treatment of part-time students. They must not just pay the lip service that has been paid so far. This is the only way to ensure

  475
  that they are not financially disadvantaged in the marketplace, leaving their students swimming in a pool of uncertainty.
  The Universities' Association for Adult Continuing Education (UACE) argues that this Bill is inequitable because it excludes dealing with the issue of part-time students. As pointed out by so many noble Lords, there are major concerns that higher education institutions that teach part-time students will not have access to any of the new moneys that will flow via this Bill. The Government have proposed a review of funding to address the imbalance between part-time and full-time students, but as so many noble Lords have said, it is unlikely to take effect before 2007 at the earliest, and that is too far away.
  Despite the Minister's assurances at Second Reading that,
  "there is much that we have to offer the Open University in the passage of this Bill,"—[Official Report, 19/4/04; col. 15.]
  We understand that, despite meetings, there is currently nothing realistic on the table. Under the Government's current proposals on student finance as outlined in the Bill, from 2006 full-time students will pay back their fees after graduation. This is not true, however, for those on part-time courses. The student support arrangements are changing from 2004 to give them means-tested grants of up to 50 per cent of the full-time fee—estimated at £575. Those on incomes of between £14,600 and £21,487 will get partial support. Part-time loans are being replaced by a course grant of up to £250, and institutions can at their discretion waive part-timers' tuition fees. Unlike full-time courses, the fees for part-timers already vary according to the course being studied.
  There will be no facility for part-time students to repay their fees at a rate they can afford, or benefit from interest-free repayments. Employers will help some students, but not many. About 16 per cent of Open University students receive financial help from their employers. Surely it is in the interests of the economy that people are enabled to study flexibly on a part-time basis—because they can do so from home while continuing to work and, maybe, maintaining a family.
  Professor David Latchman of Birkbeck College argues that if the Government and the Higher Education Funding Council for England are serious about part-time study, they should "develop a funding system that supports it".
  So I ask the Minister: can she tell the House what her department has done to ensure that the resources available to the Open University to teach part-time undergraduate students are not less than those available to other institutions teaching full-time students? Can she comment on how she plans to increase unit funding for part-time students? What progress have the Government made on putting together an alternative "first-aid" solution, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, as an interim measure while awaiting this 2007 review?
  476
  This is a very important issue that highlights the one-sided priorities of this Government, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this issue.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am pleased that we have the opportunity to discuss part-time students. I say immediately to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that I am equally interested to hear her proposals on behalf of her party for part-time students in higher education. I agree that they are an important group of people and I hope to offer the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, further enlightenment—but the hour grows late and perhaps it will not be as enlightening as he would have hoped.
  I am sorry that we do not have with us today noble Lords for whom this is an issue of great passion and interest. As the group contains amendments tabled by noble Lords who are not present, I suspect that this may be the first of several debates on the subject. Perhaps I may therefore put on the record a reply which I hope will be of value overall, recognising that we may return to the subject during the Committee stage and at later stages of the Bill.
  Members of the Committee have indicated the important work of the Open University, and my views are in accordance with theirs. This party on this side of the Committee is rightly proud of the Open University because it is a great institution. I am sorry if it does not feel that my meetings with it were of great value. I understood from the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, when she left the meeting in which I took part with my right honourable friend the Minister for Higher Education, that she was satisfied with what we had discussed. If that is not the case, I shall endeavour to do better next time. Dialogues are in place and it is important that we continue to talk with the Open University and other institutions. I am sorry that I misinterpreted the situation.
  I also attended meetings in your Lordships' House with NIACE, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and am keen to continue that dialogue. My door, as they say, is open on that basis.
  The Open University accounts for only 20 per cent of the numbers of part-time higher education students in the UK, so it is right to indicate that 80 per cent of students are not of the OU. Therefore, this is an issue that we need to think of more broadly with institutions such as Birkbeck and many others. It is being said by your Lordships that not enough is being done to support students and I have sympathy with that view.
  I want to be clear from the beginning where we are with our support for part-time students. In my discussions with noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, I was able to explain for the benefit of noble Lords a little more about what we are currently doing. It is worth remembering, too, that as recently as 1997 there was no financial support of any kind for part-time students. I am therefore pleased that we have introduced measures designed to help part-time students, beginning with the fee-waiver

  477
  schemes managed by universities. We expanded the scheme in 1999–2000, as we did the hardship fund scheme. Part-time students as well as undergraduates and postgraduates who were in financial difficulties were entitled to some help.
  In 2000–01, statutory support for part-time students was introduced. As well as being eligible for a loan to cover course costs, part-time students also became eligible for disabled students allowances. That is important in enabling those with disabilities to access a range of non-repayable grants.
  In the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, which is familiar to the Committee, a specific amendment was made to ensure that part-time students applied to different learning courses as well as traditional study—an important area, I would argue. This meant that students at the Open University, studying for the first time, and other institutions which provide distance learning could receive statutory financial support.
  But as my right honourable friend the Minister for Higher Education said in another place, the Government have not paid enough attention to part-time students in the past. It is changing and I hope that noble Lords will recognise the steps we have taken so far.
  The White Paper in 2003 made the first commitment to statutory fee and course grant support—as opposed to loans—for part-time students. These new grants will come into force in the academic year 2004–05. This new package includes the fee grant of up to £575, which replaces the discretionary fee waiver scheme, and a course grant of up to £250 in place of the part-time loan. I make no bones about it—the loan system which we introduced in 2000–01 did not turn out to be popular. Take-up rates were disappointingly low. That reflects the fact that part-time students' needs are different from those of full-time students, whose take-up of maintenance loans is very high because they need the money to live on. We must think about treating part-time students equitably, but that does not mean treating them identically, because their needs are different.
  For the grants that have replaced fee loans, the income threshold for support is £14,600, which is higher than that which applied to part-time loans and the fee-waiver scheme. Unlike with part-time loans, for which entitlement was assessed on an all-or-nothing basis, students with incomes higher than the threshold will qualify for partial support. A single student with an income above £14,600 and up to £21,487 will be entitled to support on a sliding scale.
  Those new part-time grants will give better coverage than the loans that they replace. They are much more attractive because they are grants and no age limit applies—they are available to older students who would not have qualified for the loan. We are also trying to improve the discretionary help available to students through their institution. From 2004–05, part-time students can apply for childcare grants available from the Access to Learning fund. In addition. for the first time those studying less
  478
  intensively will qualify for support. Students who undertake taster modules will be eligible for fee waivers and course-related costs from the Access to Learning fund, subject to their income.
  That is a great deal of improvement over a relatively short time. Of course, we would like to do more, but we recognise that future improvements must target our resources in the best possible way. Before we can plan any changes, we need to know the circumstances of part-time students, particularly their incomes and the costs that they incur while studying. We wish to take steps to address that.
  Noble Lords would be concerned to see the Bill go by without having the opportunity to respond. Perhaps I can reassure them that it is true that the fee provisions in the Bill do not apply to part-time courses. However, part-time fees have always been unregulated and will continue to be so, therefore there is no need for the provisions to allow the variability that we propose for full-time courses.
  Fee deferral is dealt with in Clause 40, which is not restricted to full-time courses. We do not propose to extend fee deferral to part-time students, as noble Lords are aware. But the Bill's provisions are drafted sufficiently widely to allow us to do so in the future, if in the light of the evidence that we collect we wished to do that.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, said, the variety of part-time courses and students is wide. We are conducting another full-scale student income and expenditure survey. For the first time it will cover full-time and part-time students, young and mature, including those at the Open University. That will provide an authoritative study on higher-education students in the UK and in particular will take into account the new package for part-time students introduced this autumn. It will give us valuable data on part-time students that will enable us to consider future student support arrangements. That is a very important aspect.
  We have also commissioned through the Open University's Department of Educational Technology a small-scale survey in advance of the main one. which we hope will also help to inform our work. In the light of what Members of the Committee have said about teaching, it is worth saying that the Higher Education Funding Council for England is conducting a fundamental review of how it allocates its teaching funding. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in another place on 8 January, a major focus of that review will be how the funding system might further support the development of part-time study. That is another important part of our work.
  I am very conscious of time, so I shall respond briefly to the amendments that Members of the Committee have tabled. The effects of Amendment No. 46 are not clear. I can see what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, wishes to do, but it is not clear that there would be a meaningful legal effect on that basis. On Amendments Nos. 104 and 105, Members of the Committee will be aware that institutions have always

  479
  been free to determine the level at which fees are charged for part-time courses. It is up to institutions to determine that, and we do not believe that we should regulate part-time fees, as that would impose new restrictions on institutions where there had not been restrictions before. I do not believe that that would be the will of the Committee in any event.
  Noble Lords mentioned support for mature students, which is very important. Many of the proposals will help older students. They will also be the main beneficiaries of the adult dependants grant, which is worth £2,280. They will also be eligible for additional funding through the government-funded Access to Learning programme, which is administered by institutions. We are making progress in supporting mature students in the context that I have set out.
  I am reluctant to go into more detail, although I shall do so if the Committee wishes. I think that I have given a general overview of the direction in which the Government are moving. We have made inroads into supporting part-time students, and we recognise and value the role of the Open University and other institutions. We wish to conduct the survey. Clause 40 gives us scope to do something on fee deferral, if, in future, we wish to do so. I do not wish to regulate where we have not regulated before. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that full reply to our amendments. As other noble Lords mentioned, there was a great deal of discussion at Second Reading of the position of part-time students. I am sorry that the noble Baronesses, Lady Boothroyd and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, are not present. We will have a lot of discussion of the same issues, when the noble Lord, Lord Rix, brings his amendment back. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will talk to his amendment and wishes particularly to refer to the position of Birkbeck.
  As the Minister said, it is right and proper that the Government should know the dimensions of the problem. It is extraordinary that, until now, part-time students have not been included in the student income and expenditure survey. I welcome the fact that we will have the facts before us. I am pleased at the degree to which the Government have increased provision for part-time students over the past few years. As the Minister said, there was practically nothing back in 1997. Gradually, one or two things have come forward, and we are pleased to see that. However, as always, we must ask, "When is 'enough' enough?". It is something of a problem.
  In particular, I am glad to hear of the Minister's ongoing discussions with Birkbeck and the Open University. It is vital, as the Minister said, to remember that they are not the only institutions providing part-time education. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will be present on a subsequent occasion, given her experience at Birkbeck and the fact
  480
  that she is about to take up a post at the University of Greenwich. She speaks from a lot of experience and knows the problems that she will have to cope with.
  In the light of the fact that we shall return to the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 not moved.]
  Clause 23 agreed to.
  5.15 p.m.
  Clause 24 [Regulations under section 23(6) relating to basic or higher amount]:
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Forsyth of Drumlean moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 10, line 46, at end insert "and any such resolution of the House of Commons affecting English universities has been approved by a majority of members of Parliament representing English constituencies who are present and voting"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 50, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51 and 52. These amendments are about fairness. This Bill was passed by the other place by a majority of five. The subject of top-up fees is very controversial. The majority for the Bill was achieved with the votes of Scottish Members of Parliament, whose constituencies are unaffected by the provisions in this legislation.
  It seems to me that, if a controversial policy is to be imposed which requires students and their families to take on considerable financial obligations, it is entirely reasonable that that should be subject to the approval of the voters and that those who vote for it should be accountable to their voters. Scottish MPs are not accountable for their actions in the House of Commons to the constituents who are affected by any resolution made. Therefore, the amendments make it explicit that, where measures are introduced which apply solely to English constituencies, a majority of Members of Parliament must represent English constituencies.
  I shall not take up time by straying into territory which we can cover in a later amendment—Amendment No. 57. However, I want to repeat, and shall continue to repeat for as long as it remains the position, that I think it is perfectly scandalous that we have reached this stage in our discussion of the Bill and we still do not know what the position of Scottish students coming to English universities will be or, indeed, of English students going to Scottish universities because the Scottish Executive is having one of those rather fashionable reviews. It does not seem to me to be a very difficult problem for Ministers there to resolve. But I believe that it is extremely awkward, to say the least, that we are not in a position to consider the overall effect on English institutions and on English students going to Scotland because of Ministers' failure to address these matters.
  These amendments are confined solely to the perfectly reasonable proposition that those who take these highly controversial decisions should be limited

  481
  to those whose constituents are affected. I live in hope that the Minister will feel able to accept them. I beg to move.
  Lord Sewel: This really is a "Forsyth special", if I may say so. At one level, it can be read simply in terms of the specific provisions of the Bill; at the other, if the noble Lord is successful, I suspect that he will try to elevate it to a constitutional convention in terms of what is necessary in English legislation and its passage through the House of Commons. I do not believe that this Bill is the vehicle through which we should discuss or decide significant constitutional issues. Therefore, I shall merely refer to the impact of the amendment in terms of the Bill itself.
  There is a tension—I put it no stronger than that— in the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. In an earlier amendment—Amendment No. 36—he sought to impose a UK responsibility on the Secretary of State for Education; now, he wishes to exclude Scottish MPs from a significant area covered by the compass of the Bill. Therefore, there is a tension there whether we are talking about Scotland, England or the UK. I am afraid that these tensions will recur in a number of pieces of legislation which come from either Westminster or the Scottish Parliament.
  I am forced into saying that what disappoints me about the amendment is that we must recognise that, although legislative competence and executive responsibility in the area of higher education has been devolved, nevertheless we cannot speak about higher education in England and Scotland as being two hermetically sealed systems. There is an interaction. It is right that Scottish MPs in Westminster should be able to have a view and a vote on what is happening because the Bill will affect the nature of Scottish higher education.
  A story that I have repeated here at an earlier stage illustrates this point as regards top-up fees. English universities will find themselves in a more advantageous position so we may well get Scottish academics being tempted to English universities where at the same time it is possible that the fee provision in Scotland will be more advantageous to students. So, English domiciled students may well rush off to Scotland. There is the wonderful possibility of one charabanc colliding with another somewhere between Edinburgh and London to the devastation of the whole of the UK higher education system.
  A point I want to make is that the Bill has indirect implications for the whole nature of higher education in Scotland. The challenge must be to Government and to the Scottish Executive to work these things out. There are mechanisms in place—there were when I left the Government—to enable these kind of issues to be discussed and resolved so that we do not have a major destabilisation of the whole UK higher education system. Matters can be considered slightly more in advance of legislation than we seem to have achieved at this stage.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: In one sense this is a wrecking amendment. That could be quite attractive,
  482
  but it is more of a mischievous amendment. We have made clear that we are against all these fees. However, this is the trouble one gets with lopsided devolution. I would prefer devolution in the English regions and a degree of parity. However, that has not been the case.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that this is not the Bill to take on this issue if it is ever to be taken on. This is just not the place for it. I see the point that he makes. Real, proper, genuine devolution is the one way to solve it.
  The amendments are flawed. Noble Lords will notice that they refer to a resolution of each House of Parliament. If we are to have one rule for Members of Parliament in the other place, what about this place? How do we define a Scottish or a Welsh Peer? One thought I have had is that it might be a Peer of the Realm who spends perhaps 40 Saturday nights a year laying his or her head in Scotland or Wales—I did not say who with. We know about the London Scots and the London Welsh. If one were to consider how one would allocate English, Scottish or Welsh Peers, bearing in mind that there is a resolution to come before each House of Parliament, I would submit that the amendment is flawed. In any event, the ma in point is that it is totally mischievous and not well placed in the Bill.
  Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I feel compelled to support my noble friend in these amendments. Although I understand that there are, by a long way, issues other than devolution in the Bill, nevertheless it is entirely proper that the problems of devolution should be raised every time they are relevant to a particular Bill. My noble friend's amendments underline yet again the constitutional conundrum, indeed, the black hole, of the current Scottish devolution system. Until that is filled by a general solution, the only solution available to us is to raise this every time it arises in individual pieces of legislation, as my noble friend has done.
  The general solution is to have a provision that all Bills which are specified by the Speaker of the other place as being English Bills affecting only English constituencies should be voted on only by English Members of Parliament. It is ingenious for the noble Lord to suggest that it is very difficult to see how that works in the House of Lords. I assure him that it works perfectly reasonably in the House of Commons. It may well cause difficulties for the Government but from the parliamentary point of view it is justifiable because English Members are responsible to their own English constituents. Ultimately, that is the basis on which we agree that the other place is the supreme House in this Parliament.
  I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that he was a bit unfair to my noble friend. There was an analogy with Clause 6, in respect of which he spoke about the United Kingdom approach, because of course Clause 24 and these resolutions would apply only to English universities. Therefore, my noble friend is quite right. It is not enough to say that. for example, some of the issues in these resolutions may apply to Scottish students who come to English

  483
  universities. On that analogy, English MPs should be able to vote on similar issues affecting Scottish universities where English constituents go to Scottish universities. Of course they do not.
  So there is a one-sided process at the moment. The noble Baroness smiled when my noble friend suggested that she might be willing to consider the amendments. I understand perfectly well her position on that. I have to say that the more examples there are of Scottish MPs having crucial deciding votes on matters which affect only English constituencies, the more resentment there will be among English voters, as we already know from opinion polls and as I know from my former constituents.
  I give way to other noble Lords in the Chamber who know the Scottish situation much better, but the last time I looked at Scottish opinion polls on the issue, the Scottish people thought that that was a perfectly fair solution for England as well. So I think a general problem will arise. My noble friend was quite right to raise it in the context of the Bill, and I am glad he did so.
  Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: Since I have not spoken before in Committee, I should declare an interest not only as someone who considers himself a Scottish Peer, but also as the head of a college at Cambridge University and Chancellor of a Scottish university. It is with those two hats on that body that I should like to speak tangentially to the amendment itself. I could not find myself supporting it for the reasons that have been stated—it is a much wider constitutional issue.
  However, I join those like the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Forsyth, who have asked the Minister to tell us as much as she possibly can, or undertake to tell us in future, what arrangements there will be for, as it were, cross-border traffic. I believe strongly that that cross-border traffic in students is enormously valuable on both sides of the Border and enormously valuable to the future of the United Kingdom.
  So anything that prevents people moving from Scotland to England or from England to Scotland to go to university seems to me to be bad news. I very much hope that at some stage the Minister will give us reassurances on what is going to be done on those points.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I very much endorse that last remark of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. The importance of cross-border traffic in students is crucial, and of course the traffic is much greater from England to Scotland than it is from Scotland to England.
  Many students who come to Scotland from the south either stay there to work or return later to work or to retire. They fall in love with Scotland and they return. Scotland needs every one of them who wants to do that. That is really very important indeed.
  The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, made the points that are the trickiest about this whole issue. I shall not reiterate them. He knows them very well because he deals with the matter all the time.
  484
  On the amendment itself, I was grateful to my noble friend who said that it is right to raise devolution issues as they occur on Bills. I try to do that—in a very much less expert or experienced way than he has just done. Some devolution issues are minor; some are much more important. This is one of the most awkward issues that we have met.
  In fact, to someone who knows Scotland the Bill appears to ignore Scotland completely. The fact that we have devolution and that Parliament has agreed to devolution means that Parliament has a responsibility to consider the whole higher education system. Of course the responsibilities are devolved, and the Scottish Executive has an important role. It is no business of the Westminster Parliament to ignore the arrangements in Scotland and to ignore the political imperatives so far on the matter, not all of which I agree with, by any means. However, they cannot be ignored.
  It is a rather funny feeling to be someone who spends most of her Saturday nights in Scotland, to see this happening. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, what is wrong with Tuesday night? There are a lot of nights in the week.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I was suggesting that the noble Baroness might well be here on a Tuesday night, and therefore Saturday is the one night that she might be in Scotland. She may well he here the rest of the time.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: One could, of course, travel quite a lot during the process of a Bill, if that was the rule. There are all sorts of ways of thinking about this. It is extremely important that Westminster should not ignore the situation as it is now in Scotland. and the Government so far have not come to terms with that. It is an awkward devolution issue, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Forsyth for highlighting it through these amendments.
  Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I want to add my voice to those who say that the uncertainty over the cross-border traffic is worrying. Had that been resolved in a much clearer fashion, perhaps I could have understood the role that those representing Scottish constituencies took in the debate in the other place, but it had not happened, so they were voting blind. I was almost distracted from this point by the thought of counting where I spend my Saturday nights. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that the cross-border sleeper no longer runs on Saturday, so that is one source of uncertainty removed.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have a theory that no Scottish debate is complete without a Welsh dissenting voice, but my point is a real one. The first of these amendments deals with the basic amount and the higher amount and so on for the purposes of Section 23. I wonder how the Government are coping with the fact, revealed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, that the procedures of the

  485
  National Assembly for Wales do not draw a distinction between negative and affirmative procedure? For Wales, Assembly procedures apply in respect of all increases in the higher and basic amount, whether in line with or above inflation. Furthermore, there is no bar in Wales on the higher amount being increased above the level of inflation before 2010. I am sure that the noble Baroness will recognise that that is from the committee's report. It occurs to me that it is a rather difficult point.
  Lord Dearing: If I may say so, it is right that there should be an attempt to work the two out together. I was chair of the committee that tried precisely to do that. It came forward with solutions, and it produced a constitutional crisis between this House and the other House. Perhaps it is rather difficult. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that I will read with great care what he said in his remarks. I thought that he was persuading me rather strongly that there was a powerful Scottish interest in what was being done here, and that Scottish MPs should have a vote on it. I will read with care what he said.
  Lord Triesman: I spend a good many Saturday nights in Scotland. I am not sure whether that qualifies me to speak in precise detail. I used to go up and down on the sleeper from time to time, but it was closed by the last Conservative government.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I do not know which particular sleeper the Minister was catching, but I do not think that it was the sleeper to Scotland. If he was referring to the West Highland sleeper, it was the first thing on my desk, and we saved it. Indeed, it continues to operate to this day.
  Lord Triesman: I shall study that comment in Hansard and compare it with the timetables of any of the trains that I have tried to catch.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I think that the noble Lord can do one better. He can read the debate that took place in this House at the time, which was influential in changing the views that were expressed that the sleeper should go. It was a matter for the rail authorities, but when it was pointed out to them that their grant was up for renewal, they seemed to see the force of responding to the views that had been expressed in this House.
  Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I apologise for raising the question of sleepers.
  Lord Triesman: I shall conclude the comment by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because if he saved it, that can only be for the good.
  The noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn and Lord MacGregor, raised a number of issues which were also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, about the interplay between the arrangements in England and in Scotland. Those are issues which I have absolutely no doubt can and will be debated around a later
  486
  amendment. It is right that they should be. But I take the view that the noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord Shutt, are absolutely right—this amendment has almost nothing to do with higher education policy. It has more to do with the fact that some people find the Scottish devolution settlement extremely hard to swallow.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Follow or swallow?
  Lord Triesman: Hard to swallow. I do not say it to cause any offence, but the settlement was endorsed in a referendum by the people of Scotland and by Parliament in the Scotland Act 1998. The amendment is an attempt to shoehorn into this legislation the West Lothian question, and it is hardly appropriate in any respect. It would be a very strange thing for this House— whose Members are unelected—to tell the elected House in which the majority of elected Members form the Government of the United Kingdom, what it is they should or should not vote on. I suspect that the argument about that issue will become the much more fundamental argument, were these amendments to be carried, than any other matter.
  I make that point very straightforwardly because the nature of the constitutional clash, which we are invited to subscribe to, is not one which could commend itself at all. In January, in the other place, Members soundly rejected an Opposition Motion seeking to restrict the voting rights of Scottish Members, and this does not seem to me to be a sensible place to try to reinstil it.
  The ramifications of the noble Lord's amendments go far further than any matter relating to the provision of higher education. They go in a rather heavy way across fundamental tenets of our constitutional arrangements, and I suggest that it is those arrangements that should be considered on their own merits, or otherwise, rather than being parachuted into the Bill on the basis of a major constitutional provision.
  I read in one of this morning's newspapers that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was to fight his corner with great vigour. I congratulate him on doing so. It is always very enjoyable. But the issue of the way devolution handles the movement of students— whether into or out of Wales, or into or out of Scotland—is something that can be debated later. The issue of how the interactions work—the consultation mechanisms which have been described—can be considered in a later amendment. With the utmost seriousness, I ask your Lordships not to try and do it by producing at this moment the constitutional clash that can only sour relationships between the two Houses to no purpose.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I confess that I was opposed to the Scottish Parliament. There was an election; we lost all our seats. There was a referendum and people voted for it. I do not seek to reopen the devolution question.

  487
  However, I do think that someone should speak for England, even if it has to be someone who spends his Saturday nights in Scotland. As I have said, this is a question of fairness. We are in a situation where Scottish MPs provided the majority that enabled the Government to impose fees of £3,000 on English students attending English universities. Scottish Members of Parliament voted for that.
  We have no idea what is to happen north of the Border, but the Minister responsible in the Scottish Executive, Mr Jim Wallace, is on record as saying that he will take whatever steps necessary to protect the interests of Scottish students and prevent what are described as "fee refugees" coming from south of the Border. The term "fee refugees" is used to refer to the sons and daughters of English parents. It has even been suggested that the Scottish Executive might decide to charge Scottish students £1,100, Italian students £1,100 and Polish students £1,100, but English students £3,000. I have to say that that seems completely inequitable and Scottish MPs provided the majority to achieve those circumstances.
  I do not seek to hold a wider constitutional debate or to change our constitution. One has only to look at this Government for an example. If you want to change the constitution, you do not do so in a Bill in this House or the House of Commons, you do it in a press release with a reshuffle or something of that kind. That is how major constitutional changes are made. You then shuffle about for a bit while working out how to move back from what was said in the press release.
  The Minister should take the amendment as it is intended. It is a helpful amendment designed to bring a degree of fairness into the way in which the English are treated. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn and Lord Sutherland and, indeed, those of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, drawing attention to the fact that it is quite unacceptable that we do not know the position north of the Border. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will forgive my little joke earlier about this being done under the "Sewel procedures". While he served on the Front Bench he went to great lengths to ensure that devolution was workable by making sure that both administrations talked to each other, and that when cross-Border issues did arise, they were resolved.
  But what is happening here is very curious. The Labour administration north of the Border does not agree with top-up fees and, because its members are what I believe are known as old-fashioned "Brownites", they are not having them. The Labour administration south of the Border has a different view. They are doing all they can to frustrate the operation of that policy, but in doing so they are damaging and introducing uncertainty to the interests of those students who, for one reason or another, want to attend a Scottish university. Perhaps they want to go to a really ancient university like St Andrews rather than one of the more modern institutions south of the Border like Oxford or Cambridge, or perhaps they are guided by some other influence. So I do not think that
  488
  the Minister can get away with turning this into a broader constitutional issue. The issue here is one of fairness.
  The Minister suggested in response that, on the issue of devolution, a referendum was held and that was all right. However, the referendum was held in Scotland. The English did not get to vote on it. Most fair-minded people on both sides of the Border would say, "If it relates to our business, then it should be decided by our representatives who are accountable to us". There is nothing that a voter in England opposed to fees can do to put out of office those Scottish MPs who voted for the measure. They can refuse to vote for their English MPs, but the Scottish MPs are not accountable to the people on whom this policy is being imposed.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, accused me of being mischievous. I am deeply wounded by that. If I had wanted to be mischievous, I would have pointed out that the higher education Minister who does not seem to be able to decide on his policy north of the Border is a Liberal Democrat. I would also point out that he is the architect of and has supported a policy of introducing fees which are repaid post-graduation, against which the noble Lord argues very strongly in this House. If I wanted to be mischievous I would have contrasted the Liberal Democrat position north of the Border with that south of the Border, but it is no part of my make-up to be mischievous so I shall not pursue that matter now.
  5.45 p.m.
  My noble friend Lord MacGregor put his finger on the wider issue that there will come a moment—the opinion polls show that this is accepted by voters both north and south of the Border—when the wider West Lothian question will have to be addressed, with Bills being certified by the Speaker and with the appropriate voting positions being in place. That has not happened because the Government, even with their huge majority, still need the votes of Scottish MPs to force through legislation that their own supporters in England could not be brought to support in the Division Lobbies.
  The Minister said that it was not any part of the House's role to give advice to another place and to spend our lives interfering in such matters. I have to say that I thought that is what we were about. I see no reason why we should not give advice to the other place that it might be more fair and equitable for the matters to be decided and determined by those Members of Parliament who have responsibility to their voters. I note that the implication of what the Minister said is that he would not be able to carry the day on that basis. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 51 to 53 not moved.]
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland Lord Shutt of Greetland moved Amendment No. 54:
  After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
  "FEE REPAYMENT FOR THOSE EMPLOYED IN SPECIFIC PUBLIC SERVICE JOBS
  The Secretary of State shall make provision for the repayment from public funds of loans for qualifying fees made to qualifying persons who are subsequently employed as—

  (a) teachers in state maintained schools;

  (b) public law enforcement officers;

  (c) staff in the National Health Service;

  (d) social workers employed by local authorities;

  (e) any other public sector worker specified by regulations who is required to have a degree level qualification."

  The noble Lord said: This is a helpful and enabling amendment. We have said many times that we are against fees but if we are to have fees let us make things a little easier. Amendment No. 54 seeks to give an incentive for public service. We have already heard the Minister refer to the dire shortage of social workers. Many of your Lordships have spoken about the poor remuneration available to university teachers. The amendment gives the opportunity for those who want to dedicate part of their lives—I would suggest five to seven years—to public service to qualify for not having to repay the fees suggested in the Bi11.
  That would provide an opportunity for people to give public service, perhaps by taking less remuneration, as has been hinted at in many cases, but with the proviso that they stake a certain number of years of their life to do so. That would be an incentive for public service.
  Amendment No. 55 seeks to insert a new clause. It would be an incentive for idealism, so that the repayments would not be made by those who put a significant period of time into voluntary service.
  As to the incentives available, a rich person will have the opportunity to use the gift-aid scheme for any contributions he or she may make to voluntary or charitable organisations. Someone who is quite affluent could make a gift that would enable other people to undertake voluntary service.
  For a student without resources but with time and talents, this would be an incentive to engage in something that he or she would like to do for the benefit of society as a whole. For them it would be idealism, but it may well cause them a great deal of delay in getting on to whatever ladder they eventually endeavour to climb. They would not benefit from the remunerations and increases that their fellow students had gained from going into work more immediately after obtaining their degrees. I beg to move.
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I have two concerns about this well-meaning amendment, with which one has a great deal of sympathy. Of general concern is the fact that the Bill is becoming overwhelmingly complex and will be overwhelmingly complex in its application. Different universities will have different bursarial schemes and be under differential pressures from the Director of Fair Access.
  490
  The amendment lists a number of deserving callings for which there will be fee repayment in a way which one finds admirable, but it is not entirely clear how these callings have been chosen other than in a spirit of well-meaningness. I wonder whether that is sufficiently precise. The amendment refers to "public law enforcement officers"—which I take to mean the police, although it may include others besides—but there is no reference to ambulance operatives or the fire service. More particularly, there is no mention of the charitable organisations to which the noble Lord refers in Amendment No. 55.
  Amendment No. 54 does not mention charitable organisations which are not directly publicly funded. For example. Sue Ryder Care—which has an exhibition in these premises at the moment—every year has to raise £13 million to ensure that it can provide funds for its hospices and neurological care centres. Such organisations employ some very highly qualified carers—we are talking about university graduates—but would they get their university fees repaid in the same manner as those employed in the public services? That is my first question.
  My second question is much more to the point. The noble Lord referred to university teachers, but I cannot see them listed in his exempt categories. If that is the case, and given the subject matter of the Bill, why on earth are they not listed?
  Baroness Blackstone: I share some of the concerns expressed about the amendment. It seems to me that categories of staff have been left out. I know that there is the all-embracing paragraph (e), which states,
  "any other public sector worker specified by regulations",
  but, for example, why does it not mention FE lecturers, who are often paid less than schoolteachers?
  A further problem is that it is a hit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is not sufficiently targeted on the people you may really want to target. "Staff in the NHS", for example, covers a huge category of people. I admit that many of them are not graduates—I know that we are talking only about graduates—but some graduate staff in the NHS are very highly paid and would be the last people whom we would really want to exempt from the repayment of their loans.
  The right approach is for successive governments to look at particular professions and particular areas of the public sector where there may be problems of recruitment or retention. If that were to emerge, they should then find a scheme for supporting graduates in those occupations. That is preferable to trying to legislate in 2004 for a labour market that may be very different in as little as three or four years' time and being forced to change primary legislation again. The amendment is not appropriate for legislation of this kind, although, like the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I completely understand the motivations behind it, which are perfectly good.
  Lord Winston: I fully concur with my noble friend Lady Blackstone. Too many areas are left out of the

  491
  amendment and it is completely uneven. With regard to the NHS, many people take degrees that might not be absolutely pertinent to the course of employment that they subsequently follow. Indeed, the head of my own department gained a first-class honours degree at Oxford in English. Would that qualify him to do medicine? I do not know. That emerges only subsequently. The amendment presents all kinds of problems. What about the Armed Forces, for example? There is a whole range of other categories where one would want to see if this kind of release from fees was equitable. As it stands, the amendment is not remotely workable.
  Baroness Perry of Southwark: I share some of the concerns that other noble Lords have expressed, but we should give the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, some credit for his innovative Amendment No. 55. It certainly suggests a totally new way in which people might repay their heavy debts. I am sure that voluntary services and many charities would welcome it. It should not be dismissed quite so out of hand as it has been.
  I have one further negative concern about Amendment No. 54. Other noble Lords have spoken about the list of workers in the public service who would qualify. If any golden handshake scheme were introduced, some kind of minimum on how long one stayed would have to be imposed. If people popped into the public services for a year, would the whole of their fees be written off? I am sure that the noble Lord will be the first to say that the idea needs a great deal more detail to make it a viable proposition. However, the concept of golden handshakes in specific occupations, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has said, could vary from time to time according to where there are particular shortages, has been employed in Sweden with some success. Again, it should not be dismissed out of hand.
  Baroness Seccombe: As I understand it, Amendment No. 54 would exempt those working in public service jobs where relatively low pay makes recruitment difficult due to the inability to repay fees. Amendment No. 55 would encourage young people to undertake voluntary service.
  We strongly support the idea of the "public good" and put on record our unwavering admiration for those who work in occupations that achieve this. We also recognise the problems of pay within the sectors outlined in the amendment. However, I cannot agree that public good can be achieved only by those working, for example, in the NHS. The practice of medicine is a public good wherever one works. The amendment discriminates against a wide range of people and professions. It also creates divisions within professions. Is it also right or fair to suggest that those who carry out jobs that provide a public good, but did not require a degree course to do so, should be treated differently from those who had to obtain a degree in order to qualify? Public good is public good, regardless of whether it has a degree course to back it up.
  492
  Turing to the drafting of the amendment, can the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp explain what paragraph (c) covers? Does "staff in the NHS" cover the cooks and cleaners as well as the nurses, doctors and ambulance drivers? With regard to paragraph (a) and the discussion on my noble friend Lord Renfrew's amendment, perhaps she could have considered—as he so rightly said—including academics in this new clause.
  I now turn briefly to Amendment No. 55. Here, too, I commend all those who work in, or offer their services to, the voluntary sector. We recognise the invaluable work that is done in so many different ways, and we are mindful that there are never enough volunteers. As we have already debated, the issue of deferred placements due to gap years does give the opportunity for voluntary work, providing benefits for everyone. It can also be an invaluable life-forming experience. However, I do not realistically think that student loans could be paid off in such a way. I have many concerns with this amendment. What type of volunteer work would be included? Does interning for an MP count, as I understand that is often voluntary? Would the volunteer work have to be based in this country? If not, how can we guarantee that policing of the system ensures the necessary amount of work is done? Talking of the amount of work, how would volunteering be measured—by the number of hours worked on a principle as if they were receiving pay, or perhaps in the public good achieved?
  I also ask the noble Baroness how she sees these amendments working with EU students and the financial support arrangements they would be allowed. Does she intend them to be covered by these clauses? We sympathise with the sentiment and the reason driving these new clauses, but do not see how they would be fair or how they would work in practice.
  6.1 p.m.
  Lord Triesman: I think these are really interesting amendments, and I am grateful that they have been introduced into the debate. I share the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew's view of that. The motivation for the amendments is commendable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said. they are innovative as well, and deserve proper attention for that reason as much any.
  We are a government committed to the recruitment and retention of high-quality staff in all our public services and to supporting the voluntary sector. However, I do not think it is right to try to regulate in this way—it is unnecessary, nor is it the best way to address these extremely important issues.
  Amendment No. 54 seeks to encourage and safeguard applications to various public sector professions, which are listed in the amendment. The Government are absolutely committed to attracting the very best people to work in the public sector. I take the point that expertise in many of these disciplines is not confined to the public sector either. That is why we have already put many measures in place in relation to some of the groups that are mentioned in the amendment. I will not go through them all in detail

  493
  because my noble friend Lady Ashton did so in an earlier phase of our debates this afternoon. Just to enumerate them, the provisions that she described for the recruitment of teachers are a very good example—in the encouragement of the PGCE and in the arrangements that made for priority subjects: maths, science, modern languages, technology and English.
  The point is that these are appropriately tailored measures. That is what makes them work. There are more teachers with qualified teacher status in our schools now than at any time since 1984, and this has made a contribution to it. However, we need to keep what we do for priority subjects under review as well. As the point has been made, what are priorities today may well not turn out to be the priorities of tomorrow. There will be other priorities as time goes by—the demand for teachers will increase in some subjects and probably decline in others. It is essential that we tailor what we do to the prevailing conditions.
  I fear that this amendment would unduly tie our hands. It assumes that there is one and only one answer—although it may be a very interesting and good answer at the moment —and that it will always be the true answer. Under this amendment, we would have to follow the write-off policy, even if other incentives were to prove more effective.
  I would like to look briefly at some of the incentives provided by other government departments for key public sector workers. Nurses, as well as midwives and the allied health professions, do not pay tuition fees. Instead, the NHS contracts directly with the higher education providers for provision of their training. The consultation document recently issued by the Department of Health proposes that future contracts for learning and development for those groups should prohibit the charging of variable fees. My noble friend Lady Ashton dealt with medical students and the very specific arrangements there; that does not need to be repeated.
  The Department of Health is doing all that now. As for the future, we do not anticipate any significant effect on applications to medical courses, because some of those steps have been taken. As we heard earlier, applications to medical schools are up and buoyant. The Department of Health will continue to monitor demand for, and take-up of, places on health professional courses including medicine after the introduction of variable fees in 2006–07, and will consider measures to safeguard the supply of students on health professional courses once the full implications of the introduction of variable tuition fees can be assessed.
  It is worth noting that students taking social work qualifications are often funded to do so by their employers. The Department of Health has made funding available to employers towards the support of social work students. Where employer support is not available, the Department of Health makes available bursaries as an additional incentive to train in social work. The bursary currently includes the student's full liability for tuition fees. The department is also reviewing the impact of variable fees on any support arrangements.
  494
  On the subject of law enforcement officers, I understand that there are no national schemes in place to recruit graduates specifically into the police force. However, I am aware of the high-potential development scheme, which was launched in April 2002. The HPD is an individually tailored career-development programme designed to attract the future high-calibre leaders of the police service whom we all want. Applications are invited from both graduates and non-graduates who feel that they have the potential to reach senior positions in the service. In fact, 67 per cent of those who achieved the standard to gain a place on the scheme were graduates on application.
  The real point about all the examples is that it must be right for employers—both private and public—to look at the impact of the proposals on their labour markets, and to decide themselves what steps are necessary to recruit and retain. They will no doubt continually review and update that, knowing their employment requirements in a way at which we can only guess in advance. Across the whole public sector, government departments seek to ensure that the new arrangements for student funding do not discourage graduates from all backgrounds entering training for, or taking jobs in, the public sector.
  We commented earlier on the inquiry being conducted by Sir Alan Langlands about gateways into the professions.
  Lord Eatwell: Given the welcome that the Minister gave to the spirit of the amendments, would the Government wish to take up the suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone that there be some form of generic amendment to the Bill? By that, I mean an amendment that would allow the Government from time to time to specify such professions as they wished without having, as the Minister put it, their hands tied by a specific list. Will the Government bring forward such an amendment, and if not, why not?
  Lord Triesman: We do not need to do that. All the provisions necessary to provide incentives—I have given a significant list of them—are already available and can be introduced. If employers in the public or private sector—I do not make any distinction in this sense—wish to do so, they can do so. The powers already exist, and we do not need to take further steps.
  Amendment No. 55 deals with the repayment of student loans by voluntary service. Again, I fully understand that this is being aimed at encouraging graduates into this area. It is indeed the case that all of us, like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, wish to encourage as much voluntary work and voluntary commitment as we can in our society.
  The Government have a number of initiatives to encourage volunteering, for example, the Millennium Volunteers programme which encourages and enables young people up to age 24 to volunteer in areas that interest them. We also have the Higher Education Active Community Fund which enables the

  495
  development of new volunteering opportunities, allowing both staff and students to increase significantly their involvement in the community.
  The Russell commission has been set up by the Chancellor to make recommendations on a national youth volunteering strategy, for 16 to 25 year-olds. The Department for Education and Skills is involved in this, and I am sure that noble Lords will share my interest in seeing the outcome of the work of that commission. These are all important steps in encouraging people to volunteer their time, services and skills for the benefit of the broader community.
  We are also aware that those who choose to work in the voluntary sector may be on low pay or no pay at all for some or all of the time. That is the reason that I commend to your Lordships the propositions about the income thresholds, and the other arrangements in this legislation, which mean that people whose pay is either small or non-existent are not penalised or disincentivised.
  That means that an individual who wants to dedicate himself to voluntary service need not worry that their student loan is going to become in any way unmanageable. It will simply retain its value in real terms and while it might prolong the time to repay, there is the benefit of knowing that the debt will be cancelled in any event after 25 years.
  None the less, should a time come when it was felt necessary to implement a policy of repaying some or all of the student loans of those who engage in voluntary service, we already have the necessary powers to do so in Section 186 of the Education Act. I hope that noble Lords will look at that in considering the benefits of the volunteering route, which is one of the admirable features of the amendment.
  We want a flexible system, and we want it to be able to adapt. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston. have made that point. In summary, we are considering the impact on the professions, and with that in mind I hope that the amendments proposed for fee repayment for those employed in specific public-service jobs will be accepted as being unnecessarily restrictive. I hope that the argument about waiving repayment in respect of voluntary service proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is also answered by my comments. On those grounds I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I thank the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this amendment. I think, in retrospect, it is an occasion when I ought to have said that this is a probing amendment. Many of the points that have been raised—on teachers in state-maintained schools, on staff in the National Health Service (and which staff did we have in mind?)—show that it is a probing amendment.
  496
  The principle that we are trying to get over is that there ought to be, within the Bill, the opportunity for an incentive that I would describe as a fee-repayment exemption. I believe if something like this is not put into the Bill, that will not be there.
  The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred to the complexity of the Bill. I cannot help that: the Bill is complex—and amendments may make it more complex—but that is the way of things, and at least that is one thing not at my door. Part of the concern has clearly been about public service, and that there are not sufficient people dedicating themselves to that. Therefore a major element is to give an incentive to people to dedicate themselves to public service.
  I hear what Members of the Committee and the Minister say and clearly we will think about it. However, if there is a feeling within this House that in the Bill there ought to be an opportunity for fee-repayment exemption as an incentive, I hope that we can return to the matter on another occasion.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I also asked him to indicate whether it was an oversight on his part and that of his noble friend that he did not include provision for the university teaching profession among those who would have their fees exempted in this admirable manner.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I apologise. Happily, there is one of those wonderful clauses—paragraph (e)—which embraces all. It states:
  "any other public sector worker specified by regulations".
  That provides the opportunity to include those who are felt to be in a shortage area, as has been mentioned.
  This is a probing amendment and if there is a specific issue that Members want to talk about later, that can be done.
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I thank the noble Lord again for giving way. As we are probing, does the noble Lord feel that all university and academic personnel are to be regarded as public service workers?
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: I take the view that teaching in a university is a public service. It is not included as specifically, but there is no reason why it should not be embraced in paragraph (e). I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 56:
  After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
  "Student fees and financial support for students as undertaken by the National Assembly of Wales
  (1) This section applies to any function in relation to student fees or financial support for students that has been transferred to the Assembly by—

  497

  (a) an Order in Council under section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38) (transfer of Ministerial functions),

  (b) this Act, or

  (c) any other enactment.

  (2) In exercising the functions to which this section applies, the Assembly must secure that—

  (a) no relevant institution charges different qualifying fees in respect of a qualifying course on the basis of the relevant area in which a student is normally resident; and

  (b) eligibility for any grant, loan or bursary is not determined on the basis of the relevant area in which a student is normally resident.

  (3) In this section—

  "normally resident", in relation to a student, means resident at times when not resident at the relevant institution where he is undertaking a course;

  "qualifying course" has the same meaning as in section 26;

  "qualifying fees" has the same meaning as in section 26;

  "relevant area" means—

  (a) England;

  (b) Northern Ireland;

  (c) Scotland; and

  (d) Wales;

  "relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 25."
  The noble Lord said: During the course of the day, we have heard an awful lot about Scotland and the cross-Border issues which, as far as we can see, will occur as a result of the Bill, but we have heard less about the situation in Wales. This amendment seeks to address that. It tries to ensure that although the powers relating to student fees and financial support have been transferred to the Welsh Assembly, they cannot be used to discriminate against individuals because they come from a different area of the country; for example, Dorset, Shropshire or Northern Ireland. The amendment also aims to prevent discrimination in terms of charging different fees or the withholding of grants, loans or bursaries.
  The Welsh Assembly has already decided that top-up fees will not be introduced until at least—I emphasise at least— 2007. Thus it will be one year or possibly more by the time it has legislated for fees for students in the Principality. Its final decision will be informed by an independent review which is to be undertaken by Professor Rees. I understand that his report is due to be completed by May this year, with an interim report on variable fees in February next year. Will the Minister explain how this report can take full account of the impact of tuition fees when they will not even have come into force here? It is very odd.
  I said that the amendment was specifically about Wales and I am mindful of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy about paragraph 7 of the report of your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I will not repeat what he said and I will not read out what it said. The main concern relates to the powers devolved under Clause 41 and the various conditions set out by Sections 22(2) and (3) of the 1998 Act. I have no problem with the position on bankruptcy, for example, but I want to ask whether. in the case of student loans and the subsidy for such loans, the Minister can outline the Assembly's
  498
  position in relation to their provision, especially the relationship of decisions taken about the provision of loan allocations to the overall student loan book. It appears that a decision about loan levels in Wales could have an impact different from the effect of decisions taken about different amounts in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the Assembly, for example, be able to provide an extra £1,000 a year student loan through the regional allocation budget structure? Would not that have a direct impact on the Treasury?
  Similarly, how will the Government deal with the possible effects of the Assembly deciding to charge English-based students higher fees than they do Welsh-based students? I know that the Minister has had a go at the subject in the context of our discussions on Scotland, but it is still unclear to me how it will work. As currently proposed, the system is very unequal.
  Although English universities will he able to levy top-up fees, the Welsh ones will not. They are therefore naturally concerned that their recruitment and investment as well as the quality of education that they can provide may be disadvantaged. Surely the introduction of fees in England in 2006 will make it cheaper to go to Wales, creating a rush of applications and a knock-on financial burden. The financial package that the Bill provides is to help compensate for the introduction of fees to those from less well-off families. That package is balanced by the introduction of the access regulator, of whom, I am afraid, there will be more on Monday. However, in response to a Written Question in the other place, the Minister said:
  "The Welsh Assembly has said that it will not introduce variable fees during the lifetime of the second Assembly, therefore Welsh Higher Education Institutions will not need to provide access bursaries on similar terms to those being provided in England".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/04; col. 30W.]
  Will not need to. That does not mean that they will not.
  Although the core of the student support package is in place, if institutions do not need to provide access bursaries on similar terms to those in England, will the access regulator have a remit in 2006, or will it be introduced only when the Assembly introduces bursaries and fees? I have heard no words uttered in answer to that question in this Chamber or elsewhere.
  The Bill contains many issues of great concern regarding the relationship of Wales. The amendment aims to address a couple of those: namely, that the Assembly cannot use its powers to discriminate against individuals because they come from outside Wales; nor can it charge different fees or withhold grants, loans or bursaries. I beg to move.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: I referred to this new clause and its aim of preventing discrimination between students during the first Committee sitting earlier this week, when I fired what some have called a fusillade at the entire Bill. In introducing the new clause, my noble friend has covered many of the implications of the Welsh Assembly Government being totally out of step, as far as I can make out, with the Government in Whitehall, and of the higher education sector in Wales being out of step with that in England.

  499
  My first question is: how has this situation come about? We are assured from time to time that there are "constant discussions"—we have heard the phrase today—between the Labour Government in Whitehall and the Labour Assembly Government in Cardiff. None the less, the policies being pursued appear totally different. So, I simply ask, "What has happened?". I wish I could have been a fly on the wall during some of those discussions.
  Reading the record of the plenary debate of the Assembly does not enlighten us, except that we have a clear statement of the Assembly Government's policy, which is to conduct their own review of higher education funding, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, and delay the introduction of top-up fees until at least 2007. Will the Welsh Assembly Government introduce them even then?
  Meanwhile, what will be the consequences of the differences between Wales and England on the campuses? Can we have a clear statement from the noble Baroness on the position of students—English-domiciled and Welsh domiciled—at Welsh universities? Will English students in Wales receive grants in 2006, even though they will not have to pay fees? I can hardly believe that. What can we make of the Assembly's intention with regard to Welsh students, as described in the Explanatory Notes, which I quoted on Monday:
  "The Assembly intends in practice to make regulations affecting students who have a prescribed connection with Wales when they start their course, regardless of the location of the institution at which they are studying and of their place of residence after graduation"?
  We know the effect of the Bill on the University of Wales. It was described in a report to the university court on 16 April:
  "Under the terms of the Bill, which also provides for student funding powers to be devolved to Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government will not be bound to implement the provision. It has in any case given an undertaking that variable fees will not be introduced in Wales at least until 2007. If variable fees are not introduced in Wales, unless an alternative stream of additional funding is provided to Welsh higher education institutions, those institutions will be financially disadvantaged compared with their counterparts in England".
  That kind of disadvantage is a form of discrimination.
  My final question is whether an alternative stream will be provided, if the Assembly does not allow variable fees. If not. that will inevitably lead to a lower standard of higher education in Wales than in England. I repeat the point that I made about the comment—it is not exactly a recommendation—made by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I am sure that the Government have taken it on board. They must have a reaction to it.
  On Monday, I said, in reply to an intervention by my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking that I was in favour of variable fees. I am—in the context of Wales and if variable fees are to operate in England. However, I qualify that answer by saying simply that, if my noble friend and our party were again in power, we would not start from here.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Shutt of Greetland: Originally, the amendment was linked to the following one. I understand that it is appropriate that the amendment relating to Wales should be debated separately.
  This amendment and the next one are worth debating because we ought to flush out the terms of trade. That is the important thing. It occurs to me that if you have devolution, you have devolution. That means that different decisions can be made, and so on. However, it is possible for Ministers to speak to one another. It is possible for Welsh and Scottish Ministers to speak to other Ministers. It is also very important to understand the effect that different legislation will have.
  I can see the situation arising in which the residents of England are under a certain funding regime, as are the residents of Scotland and the residents of Wales. But if the funding regime is higher education institution-based, that may have implications in student flow. I should have thought that it would be improper if, for example, the student flow was such that a great number of students from England were desperate to go to Scottish universities and, because of the funding regime, people who lived in Scotland could not go to those universities because the universities were taking students on their merits.
  I think that this is an area where clarification is needed, and I hope that we can get that clarification. That applies to this amendment as it does to the next one, and there is no point in my standing up to say that twice.
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that there is a need to be absolutely clear. I was intending to say at the start of my remarks that I have asked officials to put together a note on the current system, on the implications for England and Scotland in particular, and on what would happen under the new system. If your Lordships wish me to do so, I shall circulate that note to all noble Lords and that will also help our future deliberations.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: Does the noble Baroness realise that this is a Welsh amendment? There is equal confusion in relation to Wales, and so why has she excluded Wales?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He pre-empted me in that I was about to say that I also intend to do the same in relation to Wales. I was proposing to say something about our position vis-a-vis Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as what I might describe as a precursor to the next two amendments. I believe that that will help noble Lords. I am very conscious that many noble Lords who would normally speak in these debates are not here. Therefore, I shall try not to take up the time of the Committee, but I think that this is an important issue and I am sure that noble Lords will benefit from being able to read the note.

  501
  As noble Lords have indicated, those involved in the devolved administrations meet regularly with people in my department to discuss the issue of student support across borders. Of course, Ministers also meet regularly. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows from our correspondence, as well as from my comments at Second Reading, the Secretary of State and the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, Jim Wallace, who has education responsibilities, have met. If the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, were here, I would say to her that Second Reading was not the first occasion on which they met; they meet regularly. As noble Lords know, each of the separate administrations is looking at the direction in which it will take its student support plans from 2006–07 in the light of the changes that we are proposing.
  In relation to Wales, noble Lords have referred to the review being conducted by Professor Teresa Rees, which will be concluded in April 2005. In the interim, the Assembly has concluded that it will continue with the current fixed fee for the lifetime of the Assembly. In relation to 2006–07, the Assembly has also said that Welsh domiciled students will not be disadvantaged by the devolution of funding powers. It has confirmed that that means that Welsh students will have access to loans, fees and maintenance grants in the same way as English students do. That applies wherever the students study in the UK.
  I take this opportunity to say that English students in Wales will receive the same support package as in England: a loan to cover their fees and the same grant and loan support for living costs. As noble Lords already know, the Scottish Executive is considering the options following the outcome of the third phase of its higher education review, and will be announcing the conclusions shortly. Student support is the responsibility of Scottish Ministers, and their announcement will cover the support package that we shall he making available for Scottish students who study both in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.
  I want to make clear to noble Lords that it is our intention to offer English students studying in Scotland the same package as English students studying in England: a loan to cover their fees and the same grant and loans for living costs. We shall confirm that position formally in the light of the decisions made by the Scottish Executive.
  Noble Lords will know that Northern Ireland is currently consulting on proposals to introduce variable fees and fee deferrals. I can confirm that it is our intention, subject to the outcome of that consultation, to offer English students studying in Northern Ireland the same package as English students studying in England: a loan to cover their fees and the same grant and loans for living costs. Again, we shall confirm that formally when the Northern Ireland announcements are made later this year. I hope that is helpful as regards English students.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: What will be the consequence of the regime to which the Minister referred? Will there not he a tremendous influx of English students into both Scotland and Wales, because the courses will be cheaper?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We are still waiting for decisions to be made. I do not think at this point that I can comment on that. Debate and discussions are ongoing. Our position is clear. It is crucial that we are clear about what happens to English students studying anywhere in the UK. However, we are waiting for decisions from the Scottish Executive on the level of fee that it will set for English and, indeed, Scottish students. I shall refer to the position on the Welsh Assembly when I turn specifically to the amendment. That is the position. We may not be where the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, would wish us to be, but that is the position.
  It is important, as I say, that I am clear about the position for English students. I believe that they will make their decision based on a range of factors, not only the cost of courses. That cost will be variable across England. There may be courses that are cheaper than those in Scotland or Wales, or those that are more expensive. I believe that students will make their decisions for a range of reasons based on a range of factors and that that will continue to be the case.
  I turn specifically to the amendment. Noble Lords have made clear what they intend; that is, at one level to safeguard the principles of equity of treatment and equality of opportunity if a system of variable fees was introduced in Wales and, indeed, in the absence of such a system. I can support that aim, hut I would not agree with the method of achieving it.
  In transferring functions to Wales, as noble Lords will know, we are following the same pattern of delegation already established in England and Northern Ireland. The National Assembly already has responsibility for higher education provision in Wales and we have agreed to transfer responsibility to the National Assembly for providing financial support to residents of Wales undertaking higher education.
  The effect of the amendment is to require that in addition the National Assembly should take responsibility for providing financial assistance to UK nationals who are not ordinarily resident in Wales who choose to study there. As 40 per cent of people who undertake higher education in Wales are from other parts of the United Kingdom, we believe that that would represent a very significant financial burden on the Assembly.
  I would ask noble Lords to reflect for a moment on the practicalities of the amendment. We believe that it would add an additional layer of complexity, which is unnecessary and unwanted. Students would have to understand all the different systems of financial support before making their decision on where to study.
  As noble Lords know, at present the Assembly can impose a condition on HEFCW to ensure that fees charged by institutions are equal to the amount

  503
  prescribed in the main student support regulations. They are not set at different levels for different individuals or classes of individuals from the UK. We recognise that it is in the interests of the institutions to attract the most talented students wherever they come from and we would not wish them to jeopardise that.
  I was much taken by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in his wide-ranging response on Monday. I have had my own discussions on that. I wanted to be sure that I had covered all the points raised by the noble Lord from that discussion. We can both read Hansard and check that we have got to the point that we need to in terms of understanding so that I can continue with other issues.
  As I said, the National Assembly made clear that it will not introduce variable fees during the lifetime of the second Assembly, which in effect means before 2007–08 at the earliest. Subject to the passage of the Bill, as the noble Lord knows and as we have already indicated, Professor Teresa Rees will undertake the review to provide advice on how the Assembly might best use its devolved student support powers and on the key question of the introduction of variable fees.
  In the mean time the Assembly has made clear that as a consequence of the introduction of the new fee and student support arrangements in England its policy intention is that students ordinarily resident in Wales, wherever they study, should benefit from fee deferral through loans for fees and from the other enhanced benefits associated with the Bill. That includes the write-off after 25 years.
  The Assembly's intention is to ensure that students ordinarily resident in Wales receive no less generous a package of student support under devolved arrangements than they would have under schemes administered and funded by the Department for Education and Skills. Noble Lords will agree that that is a reasonable and honourable position for the Assembly to take while they debate the wider questions of variable fees and student support arrangements in Wales.
  To be clear, it is intended that the National Assembly for Wales will use its powers under Clauses 48(6) and 43(4) to commence Clause 40(2) and the repeal in Schedule 7 to the Bill of Section 26(5) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 in time for the 2006–07 academic year. For the transitional period before full repeal of the fixed fee system, the intention is not to commence the repeal of the remaining provisions of Section 26. The effect would be to enable the Assembly to break the current link between the level at which fees can be set by institutions and the existence of a fee remission grant with which to offset those fees. By so doing, the Assembly will be able to offer students ordinarily resident in Wales the same flexibility in student support as offered to students ordinarily resident in England, while at the same time meeting its commitment that variable fees will not be introduced in the lifetime of the Assembly.
  504
  I am sorry to have to read all that out, but it is important to get this clear so that noble Lords can study it. In practical terms, this means that for the academic year 2006–07 the Assembly will set a fixed fee for higher education courses in Wales. It will offer maintenance grants of up to £2,700—absorbing the Assembly's existing learning grant—and loans for fees to students ordinarily resident in Wales wherever they study.
  Perhaps I have spoken too quickly this evening, but when noble Lords have had an opportunity to reflect on my words I hope that they, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Skelmersdale, will see that that reflects the position appropriately and will feel that I have covered the points of concern to them. Always with the proviso that I am more than willing to debate the issues, in Committee or elsewhere, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Skelmersdale: As this short debate has continued, a half-remembered quotation from Cicero came into my mind—I tried to be brief; I hope I wasn't obscure! My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy brought that half-remembered quote to my mind. He put the padding on what I said as briefly as I could.
  The response from the noble Baroness was quite simply astounding. I will have to read very carefully, with a cold, wet towel around my head, especially her last couple of paragraphs—at least I suspect that they were the last couple of paragraphs. Also, I look forward enormously to what she calls,
  "a note on the current position of financing students in Scotland and Wales".
  I wrote down her words, I hope exactly. What on earth does she mean by "current" because this Bill is about the future, not the current situation?
  Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sorry. I meant the current and the future in order for noble Lords to make the comparison.
  Lord Skelmersdale: Well, I wonder how different it is going to be from—
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I wonder if in the spirit of the extraordinary comprehensiveness of the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, the noble Lord could give us the Cicero quote in its original language.
  Lord Skelmersdale: I will have to check the accuracy and the translation, both of which are a little hazy in my mind—especially as I only ever did one term of Greek at school! However, that was what is known as "a red herring".
  As I said, I am looking forward to this comparative note about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so that we can really get to the bottom of it. I was saying that I hope to goodness the note does not contradict anything that the noble Baroness has just said, which I also look forward enormously to reading.
  Just by way of a parting shot, when the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, mentioned terms of trade, he seemed to provide a rather different Liberal Democrat policy

  505
  from that which his noble friend Lady Sharp enunciated earlier today. Again, perhaps I had better compare those two. I will be doing a lot of comparison over the weekend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Forsyth of Drumlean moved Amendment No. 57:
  After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
  "Student fees and financial support for students as undertaken by the Scottish Executive
  (1) This section applies to any function in relation to student fees or financial support for students that has been transferred to the Scottish Executive by—

  (a) the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46),

  (b) this Act, or

  (c) any other enactment.

  (2) In exercising the functions to which this section applies the Scottish Executive must secure that—

  (a) no relevant institution charges different qualifying fees in respect of a qualifying course on the basis of the relevant area in which a student is normally resident; and

  (b) eligibility for any grant, loan or bursary is not determined on the basis of the relevant area in which a student is normally resident.

  (3) In this section—

  "normally resident", in relation to a student, means resident at times when not resident at the relevant institution where he is undertaking a course:

  "qualifying course" has the same meaning as in section 26;

  "qualifying fees" has the same meaning as in section 26;

  "relevant area" means

  (a) England;

  (b) Northern Ireland;

  (c) Scotland; and

  (d) Wales;

  "relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 25."
  The noble Lord said: I sense that your Lordships do not want a long exposition on the cross-border issues north and south of the border. We have been round this course a number of times, and many of the arguments have been put. I was struck in the previous debate that the Minister indicated that we could expect an announcement from the Scottish Executive in respect of the position of Scottish students "shortly". I do not know, panning back in my mind through the various episodes of "Yes, Minister" that I have watched on television, what "shortly" means. Does it mean next week, or in the next few days? Amendment
  506
  No. 57—with which I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 67 and 1l2 —would effectively prevent the Bill commencing, should it pass through its processes in this House and the other place, without those matters being resolved.
  If the noble Baroness is correct that it will be shortly, the amendment will be unnecessary. It might be appropriate to withdraw the amendment at this stage, so that we can return to consider it at a later date. I take it that that later date will be longer away than shortly, in which case it will not be necessary for me to move it again. I hope that the Minister will convey to her colleagues in the Scottish Executive the strength of feeling that is being expressed on all sides of the House about the need—to take the rather good phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt—to know the terms of trade and know them shortly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

  Royal Assent
  6.48 p.m.
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
  National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Act 200,
  Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004,
  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
  Child Trust Funds Act 2004,
  London Local Authorities Act 2004.

  Child Trust Funds Bill
  Bill returned earlier from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]
  (Third Day)
  The Committee met at quarter past three of the clock.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
  Clause 41 [Attempts at reconciliation of civil partners]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Wilcox: Clause 41 is concerned with attempts at reconciliation as civil partners. It would allow the court to adjourn an application for a dissolution or separation order if it appears that the civil partners have a reasonable possibility of achieving reconciliation. Clause 41 states that rules of court must make provision for the applicant's solicitors to certify whether they have discussed with their clients the possibility of reconciliation and to provide the applicant with details of persons qualified to help the civil partners effect reconciliation.
  We have a few points to raise regarding this clause. First, while reconciliation is welcome at any time in a relationship breakdown, the courtroom seems to be rather a last-chance saloon. There does not seem to be any guarantee as to when the solicitor will discuss with the applicant the possibility of reconciliation. Such a requirement will not be very useful if it is dealt with at the courtroom door. Is there any way of introducing a measure to ensure that this matter is dealt with in a timely way?
  Secondly, can the Minister clarify which organisations will be put forward as helpful to the estranged civil partners? Do they have any organisations in mind? I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her interesting and important probing amendment. I totally agree with her on the central thrust. However, as we see civil partnerships as a new legal status and believe that they have meaning and value, we do not want them lightly abandoned if, on further reflection or with further help, the parties could be helped to sustain them. The noble Baroness is right. The principle of trying to encourage parties to reflect on mediation applies as much here as in other circumstances. I am foursquare with her on that.
  As to whether solicitors can and should discuss the issues earlier, I undoubtedly share the noble Baroness's view. One would hope and expect good family solicitors to do that and not simply to file court
  GC 182
  papers. They should have a discussion with their client about whether it is a reaction to some unfortunate sudden event or whether it is the product of a long-term worsening of the relationship—and therefore, without the solicitor making a judgment, whether there is a case for reflecting on whether the matter needs to be brought to court in order to seek to end the relationship.
  As to whether anything can be done to reinforce what is generally seen by a solicitor or family lawyer as good practice in that respect, I should like to reflect rather than speak off the cuff, to see whether anything in current court or legal aid practice reinforces that. I shall reflect, write to the noble Baroness and copy it to the rest of the Committee, because it is relevant. Relate is the obvious organisation that comes to mind; it could give relationship support but there may also be others. Since I am writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and copying it to the rest of the Committee, if I can add further thoughts on that I shall do so.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps the Minister can clarify one matter. I do not remember the actual Bill, but about seven or eight years ago—I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern dealt with it—there was a suggestion concerning mediation in cases of marriage breakdown. If my memory is right, the whole idea was to do more or less as my noble friend has said—to make the process not so brutal and not so in-your-face in the courtroom, in order to try to overcome the problem and see whether there is a way through in terms of dissolution. Is my recollection correct? If so, could this be used as something that would meet my noble friend's requirement?
  Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness's recollection is correct, and I hope that mine is reasonably accurate, too, in what I am about to say. From memory, the previous government, with good intent. brought in the Family Law Act 1996 which had two main objectives: first, to bring in no-fault divorce to reduce some of the adversarialism of divorce; and, secondly, to try to minimise the likelihood that divorces did not needlessly take place. Therefore, it had as Part II Of that Act, measures to refer people to mediation before the courts would finally dispose of the cases. I do not believe that there was much disagreement about the intent or the worthiness of that; the problem was that it did not work when it was piloted in practice. The problem—although I was not engaged in these issues at that time—was essentially that most people, when they started to file court papers, had usually already made their decision. Therefore, being taken off to go through a compulsory process of mediation was seen by most as a frustrating irritant, when they knew that they wanted to end the relationship.
  That does not take away from the merit of the argument of the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Cathain and Lady Wilcox, that if, at an appropriate time. one can obtain advice and try mediation, that is worth

  GC 183
  doing. The Family Law Act 1996 seemed to show that it was often too late to try to do that when court papers are being filed.
  Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for his most useful answers to those questions. He did not have the privilege of being with us for most of yesterday, when almost every question that I asked was referred back to the Marriage Act. It is nice to start today without the word "marriage" coming up. I am grateful for that. I am happy to hear the Minister say that people are likely to use Relate; it is an organisation with good credentials in this area.
  Clause 41 agreed to.
  Clause 42 [Consideration by the court of certain agreements or arrangements]:
  [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
  Clause 42 agreed to.
  Clause 43 [Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably]:
  [Amendment No. 49A not moved]
  Clause 43 agreed to.
  Clauses 44 to 51 agreed.
  Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 50:
  After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—
  "POWER TO VALIDATE CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
  (1) Where two people have registered as civil partners of each other in England and Wales, the Lord Chancellor may by order validate the civil partnership if it appears to him that it is or may be void under section 48(b).
  (2) An order under subsection (1) may include provisions for relieving a person from any liability under section 31(2), 32(2) or 33(5) or (7).
  (3) The draft of an order under subsection (1) must be advertised, in such manner as the Lord Chancellor thinks fit, not less than one month before the order is made.
  (4) The Lord Chancellor must—

  (a) consider all objections to the order sent to him in writing during that month, and

  (b) if it appears to him necessary, direct a local inquiry into the validity of any such objections.

  (5) An order under subsection (1) is subject to special parliamentary procedure."
  The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this government amendment is to create a mechanism whereby serious errors in the registration of civil partnerships may be rectified—as similar errors in the solemnisation of marriages may already be rectified—and officiating registrars may be relieved from liability.
  Because the procedure is so closely modelled upon that which the Lord Chancellor exercises in respect of marriage, the amendment confers the power on the Lord Chancellor. This mechanism will only come into play where it appears to the Lord Chancellor that a civil partnership is, or may be, void because both parties to the civil partnership knew, or may have known, when it was registered that one or more of the defects listed in Clause 48(b) had occurred. The defects listed in Clause 48(b) are that due notice of proposed
  GC 184
  civil partnership has not been given; that the civil partnership document has not been duly issued; that the civil partnership document is void under Section 17(3) or Section 27(2); that the place of registration is a place other than that specified in the notices of proposed civil partnership and the civil partnership document, or that a civil partnership registrar is not present.
  In these circumstances, the Lord Chancellor may cause the draft of an order validating the civil partnership to be prepared. The draft order must be advertised for at least one month in such manner as the Lord Chancellor sees fit. The draft order may provide for the person who acted as registrar to be relieved from any liability to which he or she is subject by virtue of Clauses 31(2), 32(2), 33(5) or 33(7).
  The Lord Chancellor must consider any objections received during the month and, if he thinks it necessary, direct a local enquiry into their validity. Finally, the order may be made under the special parliamentary procedure laid down in the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945.
  We expect this mechanism to be used rarely, as is the case for marriage. Even serious technical errors of this nature are not usually apparent to both parties when they marry. But where that has happened, we see no justification why a similar remedy should not be made available to civil partners as is already available to spouses. That is why I have tabled this amendment which I hope you will accept. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: Out of interest, what is the special parliamentary procedure under the 1945 Act?
  Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I can let the noble Lord know that when we have the information available in the Box.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what a local inquiry is. Is it an inquisition or is it just somebody making inquiries, for example a policeman going to find out something? What does it involve?
  Baroness Crawley: The local inquiry would he in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. I do not have the details of what he would want to go into. Because these cases are so very rare, I imagine that it would depend on the circumstances of the individual case that has come before him. If a procedure is laid down, I will let the noble Baroness know.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I do not have the marriage equivalent in my head, of course, but it seems to me that this is a sensible, well-designed proposal that does natural justice to any interested parties, as one would expect—indeed it must, because of the Human Rights Act. I take it that it matches the procedure for heterosexual married couples and we therefore support it.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Separation orders]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Henley: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Higgins. who, sadly, cannot be here today, I wanted to make an inquiry or two about the separation orders as set out in Clause 54: to ask, first, why the Government see the need for a separation order rather than an order for dissolution; secondly, to exactly what facts the court will have to have regard when it makes the separation order under the clause; and, thirdly, why it is irrelevant whether the partnership has broken down irretrievably. My knowledge of family law is extremely rusty and there have been many further Acts of Parliament since I last studied it. is this an order that in effect treats those who benefit from the Bill in much the same way as the various Acts deal with marriage?
  Baroness Crawley: Yes, the order deals in much the same way as orders dealing with the benefits of marriage. The noble Lord asked why civil partners might want a separation order as opposed to a dissolution order—why the Bill would assume that. It is likely that separation orders may be desired by civil partners whose relationship has broken down but who wish to retain the recognised status of civil partner. That may appeal to people who wish to retain their status despite the fact that they no longer have a relationship—elderly people, for example, who will have had to wait a long time to attain the status of civil partner, should the Bill be passed. Such a person would be able to reach a binding financial settlement on the making of the separation order, which would provide some security.
  The facts before the court would be the same as those for dissolution; there would not be a need to prove irretrievable breakdown, because the status of civil partnership would remain. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's questions.
  Lord Henley: I think that that answers all my questions. I have only one further inquiry. From what the noble Baroness said, I take it that those who sought and were granted a separation order by the court would continue to benefit from any tax advantages that the Bill might give them, in exactly the same way as would a married couple following a separation, rather than the dissolution, of their marriage.
  Baroness Crawley: I understand that that is not the case; they would not continue to benefit from the same tax advantages as would a married couple.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The reason why my party and the official Opposition rejected the Government's suggestion that there be pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill is that we anticipated that the Bill would not prove to be controversial and thought that the sooner we enacted it the better, for the sake of the victim groups that we want to protect. Although the Bill is drafted with necessary prolixity, because it covers the different legal systems of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and provides the necessary
  GC 186
  detail to achieve legal certainty, in fact, most of the provisions match what applies under the code for marriage.
  The separation order provisions in Clause 54 are very well explained in the Explanatory Notes, which I commend to the Committee. I shall not take time to repeat what is in paragraph 113, but in paragraph 114, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is dealt with, to some extent. It explains the effect of the separation order: Clause 55 provides that when a civil partner dies without making a will, intestate, and a separation order is in force, and the separation is continuing—there not having been a dissolution but only a separation—the rules in respect of the passing of intestate estates shall be applied as if his or her civil partner were dead. In dealing at least with intestacy, that is made absolutely clear. Again, it seems to me that these provisions on separation orders and their effect perfectly match the position for people like myself, who are married. We obviously support the clause.
  Lord Henley: I am a tiny bit more confused by that and I do not know whether the Government or the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. can help me. He says that if a separation order is in effect, the usual rules of intestacy for married couples or for those joined in civil partnership would not apply. Am I not right in thinking that where a separation order is in effect, when people who are married are separated but not divorced, the intestacy law would still apply? Secondly, I asked about tax principally in relation to inheritance tax. Where the parties are separated, would there be any inheritance tax advantages, or does the noble Baroness's original answer still hold?
  Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The tax advantages would be lost in the same way as for married people. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
  Clause 54 agreed to.
  Clause 55 agreed to.
  Clause 56 [Declarations]:
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  Clause 56 agreed to.
  Clauses 57 to 62 agreed to.
  Clause 63 [Contribution by civil partner to property improvement]:
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 51 A:
  Page 30, line 6, leave out "or personal property"
  The noble Lord said: We now come to the first amendments that I have tabled. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that these are purely probing amendments—I can refresh some of my very limited knowledge about property matters and he can give some assurances about how the Bill works in this respect. I have put down these amendments really to ask the Minister questions that relate to all of Chapters 3 and 4.
  I must confess to a pretty large ignorance of the law in this matter, but I am sure the noble Lord will be able to assist me. May I say how impressed I was at the extraordinary detail into which the Government seem to have gone in trying to deal with all the various ramifications? That might explain why, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said, the Bill is somewhat prolix.
  Schedules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, which are attached to Chapters 3 and 4, even contain details relating to transfers of dwelling houses—those are in Schedule 7. There is even a measure that I remember well, although I was not in the House at the time. The Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 was an extraordinary piece of legislation for a Labour government to introduce: it entrenched the hereditary principle into agricultural holdings, although I should not have thought that it applies to many agricultural holdings nowadays. But again I congratulate the Government on remembering to include the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976. I shall ask my farming friends in Cumberland how many people they think will benefit from that. However, I am, I suspect, getting beyond myself.
  I return to Clause 63. As I said, these are merely a pair of probing amendments. I am simply trying to find out what the Government's intentions are. The first of these amendments refers to personal property. I simply ask again, as I did earlier, is the measure in the Bill trying to replicate exactly what is done in the case of married couples? The second amendment relates to the whole question of a contribution of a substantial nature. Does the measure in the Bill again merely replicate the provisions for married couples? If that is the case, will the noble Lord say what is meant by "a substantial nature" and how it will be interpreted?
  I do not know whether the noble Lord will want to give a slightly fuller answer, but, as I said, the point I am trying to get at is to discover to what extent the Government are trying to replicate provisions that already exist for married couples so that those who will benefit from the Bill will benefit in exactly the same way as married couples. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will want to assure me that that is the case, but on this occasion I should like that assurance from the Government. No doubt it can be backed up in due course by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley. We thought that they probably were probing amendments but you never know in Committee. I also thank the noble Lord for his compliments on the care that officials have taken to try to think about all the consequences. I had not spotted the one about hereditary Peer land holdings but I note it with interest.
  Lord Henley: It was not a case of hereditary Peer landowners but the fact that the Government brought the hereditary principle into the inheritance of
  GC 188
  tenancies. Back in 1976 many of us thought that was rather an odd thing for a government committed to the abolition of the hereditary principle to do.
  Lord Filkin: The noble Lord knows how much we respect them as individuals even though we do not want them as legislators.
  I turn to the specific questions about what the measure means in practice. The aim of Clause 63 is to stop civil partners who have made a significant contribution, in either money or time and trouble and skill, to the improvement of property. whether it is an interest in land or in other types of property. from losing out. The legal definition of property, which is used most frequently in wills, is of two types: real property, which is land, houses, buildings; and personal property, which comprises goods, money, shares, interest in a business and all other types of property. Clearly, before the ending of such a relationship one wants the courts to be able to look at both types of property.
  As to the word "substantial", in a sense that is a measure designed to avoid trivial issues coming before the courts, for example, if one partner had given another a gift of token, but not any great financial, value. The courts would not hold that that was a substantial interest justifying a court action. As regards who decides these matters, in the way of these things it is for the courts to judge whether a matter is substantial or not.
  I believe that the noble Lord was trying to provoke me into using the "m" word and the "d" words again to try to upset the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. But he is absolutely right, of course, the provisions that we are discussing mirror the provisions under marriage and divorce law.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, should never underestimate my ignorance. If he thinks that I am an expert on family and property law, I am sorry to tell him that he is seriously in error. This chapter as a whole, of which Clause 63 is the first clause, is doing some very sensible things with regard to property and financial arrangements between civil partners of the kind that one would have between spouses. What it is seeking to do is to provide equity and to give protection.
  As has been explained, and is explained in the Explanatory Notes, the measure concerns what happens when one partner makes a substantial contribution, in money terms or otherwise, to property and then one has to allocate the property rights and duties between the partners. Clause 64 deals with disputes between civil partners about property. All of that, to the best of my memory, is exactly the same kind of protection that is given to married persons. One needs to give that protection to same-sex couples. This is one of the great benefits of the Bill: once they enter into the registered relationship, disputes of this kind can be dealt with in an orderly way, either by agreement or by the independent courts, which is as it should be, rather than being dealt with by self-help or, sometimes, criminal activity. We greatly welcome this clause as part of the chapter.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Henley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the response he gave to that, which I will certainly read carefully in due course. It might be that other questions will arise that we might want to come back to on Report. For the moment, I am happy that what I thought was happening, is happening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 51B not moved.]
  Clause 63 agreed to.
  Clause 64 [Disputes between civil partners about property]:
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 51C:
  Page 30, line 28, at end insert—
  "( ) In any matter referred to the courts under subsection (1), it shall be open to the court to refer the parties to mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution."
  The noble Lord said: I declare an interest in mediation but I have never been involved in mediation in matrimonial disputes. I do not think that whatever talent I have in this field would necessarily be appropriate for the harder role of mediation in that line although I understand that mediation has been fairly successful in the past. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is not here. Some months ago, when she was still attached to the Lord Chancellor's Department, I had some discussions with her about the use of mediation in all forms of disputes. I mentioned the success of mediation in resolving disputes. keeping the lawyers out—although many lawyers are involved in mediation—and resolving disputes speedily with less acrimony than normal. I know that the noble Lord's department and the former department of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, have been active in promoting mediation. That is a good thing and we are happy that it is the case.
  We had a brief mention of mediation earlier on, when my noble friend discussed Clause 41 stand part. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that mediation in what we can loosely call family disputes sometimes had problems, particularly if it started late. I assure him that mediation can work at very late stages indeed. For example, he might know of the Court of Appeal mediation scheme, which is a form of mediation that comes in after the case has been through the court and before it goes to appeal. I have been involved in a mediation that was at that stage and at the 59th minute of the 11th hour we managed to get a settlement to the dispute which, no doubt, saved many people a great deal of money and probably put many lawyers out of business for a while, as the case did not go on to the court in due course.
  I tabled this amendment, which is, I imagine, distinctly badly drafted, as a means of probing whether the Government think that here, or in other parts of the Bill, or perhaps in a great many parts of the Bill, there might be a process whereby the concept of mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution could be brought in. I know how keen the ex-Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord
  GC 190
  Irvine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, are on it and I imagine that the current Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord are also keen on it. Such provision would allow them to match their words with their action. They could include in legislation, possibly for the first time, measures that might encourage the courts and others to encourage mediation, thereby saving money and perhaps expediting the resolution of disputes, which can be difficult. As I said, that would help to keep the lawyers out of it. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Oddly enough, this is a subject on which I know a little, partly because I have been counsel acting in an alternative dispute resolution for the head of my chambers, Presiley Baxendale QC, who is an expert. I can say how beneficial the process is in cutting down adversarial activity by members of my profession and in bringing the parties together.
  Additionally, I was acting for the Law Society of England and Wales before the Court of Appeal a couple of weeks ago. The Court of Appeal gave judgment, I think on Tuesday—in a case called Halsey which I am sure the Government ought to study—in which it laid down some comprehensive guidance about what the court should do and not do in promoting alternative dispute resolution, not only in this type of context but generally, and in drawing a line between what is coercive and placing unacceptable burdens on parties, and what on the other hand is there to promote alternative dispute resolution of the proper kind, including mediation.
  I certainly support the object of Amendment No. 51C. I just ask myself, and I do not know the answer, whether the amendment is necessary. I will have to go back to look at the civil procedure rules of the Supreme Court to see what they say about alternative dispute resolution—the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court—and, for that matter, the other civil courts.
  My guess—although I am usually wrong—is that there is now a wide jurisdiction in the courts generally and that that would apply to married couples and indeed to every litigant in all classes of dispute. Certainly it applies to commercial cases. It applies to public law cases. As far as I am aware, it applies to property cases and family law cases right across the board. If that is right, then it will not be necessary to have a specific provision of this kind and to amend the Marriage Act, or whatever it is, to achieve that purpose because it has been done by the Supreme Court Act, I guess, read with the civil procedure rules.
  That is a purely technical matter. However, the object of the amendment is clearly sensible, if I may say so. I am sure that the Government would be willing to accept that the amendment, in some form, needs to be embodied in the code of law.
  Lord Filkin: Speaking first to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I agree with him on both the principle of his comments on mediation and the specifics of what his amendment seeks to do: to ensure that the provision is available in such issues. Now is not the time, but I would genuinely welcome at some

  GC 191
  stage a debate in our House—because we are well fitted for that—about alternative dispute resolution or what we are increasingly calling proportionate dispute resolution, which has a very wide ambit and some very wide principles. It is a central plank of our forward thinking about how one increases access to justice. I emphasise that that is the thrust of it, rather than being beastly to lawyers.
  Our view, and it is only a view at this stage, is—as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, signalled—that we think that the courts have an inherent power to adjourn cases to allow parties to attempt mediation and are keen to use it where cases appear to merit it. I should add that I am aware of the Court of Appeal judgment in Halsey, although I have not yet read it. However, we are not absolutely categorically certain of this.
  Therefore, I think that I will give at least a half-hit to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Clearly, as we are in Grand Committee, the issue cannot be pressed now. However, I should like to take the issue away and reflect on whether it needs to be put beyond doubt, in which case we would be pleased to do so and bring back a suitable amendment. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge the helpfulness of his contribution in this respect.
  Lord Henley: I am very grateful indeed for the Minister's remarks. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right and that the provision is probably unnecessary. He referred to the case of Halsey, which I have not read, but I understand that in that case, the winning party, who had refused to indulge in mediation, suffered no costs penalty, whereas, in an earlier case two or three years ago called Dunnett v Railtrack, the winning party suffered considerable disadvantage in costs because they had refused to involve themselves in mediation.
  However, as I said, I am exceedingly grateful for what the Minister said. I drafted the amendment— very badly—as a means to get the matter discussed and encourage the Government, who have already made some hopeful noises about mediation, to say a little more—as it were, to edge them on in favour of greater use of mediation. Should we have another debate on mediation—the noble Lord suggested that it might be appropriate to seek one in the House—I will try not to indulge in any of my low attacks on lawyers, but sometimes one cannot resist it. We all agree that mediation can be a good way to resolve disputes speedily and without the bitterness that can sometimes be involved in a more adversarial approach. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for his answer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 64 agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Applications under section 64 where property not in possession etc.]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 65 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Henley: This Question was grouped with an earlier amendment and I should have spoken briefly to
  GC 192
  it then. It was purely a probing amendment dealing with applications under Clause 64 where the property was not in possession. What I would like from the noble Lord—he could write to me—is some sort of explanation of exactly what Clause 65 will do, because it is beyond my limited powers of comprehension. I am sure that the noble Lord can do somewhat better.
  Lord Filkin: Perhaps I can save the noble Lord the pain of reading a letter by saying what I should have covered in response to the whole group. Clause 65 provides additional protection to civil partners in property disputes. It allows one civil partner to make an application under Clause 64 where the other civil partner no longer has the money or property concerned or where it is unknown whether the other partner still has the money or property. The court is given power to order payment of a sum of money or to make any other order that it can make under Clause 64. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will find that answer helpful. It is quite a complex issue but no doubt we can talk further if that would be helpful.
  Lord Henley: I am most grateful for what the Minister said.
  Clause 65 agreed to.
  Clauses 66 to 68 agreed to.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Clause 69 agreed to.
  4 p.m.
  Schedule 5 [Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.]:
  Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 52:
  age 127, line 32, leave out paragraphs 31 to 37.
  The noble Baroness said: The two amendments in this group relate to the provisions in the Bill that relate to financial provisions and maintenance. Amendment No. 52 would leave out paragraph 31 of Schedule 5, Part 8. It allows either civil partner to apply to the court on the grounds that the other civil partner has failed to maintain adequately, provide for or make a proper contribution towards, the welfare of any child of the family.
  The court can make a range of orders. Amendment No. 54 would leave out paragraph 15 of Schedule 6, Part 3, which details the provisions regarding the courts' powers where civil partners are living apart by agreement and there is a question of child maintenance. An order can be made by the court where civil partners have been living separately for more than three months.
  At this stage, these are probing amendments. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that these sections of the Bill mirror the provisions for marriage and that this is why they have been drafted so. I have got so used to hearing that explanation in the past days of Committee.
  I am told again and again, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that this is a relationship Bill; that this is not a financial Bill; that this is not a property Bill; and that this is not a Bill in that way. I have been married twice. The first time that I got married, which was a very long time ago, I was not allowed to sign the hire purchase agreement for my hoover. As a woman, I was not regarded as reliable enough to make the payments. Nor was I allowed to sign the mortgage agreement for my house because, as a woman, I was unreliable in that I might get pregnant or I might not be able to hold my job down: I might have the vapours or whatever else I might do.
  Having gone through two marriages and, God-willing, if I am fortunate enough to be chosen by some nice man I might have a third marriage, I might find myself rather inclined to worry a little about my pension and my financial status, as well as falling madly in love. When we say, "This is only a relationship Bill", I would like to remind noble Lords that marriage is, of course, a wonderful, loving relationship, but there are other things within marriage that apply. So I do not want to be constantly told that this is nothing to do with money or that sort of support.
  To go back from my deviation, this is a probing amendment. Such sections as I have already noted make a civil partnership a serious undertaking because there are financial implications that stretch beyond the break-up of a relationship. I am keen to hear the Government's thinking on those clauses. Why the period of three months before an order can be made? Do they feel that it is right that someone with no blood ties to a child should have to maintain that child financially? I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The problems to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, referred in the earlier part of her life have happily been dealt with by Parliament in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, to which I contributed. Her wider personal revelations, which I much enjoyed listening to, will be heard by many noble Lords of eligible age. I am not sure that it is safe to make that kind of declaration.
  However, as regards the serious point about money, I do not think that anything that I have said would indicate that I ever suggested that the Bill had nothing to do with money. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Alli. and I were determined to try to get across was that this is not a tax avoidance or a tax reduction Bill. It is about relationships. Of course, the particular clause that we are looking at in the schedule is concerned with ensuring that the relationship is viable and that the relationship between the partners is fairly dealt with by the law to ensure, for example, that there is reasonable maintenance, as happens with married couples. Clearly, that is a very important incident in giving legal recognition to subsisting civil partnership.
  Just as when the vows of a marriage fail to provide reasonable maintenance for the other spouse or to make a proper contribution to any child of the family, so the same should apply to a same-sex couple. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is not
  GC 194
  suggesting the contrary; she is simply probing to see how this operates. Clearly, this is a necessary part of the overall scheme. It is not that money does not come into it—it clearly does—it is just that it demeans the whole Bill to suggest that the cash nexus is its main purpose.
  Lord Alli: I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, had to say. The point I have been trying to make over the past two Committee days is that if this Bill were seen as primarily a financial bit of engineering, that would be wrong. The starting point is people who want to commit to a relationship from which a whole range of other measures then follow, some of them financial and some of them not.
  These provisions are particularly important as they stand in the Bill because after separation couples will want to reflect and decide their future. Where there is an imbalance in income, it would be regrettable if we forced people into a dissolution stage in order to obtain maintenance rather than allowing the courts to make some interim arrangement which would give them a little more time and space to consider what they are doing. Such arrangements work very successfully with married couples. To mirror them for civil partnerships seems eminently sensible.
  Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, was clear that these are probing amendments. They are important because they clearly touch on how parties—should a relationship look as if it has to end—carry out the responsibilities consequent on that relationship to each other.
  Part 8 of Schedule 5 provides for a civil partner to apply to the court for financial provision where their civil partner has not provided adequate maintenance either for the applicant or for any child of the family. The court has power under Part 8 to make the same type of orders as for other cases under Schedule 5. such as orders for periodical payments or lump sums. Part 8 makes provision for similar financial protection to be available in the High Court and in the county court as is available in magistrates' courts under the provisions of Schedule 6.
  It is important that civil partners should be able to apply for financial provision in all levels of court and have access to the widest range of orders, for self-evident reasons. This part of the schedule complements the rest of Schedule 5, which deals with financial provision for civil partners and children of the family, by making available financial orders where there has been a failure to maintain. Any such failure may cause hardship and in such a case it would be in the public interest for that failure to be addressed against the civil partner concerned rather than fall to the state.
  The noble Baroness asked why the civil partner should be so burdened. In essence, that goes to the spirit of the Bill which is that civil partnerships confer significant rights and responsibilities on both partners. If, as a consequence of the partnership, they have taken on responsibility for a child of that relationship—we discussed previously that it is

  GC 195
  perfectly possible through adoption for such a child to be in that position—it seems right to the Government that they should carry the responsibility of maintaining that child into the future, and hopefully maintaining an emotional and a supportive relationship as well as a financial one. Removal of Part 8 from Schedule 5 would reduce the facilities for civil partners to apply for financial provision that exist for married people. We do not see a justification for that.
  Amendment No. 54, although necessary, is perhaps slightly less likely to be used in a large number of cases. It would remove all paragraphs of Part 3 of Schedule 6. Schedule 6 allows civil partners to apply for financial relief in the magistrates' courts, and Part 3 is an integral part, as it enables the court to make orders for financial provision for a civil partner or a child of the family where civil partners are living apart by agreement. While I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, spoke clearly about why it is desirable to have such a provision, we would not pretend that this is a large-scale event. At least in the context of divorce or marriage breakdown, people usually opt for a divorce rather than financial relief after they have separated. Nevertheless, he is right in the sense that if people have separated but have not yet decided that they wish to end the relationship permanently, it is good that the law allows them to get financial support so that they are not forced as a consequence of not having financial support to end the relationship prematurely if that was not necessary.
  Civil partners will be under a duty to maintain each other and any children of the family. It is important that they should be able to make application for financial provision when they are living apart by agreement because that goes to the heart of the agreement into which they entered. It would be in the public interest for civil partners to have such a continuing duty when living apart by agreement, otherwise it could fall to the state to support them. But perhaps more importantly, it was part of the responsibilities that they undertook when entering into that relationship. Again, we wish to reduce acrimony between people in situations where relationships are in difficulties. These provisions correspond to those available for partners to a marriage.
  I think I was also asked why the period is three months. I am afraid it is the same answer that the noble Baroness has grown used to: it mirrors what is currently the law on divorce and marriage in that respect. I hope that, with those explanations, I have given a satisfactory response to these probing amendments.
  Baroness Wilcox: As the Minister said, these are probing amendments. I will read carefully what he has said in Hansard and see if there is any reason for me to come back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 130, line 39, after second "the" insert "civil"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Financial relief in magistrates' courts etc.]:
  [Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
  Schedule 6 agreed to.
  Schedule 7 agreed to.
  Clauses 70 to 78 agreed to.
  Schedule 8 agreed to.
  Clause 79 agreed to.
  Schedule 9 agreed to.
  Clause 80 agreed to.
  Clause 81 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:
  [Amendment No. 54A not moved.]
  Clause 81 agreed to.
  Clause 82 [Eligibility]:
  [Amendment No. 54 B not moved.]
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 55:
  Page 38, line 1, leave out "Subsection (1) does not apply to"
  The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 55, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 56 to 60. Clause 82 sets out the eligibility of a couple to form a civil partnership in Scotland. It prevents a couple from forming a civil partnership if they are not of the same sex; either is under 16; either is already in a subsisting marriage or civil partnership; either is incapable of understanding the nature of a civil partnership; or they are connected with the prohibited degrees of relationship as set out in Schedule 10 to the Bill.
  Subsections (3) and (4) explain certain exceptions depending on the degree of affinity. Subsections (5) to (7) apply this section and Schedule 10 to the case of a person wishing to form a civil partnership in his acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Bill.
  4.15 p.m.
  Anyone wishing to form a civil partnership must satisfy the eligibility criteria set out in subsection (1). The drafting of subsections (3) and (4) is presently misleading. It would mean that the eligibility criteria set out in subsection (1) would not apply in some cases. This is clearly not our intention. These minor amendments simply rephrase the wording of subsections (3) and (4) to correct this error and mirror our policy intention. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: In the absence of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who is in Scotland, I intervene briefly to thank the noble Lord for introducing these amendments. They are some distance away from his native Wales, but, no doubt, he is learning fast about Scotland. I congratulate the Scotland Office for at least tabling their amendments in time and I repeat yesterday's comments by my noble friend Lord Tebbit

  GC 197
  about the somewhat excessive number of amendments that came in rather late. I appreciate that we had an explanation yesterday from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, mostly relating to Northern Ireland,
  In all my years here I have never known a Bill that has effectively doubled in size in this way or has had to be completely rewritten at this stage. When one considers the long gestation of the Bill it is a sad reflection on the efficiency of the Government—and I exempt the Scottish Office—that they should have to introduce such a selection of amendments at such a late stage. No doubt, others will wish to comment on that later when we reach those amendments.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. In fact, yesterday the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, dealt in considerable detail with the reason for these amendments, but I join him in congratulating the Scotland Office and officials who have come down from the Scottish Parliament for the quality of the work that they have done for us on the Bill.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Amendments Nos. 56 to 60 agreed to.
  Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 10 agreed to.
  Clauses 83 to 121 agreed to.
  Schedule 11 agreed to.
  Clauses 122 to 127 agreed to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 61:
  After Clause 127, insert the following new clause—
  "COUNCIL TAX: LIABILITY OF CIVIL PARTNERS
  After section 77 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14), insert —
  "77A LIABILITY OF CIVIL PARTNERS
  (1) Where—

  (a) a person who is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any day is in civil partnership with another person or living with another person in a relationship which has the characteristics of the relationship between civil partners; and

  (b) that other person is also a resident of the dwelling on that day but would not, apart from this section, be so liable,

  those persons shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the council tax payable in respect of that dwelling and that day.
  (2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply as respects any day on which the other person there mentioned falls to be disregarded for the purposes of discount—

  (a) by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act (the severely mentally impaired); or

  (b) being a student, by virtue of paragraph 4 of that Schedule."."

  The noble Lord said: I bring to the Committee a further amendment relating to the Scottish provisions in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to provide that civil partners be jointly and severally liable for payment of council tax on a property in the same way as spouses. The requirement for spouses in Scotland is made in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The
  GC 198
  amendment seeks to include provision in that Act to take account of the new legal status of civil partners. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 128 to 130 agreed to.
  Clause 131 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos) moved Amendment No. 61A:
  Page 65, line 29, after "witnesses" insert "both of whom profess to be 16 or over"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 61A and 61 B make technical adjustments to Clause 131. The first amendment places on the face of the Bill a provision that witnesses to a civil partnership registration must be 16 or over. This corresponds to a provision in the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and ensures consistency of approach to the age at which a person may act as witness.
  The second amendment makes clear that. following the registration of a civil partnership, the fact of registration is to be recorded by the registrar rather than registered in the official register of civil partnerships which each registrar and the Registrar General will keep. The current wording may have appeared confusing as to the point in time at which the registration formally took place.
  These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the Leader of the House, to the Grand Committee. I hope that she finds it interesting. I also hope that she realises the very difficult circumstances and awful working conditions; but we have gone through that so many times that I suppose I had better not repeat it.
  Although this particular amendment is uncontroversial, following the debate on Northern Ireland in Grand Committee on 10 May, I wish to set out my stall and reiterate why I feel that Northern Ireland should not be included in the Bill.
  On the first day of Grand Committee, last Monday, I moved an amendment to leave Northern Ireland out of the Bill entirely; that is at col. GC44 of Hansard for 10 May. Although my amendment was rejected, it seemed to be agreed that there is a very different religious and political culture in Northern Ireland. The Minister admitted that the majority of ordinary men and women who responded to the consultation in the Province were opposed to civil partnerships. But the Government's view is that the Government are right; the people who responded to the consultation are wrong; and they are going to impose civil partnerships upon them anyway.
  Lord Alli: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness quite so early in her speech. As I think I said in Grand Committee yesterday, I have very carefully read her comments. I, too, was quite worried about the distortion in Northern Ireland. I think she is right that part of that is probably due to different cultural factors.

  GC 199
  Nevertheless, I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, to ask whether, based on respondent numbers, she or her civil servants could identify any concerted letter-writing campaign in the consultation process. I was surprised at the low number of responses—462—to the consultation. The Minister has replied to my letter—I have just been handed a copy—and I am more than happy to copy that to the noble Baroness. It states that there is evidence of repeat replies and a large number of letter-writing campaigns that may have influenced the result.
  So I hear what the noble Baroness is saying. I think that an organised letter-writing campaign involving repeat replies is not quite the same as genuine responses to consultation. I will certainly ask the Minister to copy her letter to the noble Baroness. Perhaps she will be able to study it before Report stage.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alli, very much for his intervention, and I look forward to seeing the reply. However, I would also point out that I referred in yesterday's debate to the campaign that was certainly launched in England and Wales. That consultation was mainly with organisations known to be in support of the Bill. Two wrongs do not make a right. However, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention.
  I am bound to point out that when we debated the issue on 10 May, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, did not give us a full picture about the nature of responses to the consultation. She said:
  "The majority of responses from individuals were opposed to the introduction of civil partnerships but, on the other hand, most groups or organisations who responded … were supportive".—[Official Report, 10/5/04; col. GC 46.]
  She did not say, but it is apparent from the document that the Women and Equality Unit posted to us on 11 May, that of 462 responses, 416—that is, 90 per cent—were from individuals. Only 46—that is, 10 per cent—were from organisations. In fact, 40 per cent of those organisations oppose civil partnerships. Overall, 86 per cent of respondents were against the plans.
  As I pointed out yesterday, responses to a consultation are not the same as a representative sample. We would all agree with that. That certainly tallies with what I was saying on the first day in Committee about the very high level of opposition that I assumed there would be in Northern Ireland to civil partnerships.
  Interestingly, 87 per cent of those who objected were concerned about the impact on marriage. They were right to be concerned because, as the deliberations on this Bill have progressed in Grand Committee, it has become overwhelmingly clear that this is a form of civil marriage for homosexuals. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, is not in his place. Yesterday, he said that he did not regard that as being the case. I know that he believes what he says.
  GC 200
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester—I am very sorry that he is not in his place—was correct when he said that the Bill is intended to,
  "mirror marriage without using that label".—[Official Report. 12/ 5/04; col. GC 178.]
  Legally speaking, by far the biggest difference between civil partnership and marriage is in the nomenclature. The rest is just detail. I am firmly of the view that we should not be imposing gay marriage on Northern Ireland against the wishes of the population. Nor do I think that we should be sneaking it through while the Northern Ireland Assembly is sadly suspended. If the Government are so convinced of their case, they should be willing to wait until the Assembly is reestablished and try to persuade it to adopt it.
  I also do not think that the procedure for imposing civil partnerships on Northern Ireland is appropriate. As my noble friend Lord Tebbit pointed out yesterday, we had some 120 pages of Government amendments dropped on us on Tuesday. We are expected to have been able to scrutinise them and are now expected to agree them on Thursday. That would be absolutely impossible even if I had a team of advisers similar to those available to the Minister. For us humble Back Benchers that is totally out of the question.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, yesterday reminded us, at column GC 127 of the Official Report, of her remarks at Second Reading, in anticipation of the arrival of these amendments. She said on Second Reading:
  "Part 4 of the Bill deals with provisions relating to Northern Ireland. As yet, these are incomplete. We intend to add further provisions by amendment".—[Official Report, 22/4/04; col. 390.]
  I am sorry to say that those remarks gave no indication of the extent of the changes. Nothing in those remarks indicated that we should expect 120 pages of amendments to a 260-page Bill. There was also no suggestion that we would be given just two days to contemplate them before we were asked to agree to their inclusion in the Bill.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was open about the problems of timing yesterday when we came to the first of the enormous batch of amendments, which were tabled on 10 May. She said that these government amendments were not expected to be considered before Monday 17 May, which would be seven days after they were tabled. Why were they not tabled earlier? Why were proceedings on this Bill not delayed until after the officials had looked at the consultation responses and finalised the amendments?
  I do not know what has gone wrong within the department, but the timing of the tabling of those amendments is totally unacceptable. This Committee and the process of proper scrutiny of legislation should not be forced to pay the price for bungling.
  My noble friend Lord Higgins hinted at his displeasure at this yesterday. I think that we should do more than that: we should not agree to these amendments becoming part of the Bill at this stage. The Minister should move them and explain them, but then withdraw them to allow us time to consider whether to agree to them.

  GC 201
  I do not have time to look at the details. No one has. But even a brief inspection shows that the amendments touch on highly controversial matters. For example, Amendment No. 61C in the next group concerns the place of registration for civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. Astonishingly, it does not replicate the ban in Clause 6 on the use of religious premises in England and Wales and in Clause 89 for those in Scotland. I guess the answer will be that it will be in regulations, but regulations arc not acceptable. In England and Wales and Scotland there is a ban in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to bring them into line with England. Wales and Scotland.
  4.30 p.m.
  Amendment No. 61 BH concerns the highly sensitive area of adoption. Civil partnership is to be recognised as marriage for many purposes regarding adoption law in Northern Ireland. That is despite the fact that adoption by homosexual couples is not allowed in Northern Ireland. I am sure that there are many other issues, but we must have time to discover them. I know that the Government said yesterday in column GC 158 of Hansard that they intend no discourtesy by the timing. But I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise the extremely difficult position in which the Committee is being placed and will not move the amendment formally today so that we can all have time to work out what on earth these amendments are for.
  I know that it will be said that the amendments mirror provisions for England and Wales. But at Second Reading on 22 April, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, also said, at column 391 of Hansard, that there were differences reflecting the Northern Ireland law, and it is those differences that concern me.
  Finally. I hope that Members of your Lordships' House, particularly the Members of this Grand Committee do not regard me as a wrecker. I do not wish to sabotage the Bill as, I am told, I could by signalling "not content" to all the Government amendments on Northern Ireland. I will not do so. However, I give notice of my intention to scrutinise all those amendments between now and Report; and it will come as no surprise for those who have been here for the last two and a half days that I intend to return to them on Report or Third Reading if I feel that it is necessary.
  Lord Alli: I do not think that I or anyone else who has sat in the Committee would ever suggest that the noble Baroness is trying to wreck the Bill procedurally. In fact. I believe that she just opposes parts of it. That is a principled position to take and I understand that.
  However, the case that she made for depriving the people of Northern Ireland from the protection opportunities of the Bill was unconvincing. The least convincing argument put by the noble Baroness on Monday was that—I think she said—there were very
  GC 202
  few homosexuals in Northern Ireland and she added that the census had uncovered only 288 same-sex couples in the Province.
  Baroness O'Cathain: No, no. I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I must read the debate again, but I was saying that in the census it was either 268 or 288 homosexual couples who are house-sharing, home-sharing or living together. I was not saying that there are only 268 homosexuals in the whole of Northern Ireland—I do not know how many homosexual couples there are in Northern Ireland, but I was talking about home-sharing or house-sharing.
  Lord Alli: I believe that the insinuation of the noble Baroness in that part of her speech was that only a small number of people would be affected by the Bill and as a result we should not have it applying to Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Baroness would agree with me that if one extended that logic and used the formula that she uses about there being few homosexuals, then the provisions that we have made in this House for war widows would fall under her definition, because there are very few war widows—45,000, who make up 0.000075 per cent of the population. There was no good reason why they should not be protected and I believe that the number of people being protected or being given that opportunity in legislation should not be the most important factor.
  I draw the noble Baroness' attention to some hard facts about the Province. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has just committed itself to a significant programme of work to protect the lesbian and gay population after acknowledging last month that the level of violent crime against gay people in the Province had recently doubled. A survey released by the Youthnet group in January this year found that nearly a third of young lesbian and gay people in Northern Ireland had attempted suicide as a result of persecution and bullying. As many as 50 per cent said that they had suffered some bullying due to their sexuality.
  Those are figures which make Northern Ireland special, but hardly deserving of exemption from this legislation, which will send a clear message that young lesbians and gay men can in future grow up knowing that one day they will be entitled to the same protection in law as their heterosexual counterparts. There might be as many as 60,000 to 80.000 gay people in Northern Ireland; in Belfast itself there is some evidence of a significant gay community. An entrepreneur has recently taken 9,000 square feet of retail space in the heart of Belfast to open a new gay club. According to a range of reports there is an active and vibrant gay community in Belfast and if the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would ever like to accompany me I could show her around.
  Central to my concern over the noble Baroness is that excluding Northern Ireland from these provisions would reinforce the prejudice that I have talked about and we should be in the business of opposing that

  GC 203
  prejudice and educating the people that hold those views, rather than penalising the victims of the prejudice.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I shall not weary the Committee any more on this matter, but wish to put a few facts straight for the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I did say:
  "As a matter of fact, there are very few homosexuals. A recent census found that there were only 288 same-sex couple households in the whole of the Province. The reference for that is the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Online-Census 2001".—[Official Report. 10/5/04, col. GC44.]
  The second point that the noble Lord made was about the level of violence doubling. That is pretty appalling but we all know that the monitoring commission report issued just a few weeks ago sadly indicated that violence generally is increasing in the Province. So, I do not know where the noble Lord's figures came from but the situation is unfortunately so sad for those of us who are closely involved with and feel deeply about Northern Ireland—my father was from Northern Ireland so I know something about the Province. I would not wish to base my arguments on just that, but I want to put the record straight—I never said that there were only 288 homosexuals in the Province.
  Lord Alli: I do not think that I misquoted the noble Baroness. What I said was what she just quoted:
  "As a matter of fact there are very few homosexuals",
  in Northern Ireland. That is what she said.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I apologise for not being here for the earlier discussion on this matter, but I know exactly what it is about, so I want to raise a couple of points.
  As someone who has been a holiday resident of west Cork for 32 years and goes frequently to Northern Ireland to argue difficult cases on moral and other questions, I am well aware of the difference of opinion between Ireland west of the Irish Sea and Britain east of the Irish Sea on some of these questions, and I fully respect that difference of feeling among the general population. That is why Britain was taken before the European Court of Human Rights, as was Ireland, in relation to homosexuality in the Dudgeon case and the Norris case, because we had the antiquated Victorian law that criminalised adult homosexual conduct between consenting males.
  We kept that law in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to appease majority opinion and it took the ECHR to establish equal protection for gay men across the whole of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The happy position now prevails so that in both our countries, including Northern Ireland, there is equal protection against the use of criminal law to criminalise private consenting male homosexual conduct.
  I believe that the Government are right to introduce into this code matching provisions in Northern Ireland to ensure that the basic rights of citizenship that are
  GC 204
  our birthright by being born and bred as British citizens should not vary according to the particular part of the United Kingdom in which we happen to live. There must be genuinely equal protection on basic issues. If we were to discriminate against gay or lesbian couples in their treatment by our legal system in Northern Ireland, although there would be some argument for saying that that was justified by having a different legal system, it would be a difficult matter to justify in the circumstances of this issue.
  In any event, it is the function of Parliament to protect vulnerable minorities against the tyranny of majorities. I have always sought to do that, whether the minority is popular or unpopular. I have never regarded the majoritarian principle as one that should guide the legislator on matters of basic human rights.
  Therefore, I strongly support the inclusion of the Northern Ireland provisions. I believe that there has been appropriate consultation. I realise that that consultation has shown that the majority of organisations in Northern Ireland supported these provisions and the majority of individuals who responded did not. However, I do not believe that one can take policy decisions of this kind by counting heads or depending upon majorities. Therefore, since I do not accept the tyranny of majorities when it comes to basic human rights—and I am a follower of John Stuart Mill in that respect—I strongly support what the Government are seeking to do.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I have not had an opportunity to speak on the Bill before, but I rise now to support wholeheartedly the point of view that has been so ably put by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I come from Northern Ireland and I know that community a great deal better than the noble Lord, Lord Alli, for example, however knowledgeable he might consider himself to be. It surprised me that, in presenting his defence of his position, he suggested that the opposition to the Bill, as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, was somehow orchestrated.
  Northern Ireland is a parochial community of small towns and villages, of country people coming together as a community. It is not unusual that what appears to be a campaign arises from that. But it is not a campaign on the same level as we have seen campaigns, for example, from the gay and lesbian communities throughout the United Kingdom. This is a campaign—if I dare call it that—or a movement based on common understanding and support, with one family backing another within our small parochial set-up. It also noticeably crosses the two main traditional divides in Northern Ireland.
  4.45 p.m.
  In more than 20 years in this place and the other place, I have so often heard it said that Northern Ireland should be considered in a way that enables two traditions to find common cause. On this issue, two traditions have found common cause. I believe

  GC 205
  that the speed with which the Bill has been foisted upon the people of Northern Ireland is quite inappropriate. I t will cause huge offence.
  Only in one area would I have any sympathy with the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and I think that that is well known. I am totally opposed to violence or any sort of intimidation towards any minority section within our society. But if we are to ensure that the unfortunate increase in violence to which the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has referred is not to escalate, we must try to ensure that unacceptable changes to our society as a whole are not foisted upon the community in what appears to be an aggressive and precipitate manner.
  We should not treat Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom when it suits and as a part that needs to be treated differently when it suits otherwise. That is what I have experienced, I am sorry to say, in my 20 years or so here. Northern Ireland does not want the Bill foisted upon it in this form at this time; it has not had time to consider it or to begin to understand.
  In conclusion, I hope that the point of view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, will be heeded by the Government.
  Lord Alli: Before the noble Lord sits down, I was not saying that I had evidence of an orchestrated campaign. I said that I had written to the Minister and asked whether there was evidence of such a campaign in the response from the correspondents. Her reply was that there was evidence of repeat returns.
  I do not think that I have to come from Northern Ireland to identify prejudice. I am quite good at spotting prejudice and, where it exists, we should seek to remedy it. That really does transcend borders.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, sits down, I wonder whether he could help me. I made the point that it was exactly because the two communities in Northern Ireland and, for that matter, in the Republic of Ireland, had the strongly held view that they did—which some might call prejudice and others might call strongly held feelings—that both countries were taken before the European Court of Human Rights and found wanting because they were discriminating in the criminal law against homosexual couples and singles.
  I do not understand, given where the noble Lord is coming from, whether he regards that as an affront to the people of Northern Ireland and would have opposed it. I think that on the basis of what he has said, he probably would have. Does he accept that, whether from the point of view of a Unionist or a republican, it is very important that common standards should prevail on both sides of the Irish Sea, and north and south, on basic fundamental human rights, and that if a vulnerable minority of any kind is not able to enjoy the same rights, on a discriminatory basis, they should be entitled to effective remedy?
  That is what the Bill, as I understand it, seeks to do. It seeks to place homosexual couples who volunteer to do so under the same code of rights and obligations that they would have had if they were not gay but
  GC 206
  heterosexual. The Bill is simply seeking to do justice to them. Is the noble Lord's position that that concern should be overborne by a majoritarian sentiment? That is what I do not understand from his speech.
  Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has posed a rather lengthy question and I do not think that I am in a position to answer it in detail in the time that the Committee will accord me. Suffice it to say, when the question, "When did you stop beating your wife" is asked, we all know that the answer is bound to catch you out. That is the sort of question I have been asked.
  The noble Lord referred to prejudice or strongly held feeling. What if I referred, on behalf of the people I represent, to moral standards? I do not want to—and am trying not to—enter into a debate on moral judgment. None the less, it is a common feeling or opinion throughout Northern Ireland that a level of moral standards should be maintained.
  I answer the noble Lord, Lord Lester, by saying no, I am not happy with much of the legislation that comes from Europe. I am content to say that whatever minority I may meet or contend with in my community, I will protect them. I will protect them against violence, but let me make it clear that I will not enhance the minority opinion if I believe it goes against the welfare or the moral standards expected within my community. That is as fair as I can be on this issue.
  I am sorry if I have not responded fully to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I am not suggesting that he does not know Northern Ireland, nor that he does not have a knowledge of it. But the inner feeling within Northern Ireland is being grievously injured by this legislation. For that reason, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
  Earl Ferrers: I have listened to this debate for about the last half an hour and I venture to suggest that we may have become slightly off beam. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain said, as I understood it, that one of the objections was that 125 pages of amendments had been put down on Tuesday which we were supposed to digest and comment upon on Thursday. That is a fairly substantial objection.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alli, answered the main substance of the amendments, but I think he missed the main point. Whatever these amendments contain, neither the Government nor the Opposition, nor anyone in the Committee has had enough chance to read them. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, says he thinks that it is quite right for the rights of Northern Ireland to be incorporated into the Bill. That may be perfectly true. He also said that common standards should prevail. That also may be perfectly true. But if it is so simple, why does it take 125 pages? If incorporating these provisions in the Bill is so obvious, why did the Government not incorporate them in the first place?
  The fact is that one has these 125 pages, presumably all of which mean something—and something fairly substantial—because otherwise one might just as well put down an amendment saying that this Bill applies to Northern Ireland. But if it is not as simple as that,

  GC 207
  people really must be given the opportunity to consider what is being put forward. That is the onus of the amendments of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain as opposed to the detail to which many Members of the Committee referred.
  Lord Alli: I did not comment on the noble Baroness's assertion about the lateness of the amendments because those of us who have been sitting here for three days have had the explanation six times. We have had that discussion time and time again with every successive Minister who comes to the Front Bench.
  Lord Henley: If the noble Lord will give way, we have not actually had a terribly good explanation of why these measures have come forward. The point that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is making is a good one. Here we are in Grand Committee, in which to some extent things should go forward by agreement. We are presented with a Bill that has any number of clauses on Northern Ireland. We are then presented—and given an explanation for it—with a whole redraft of every single Northern Ireland amendment. I do not have a clue whether the original draft is as good as the new draft or whether the thing needs redoing. However, it seems to me that what we ought to be doing is sending this away and bringing it back later.
  Lord Alli: The point I was going to make before the noble Lord intervened was that I would have a lot more sympathy with the complaint of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, regarding the tabling of these amendments if her principal position was not that she does not wish to see this Bill apply to Northern Ireland in any way, shape or form, and therefore any amendment, however drafted, is unacceptable to her. That is my point—that any amendment would be unacceptable to the noble Baroness, no matter how it was drafted.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I am sorry, but I really must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, on this. I never said that. Much legislation goes through with which I am not comfortable that has nothing to do with the Civil Partnership Bill. In principle I object to that legislation. The noble Lord will be aware of several Bills to which I have objected in principle. However, I realise that this is a democratic process. This is a government Bill and we have to accept that it is likely to be enacted.
  We also have to accept that as Members of your Lordships' House we have a responsibility to scrutinise legislation and to put aside our prejudices although we should state them. The first thing my university economics professor said was that one should always declare one's bias. I have always been honest about stating my prejudices. Then one should try to arrive at some sort of modus vivendi and improve the legislation, always accepting that in principle one does not like it. But we have to accept that that is the case with many Bills. I repeat that I am not a wrecker. I do not want to sabotage this Bill. I want to ensure
  GC 208
  that the legislation that we get through this Bill is as good as is possible under the circumstances, no matter what my starting point is. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, takes that point on board.
  The Lord Bishop of Chester: The Episcopal Members of the House have a not entirely undeserved reputation for trying to sit on the fence when they should not. On this issue I find myself drawn in both directions. The fundamental issue is one of justice, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred. The thought that this Bill could be enacted and not apply to part of the United Kingdom is inherently difficult to contemplate, and I imagine very difficult to contemplate from a legal point of view because of the pressure of the European courts.
  However, the form in which the measure is presented—this is where I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and others—seems to me an absolute mess. The sheer size of the Bill and its complexity suggest to me that something is wrong. The basic problem is—I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the measure has been driven too much by an attempt to shadow the provisions for marriage. It is a provision for gay marriage. It is an absolute fig leaf to pretend otherwise. Once you get into shadowing the provisions for marriage, you enter the slightly anomalous situation we have that different legal provisions apply to marriage in different parts of the United Kingdom.
  Might the Bill not have been much better if it had been distanced somewhat from marriage? I know that it might be too late to go back over that territory, but if the Bill was distanced somewhat from marriage as such, and focused upon the basic issues of justice—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, on that point—legal protection for people, children and so forth, we would be in a much better situation and we would not be in this strange position where we are hearing different statements about whether ceremonies can take place on religious premises in different parts of the United Kingdom. That is an issue that ought to be addressed on its own terms.
  We are where we are, but we are getting into a very complex situation with this huge set of amendments, tabled at two days' notice. I have sympathy with the thrust of this particular amendment, but I also have sympathy with what I think is the source of the complaint. We are trying all the time simply to shadow the provisions for marriage and are not coming clean about what we are doing.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Unwittingly, we are getting into territory which is not quite fair to the Government. The starting point is that the reason that they have used the marriage code as a benchmark is because it provides the comparator—the comparison for the treatment of same-sex couples. The question one has to ask is if married couples can have X, why should not same-sex couples have X? That provides the benchmark, and that is why the Government have done it that way.

  GC 209
  Every time the Government deviate from that which is given to married couples, gay and lesbian couples could quite rightly ask them how that could be justified because the Government would be perpetuating a difference of treatment that was not justified. On that, I think the Government have acted sensibly. However, it means that once one has the England and Wales provisions, which we are going through in some detail, and because we live in a devolved system that has different legal systems, one has to look at what adjustments should be made to the provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. If those adjustments are not appropriate in legal terms, that must concern us. No one has yet suggested that that is the case.
  So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will recall that when she and I were consulted by the usual channels about whether there should be pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill, which we both opposed, we were told by the Minister—at least, I certainly was—that one strong argument for pre-legislative scrutiny was the need to consult in Northern Ireland. I said, as I am sure did the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that that was not a good reason for not going ahead with the Bill because of the urgency of getting it through to protect these vulnerable groups. Therefore, it is not quite fair to the Government, given that we rejected pre-legislative scrutiny, to complain now that they have consulted, for which they are to be commended, and have produced amendments after the Bill was published. I was certainly told that they would be doing that. Those amendments are standard in the sense that they copy over for Northern Ireland that which is applicable to England, Wales and Scotland, making changes to respect the Northern Ireland legal system.
  That seems to be a perfectly proper process, and we have ample time in the passage of the Bill, guided by the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the Bar, NGOs and Churches to take account of any special Northern Ireland legal or other issues that have not been properly accommodated.
  Given the conduct of the two Opposition parties in rejecting pre-legislative scrutiny, it does not lie in our mouths now to complain when the Government do what we ask them and warn us that we would get these amendments late. I am not a member of the Labour Party and I am not a member of the Government, but I think, in fairness, I ought to say that.
  Earl Ferrers: the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is one to whom one always listens with great interest. However, I think he has shot the ground from underneath his feet completely this afternoon by what he has just said.
  The noble Lord said it was right that marriage should be regarded as the benchmark—what happens in religious or civil marriage should be the benchmark for what happens in a civil partnership. If you do that, you are equating a civil partnership with marriage, as the right reverend Prelate says. Whatever one says about the arguments, the two are not equatable. In marriage, two people join together with the idea of procreating children and in civil partnerships they do not You start off by saying that the two are not
  GC 210
  equatable. If you then say that we will try to make them similar, you run into the problems that we have at the moment. To say that it is quite right to mirror marriage is saying, as the right reverend Prelate said. that this is a Bill for civil marriage as opposed to civil partnership.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester, went on to say that the Government said that they would introduce amendments and we understood this, therefore it is quite all right to have all these amendments. There is a common tendency for governments to introduce Bills and then say that they are going to amend them. I think this is a bad thing on the whole. A Bill ought to be introduced with the Government saying, "This is what we intend" as opposed to saying, "This is what we intend at the moment but we will alter it later". Nevertheless, the Government have said that they will do that, and that has satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
  The noble Lord is a man of words and a man of letters. You cannot say that to introduce 125 pages is simply filling up holes—of course it is not. What is written is very important. That is why we have simple amendments like leaving out "and" and inserting "or". How do you incorporate 125 pages without discussing or considering them?
  I feel that this is quite the wrong approach. I can understand the reason for it but I think the Government ought to give people time to consider what they are proposing.
  Baroness Amos: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for her welcome to my addition to the team working on the Civil Partnership Bill. Let me begin by dealing with the point about timing—it has been raised by many noble Lords and it causes me a degree of concern.
  Of course I apologise if members of the Committee feel that they have had insufficient time. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was quite right—the Government made it absolutely clear last year that we were prepared to offer the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny; we wanted to consult in Northern Ireland and to have the results of that consultation before moving to draft the part of the Bill relating to Northern Ireland.
  The proposal for PLS was rejected and it was agreed that we could go ahead and publish the Bill. However, it was absolutely clear at that point that a significant number of amendments would then have to be made at a much later stage.
  I repeat what has been said many times before. These amendments mirror the provisions for England and Wales. They differ in that they relate to differences that exist in the legislation that applies to Northern Ireland. So with respect to the principles underpinning the Bill, there is no difference between what the Government are trying to do in Northern Ireland and what we are seeking to do with regard to England and Wales.
  I totally understand that Members of the Committee are trying to be helpful. Perhaps I can go back to those first principles again and underline what

  GC 211
  I know my colleagues have already said. Same-sex couples are unable to marry. Their relationships are invisible in law and they face unnecessary problems as a result. That is what civil partnership is designed to address. The Government have no plans to allow same-sex couples to marry. These proposals are for an entirely new legal status of civil partnership. For reasons of equality and social justice, we are convinced of the need to offer same-sex couples the opportunity to gain a legal status for their relationship, with an associated package of rights and responsibilities.
  I have listened very carefully to the points that were made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, regarding the concerns expressed in the consultation with respect to these proposals being applied in Northern Ireland. There are some areas in which the Government have to take a lead. I particularly consider that that is the case in areas where we are pushing forward with respect to equality, social justice and humanity. That is what we are doing through this legislation.
  There are two key arguments for proceeding with civil partnership in Northern Ireland. The first concerns social justice, fairness and equality. The second is that once the decision to proceed with civil partnership in Great Britain is taken, the need to ensure that same-sex couples in Northern Ireland are treated in the same way is overwhelming. In that sense I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester. There are strong practical and legal reasons for ensuring that the creation of a new status of civil partnership is applied consistently across the three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. That is the basis on which we are introducing these proposals which will relate to Northern Ireland.
  I turn to the specific questions that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned the census data. We have to recognise that there is still a significant degree of homophobia in Northern Ireland. We have to look at the probability that a lot of same-sex couples would not want to declare their status or their relationship through a public census because of that homophobia. In terms of what I have already said with respect to the issues of fairness, equality and social justice, it is important that we move ahead with these amendments.
  As regards the wider issue of the inclusion of Northern Ireland in this legislation, we need to have these amendments so that we have a full range of provisions to set up a system of registration and dissolution, including financial arrangements, in Northern Ireland. As with the English provisions, the law on marriage is replicated.
  I turn to the question of religious premises, that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. The provision is not on the face of the order for marriage in Northern Ireland. That is why it is not in this Bill. In Northern Ireland comparable provision is made in the regulations, and the same will apply here.
  GC 212
  This has been a wide-ranging and general debate. Very little of it related to Amendments Nos. 61A and 61B which I moved originally. But I hope that in the light of the explanation that I have given, these amendments can be agreed.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her very gracious way of dealing with what has been quite a tendentious issue. However, I wish to make a few points briefly. First, I refer to pre-legislative scrutiny. I want to make a general point that has nothing at all to do with the Bill. The Committee ought to bear in mind that a significant number of Back-Benchers do not get involved in decisions about whether measures should be subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. In order to make the workings of the House more democratic and more amenable to all of us—particularly as the Minister as Leader of the House has it in her gift, I suspect, to deal with this issue—perhaps some way should be formulated whereby it is made more generally known whether or not a Bill should be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, and not just known by one or two Members of the usual channels. Some of us have strong views about this. I put that suggestion forward. I would not go to the gallows on it, but there we are.
  Secondly, I noted that the noble Baroness said that the Government have no plans to allow same-sex couples to marry and I was very interested to note that that is not exactly what we heard last night. Perhaps she can look back on the exchanges in Grand Committee on 12 May.
  Thirdly, I said that the Government's view is that the Government are right and the people who responded to the consultation are wrong and they are going to impose civil partnerships on them anyway. I thought that I was utterly vindicated when the noble Baroness said that the Government have to take the lead and that they are going to do it. That is fine. That is what the Government will do.
  The fourth point is a very minor point about the census. I always thought that the census was secret. I do not know about the matter of homophobia and people not being prepared to state their status on the census. Maybe the noble Baroness will write to me about it as I do not want to take any more of the Committee's time.
  The big issue, which I used as an example, is that in the case of Northern Ireland there are regulations about religious matters that are on the face of the Bill for England and Wales and Scotland. I cannot understand why, if we have 120 pages of Amendments—not 125 pages as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said—they are supposed to replicate everything in England and Wales and Scotland. Surely it is an opportunity to make a change.
  That is all. I thank the noble Baroness for being very measured about my points and I hope that she feels that I too have been measured. However, there are issues that deeply concern me.
  Baroness Wilcox: I have listened very carefully to the debate this afternoon. I have heard the noble Lord,

  GC 213
  Lord Lester, say that we talked about pre-legislative scrutiny in our meetings. But the trouble with this room is that it is very difficult to work out who is from the Front Bench, who is from the Cross Benches and who is from the Back Benches. At one stage I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was more than likely running the Front Bench for the Government because we seem to have heard more from him than from anybody else today. He speaks extremely well and I can think of nobody better to speak in the cause of the Bill over the past few days that we have been in Committee than the noble Lord, Lord Alli. However, I have listened to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester who says that he, like most of the bishops of the Church of England, is said to try to sit on the fence. But even he has found it very difficult to try to look at the more than 100 amendments that have been presented so quickly.
  My noble friend Lady O'Cathain has spoken wonderfully, both yesterday and today, in the cause of Northern Ireland. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, should have gone home yesterday. He had his plane organised and meetings arranged but he has come here today especially to plead that this is too fast. Northern Ireland is a special part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have lived there myself and I know the people. I know how they feel. If we railroad something over Northern Ireland it will cause us nothing but trouble in the future.
  We have waited so long to get this Bill, the Bill that the leader of my party and I support and want to see on the statute book. We have waited a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, famously introduced his Bill and spoke wonderfully to it. I supported him in that Bill and here we are. I think it would be a mistake for us to rush through the Bill today, expecting noble Lords to go through 100 amendments. We have the time. We have Monday. We have no rush. Why do we not rise soon and debate the amendments next week?
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Baroness sits down, does she not think that it is slightly curious that she should now take the position that the Government are in some way acting improperly when she and I both consented to precisely this approach? Does she not agree with me that it would be possible that when the matter goes back to the House as a whole on Report, if there are any defects in the Northern Ireland provisions, there would still be time for those to be considered? I am quite sure that the Government will then be generous and allow us to go into those matters if they arise.
  Baroness Wilcox: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say, gracious me, is Grand Committee in the Moses Room to be reduced to not being worth anything?
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: No.
  Baroness Wilcox: These are very important discussions.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I would—
  Baroness Wilcox: I feel that this is the moment for us to discuss them. I am in no way saying that I go back
  GC 214
  on anything that he and I agreed, but we have Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers here who are very concerned at this stage. As we are here for what I pray for on a daily basis in this House—that is, the common good—this is the moment to allow us to take a breather from 100 amendments that people have not had any time at all to consider. I would ask the Minister to give Members of the Committee the opportunity to study the amendments and to come back on this most important Bill.
  Baroness Amos: Perhaps I may, first, thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for her comments about the way in which I addressed the points that have been made. I am very conscious of the fact that one of the reasons that we have Bills in Grand Committee is precisely to allow the kind of debate and discussion that we have just had. It is very important that we continue to do that.
  I entirely take the noble Baroness's point about pre-legislative scrutiny; namely, that perhaps we could give some thought to the House being able to take a view. I shall take that away and give some thought to it. The noble Baroness is quite right about the census: it is secret. However, in small communities, even where there is an issue that is secret, there is very often a concern that individuals can be identified in any event because of the way in which data are printed and broken down with respect to particular areas.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, made a point about the number of amendments. Yes, there are a large number of amendments. However, perhaps I may repeat that those amendments mirror provisions that already exist in the Bill. We are not going through and opening up new discussions on the principles behind the Bill. We are seeking to ensure that the provisions that exist for England and Wales apply equally in Northern Ireland. There are some areas where there are differences because there is simply already a different part to the legal system in Northern Ireland.
  While I recognise the concerns that are being expressed around the Committee, I am very happy to go through each amendment in some detail with Members of the Committee. When we do that, if concerns are expressed about specific amendments, perhaps we could put those to one side. The concerns that are being expressed about the speed at which we move are not quite mirrored by what we are trying to do through the amendments.
  I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. If there are issues that we feel we need to come back to, that can be done at Report. However, I entirely take the point being made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, which is that this is the place where we should go through these amendments in some detail. Of course, I am very happy to do that.
  I think that the concerns being expressed that somehow Members of the Committee will not have a sense of what we are trying to do are, in a way, unfounded. Noble Lords have had many hours already on this Bill and understand the principles. From my reading of Hansard—in and out, backwards

  GC 215
  and forwards, and sideways as well—I would be very surprised if noble Lords, on hearing my explanation of each group of amendments, did not feel that they were actually able to say that they agreed with them.
  Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Baroness sits down, she has graciously answered the debate. We are very grateful to her for what she has said. I know that this is terribly important and we want to get the Bill through, but does she not think that it might be advisable to extend this stage and bring it up at the beginning of next week? It is an important matter and whatever people say about it just mirroring England and Wales, the fact is that if it does, it might have been in the Bill in the first place and everyone would have known what was what. If it is being put in as a result of consultation, how do we know that that is so? What is the point of the consultation if in the end the words are exactly the same as for England and Wales?
  When the noble Lord, Lord Lester, says that if there is anything wrong we can come back to it on Report and Third Reading, it minimises the value of Grand Committee. We must be able to discuss the amendments and at least understand them. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to allow this to be brought up at the beginning of next week when noble Lords have had time to have a look at it.
  Baroness Amos: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has completely misunderstood me. I was in no way suggesting that we minimise discussion in Grand Committee. In fact, I was suggesting the opposite. I was proposing to the Committee that it gives me a little space and allows me to take it through the amendments. If Members of the Committee then feel that, even with the explanations, they are unable to agree the amendments, we could look at whether the Committee needed to adjourn. I feel that, on the basis of the explanations that I will give about each group of amendments, Members of the Committee will feel able to decide whether to go ahead or not. That is my proposal to the Committee.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness. I now feel quite guilty that I started this hare running. But at the end of my intervention I said that we need an assurance that we will be able to return to the amendments—that there will be enough time on Report, if we do not agree with them, to tease them out. There may well be no problems with some of the amendments, but a problem with others, and I gave a couple of explanations. We may not understand some of the issues. Well, I do not understand them, I cannot speak for anybody else, and I need to spend a lot of time delving into them. One way of doing this is to adjourn the Grand Committee. The other way is to have us go through them, but we need the assurance that we have all the time in the world to deal with them properly. We cannot abuse our membership of the House of Lords by not scrutinising the amendments correctly.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to say that I greatly value the Grand
  GC 216
  Committee procedure. It is a huge improvement on what we used to have and I greatly value the detailed part of parliamentary scrutiny. I welcome what the Leader of the House said about what will happen, which I had assumed would happen anyway—that we would be given an introduction to these new amendments to enable us to understand any differences. When she is doing that, it would help the Committee if she drew attention to any problem areas. In other words, if there have been areas in the consultation where there is a particular problem in Northern Ireland that we need to know about, it is important that that be made visible so that we can give proper justice to the legal system in Northern Ireland.
  Baroness Amos: Perhaps I should repeat what I am proposing. I am by no means suggesting that discussion in this Committee should be curtailed in any way or that it should be put on hold for Report. I am suggesting that we begin the process, that I begin to take the Committee through the amendments. If the Committee then feels that the explanation are not sufficient to enable them to understand what we are proposing, then I am happy to take the temperature again, adjourn the Committee and come back again on Monday. But I feel that we can begin this process. The next group, Amendments Nos. 61A and 61B, is relatively straightforward. If I then take the Committee through Clause 131 stand part and the Members of the Committee feel that the explanation still leaves a great many questions in their minds, we can take the temperature again at that point. That is what I am proposing. I am not suggesting that we curtail debate in this Committee and push everything to Report.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61B:
  Page 65, line 38, leave out "civil partnership to be registered" and insert "registration of the civil partnership to be recorded"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 131 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Amos: Clause 131 sets out very clearly what we are trying to do in this legislation. It sets out the point at which a civil partnership is formed, who is to be present at the registration and the administrative procedure to be completed after the registration. A civil partnership is formed between two people after each of them has signed the civil partnership document at the invitation of, and in the presence of, a civil partnership registrar and in the presence of two witnesses. The civil partnership registrar and the two witnesses must sign the civil partnership document in the presence of each other and the civil partners. After the signing is complete, the registration authority in whose area the signing takes place must ensure that the civil partnership registration is recorded. That is the process that would be gone through in Northern Ireland to register a civil partnership. I hope that noble Lords understand it.
  Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 132 agreed to.
  Schedule 12 agreed to.
  Clauses 133 to 137 agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61C:
  After Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
  "PLACE OF REGISTRATION
  (1) The place at which two people may register as civil partners of each other must be—

  (a) a registration office, or

  (b) a place approved under subsection (3).

  (2) Subsection (1) is subject to subsections (5) and (7).
  (3) A local registration authority may, in accordance with regulations under subsection (4), approve places where civil partnerships may be registered in its district.
  (4) Regulations under section 138 may make provision for or in connection with the approval of places under subsection (3), including provision as to—

  (a) the kinds of place in respect of which approvals may be granted,

  (b) the procedure to be followed in relation to applications for approval,

  (c) the considerations to be taken into account in determining whether to approve any places,

  (d) the duration and renewal of approvals (whether for one occasion or for a period),

  (e) the conditions that must or may be imposed on granting or renewing an approval,

  (f) the determination and charging of fees in respect of—

  (i) applications for the approval of places,

  (ii) the renewal of approvals, and

  (iii) the attendance by registrars at places approved under the regulations,

  (g) the circumstances in which a local registration authority must or may revoke or suspend an approval or vary any of the conditions imposed in relation to an approval,

  (h ) the renewal of decisions made by virtue of the regulations,

  (i) appeals to a county court from decisions made by virtue of the regulations,

  (j) the notification to the Registrar General of all approvals granted, renewed, revoked, suspended or varied,

  (k) the notification to the registrar for the district in which a place approved under the regulations is situated of all approvals relating to such a place which are granted, renewed, revoked, suspended or varied,

  (l) the keeping by the Registrar General, registrars and local registration authorities of registers of places approved under the regulations, and

  (m) the issue by the Registrar General of guidance supplementing the provision made by the regulations.

  (5) If either of the parties to a proposed civil partnership gives the registrar a medical statement, the civil partnership may, with the approval of the Registrar General, be registered at any place where that party is.
  (6) In subsection (5) "medical statement", in relation to any person, means a statement made in the prescribed form by a registered medical practitioner that in his opinion at the time the statement is made—

  (a) by reason of serious illness or serious bodily injury, that person ought not to move or be moved from the place where he is at that time, and

  (b) it is likely that it will be the case for at least the following 3 months that by reason of illness or disability the person ought not to move or be moved from that place.

  (7) If the Registrar General so directs, a registrar must register a civil partnership in a place specified in the direction.
  The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 61C to 61S make further provision for the registration of civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. Amendments Nos. 61D, 61E, 61R and 61S are technical adjustments to Clauses 138 and 143 to take account of the insertion of this new registration material for Northern Ireland.
  Amendment No. 61C is a new clause that outlines where the registration of a civil partnership may take place. It mirrors the law in relation to civil marriage venues and the associated requirements that must be taken into account. The Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 has widened the scope of venues where a civil marriage may take place, and local registration authorities now have powers to consider alternative venues to the registration office. I see no reason why venues for the registration of civil partnerships should not follow this new system. Regulations will in due course outline the detail as regards the mechanics, and guidance will be given to local registration authorities by the Registrar General.
  Amendment No. 61J outlines the procedure that must be undertaken where a civil partnership is intended to be registered in a hospital, prison or such other venue where a person is effectively detained. Again, that mirrors a counterpart provision in the Marriage (NI) Order 2003 and it is important that the same opportunity is extended to civil partners.
  Amendments Nos. 61F to 61H, together with Amendments Nos. 61K to 61N are supplementary additional provisions for the registration of civil partnerships. They deal with a number of issues that are a straight read-across from Northern Ireland marriage legislation and cover such matters as corrections and cancellations, searches, the need to present an annual report relating to civil partnerships and records and documents to be sent to the Registrar General. They are largely administrative in nature.
  Amendment No. 61P reads in conjunction with some of the technical adjustments at Amendments Nos. 61D, 61R and 61S. The effect is to allow the Department of Finance and Personnel to set fees in relation to civil partnership registration. Any fee so set by the department will be the subject of an order that must be laid in draft and approved by resolution in the Assembly. Amendment No. 61Q sets out comparable criminal offences relating to the registration of civil partnerships as currently exist in relation to civil marriages.
  The overall effect of this group of amendments is the addition of provisions relating to civil partnership registration that are very similar to those that exist for

  GC 219
  civil marriages in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Committee is persuaded that these are technical amendments that set up the registration system and the administration in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
  Lord Alli: It might be helpful for my noble friend the Leader of the House if I say that I understood her explanations very clearly. I have had a chance to read those amendments. They seem to be identical and mirror Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill, in particular the identical clauses relating to registration and those relating to detained persons and provisions on fees.
  I am sure that my noble friend has read Hansard, but I thought that it would also reassure her to know that we had a huge discussion in Committee on the issues of registration, dissolution and prohibition degrees. I think that she can be reassured that the provisions she is moving by amendment have been well discussed by the Committee and we have rehearsed the arguments many times. So, on her test of whether these amendments are new and therefore require more time, I suspect that they do not.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 138 [Regulations]:
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61D and 61E:
  Page 68, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
  Transpose Clause 138 to before Clause 143.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 139 agreed to.
  Schedule 13 agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61F to 61J:
  Before Clause 140, insert the following new clause—
  "VALIDITY OF REGISTRATION
  (1) This section applies to any legal proceedings commenced at any time after the registration of a civil partnership is recorded under section 131.
  (2) The validity of the civil partnership must not be questioned in any such proceedings on the ground of any contravention of a provision of, or made under, this Act."
  Before Clause 140, insert the following new clause—
  "CORRECTIONS AND CANCELLATIONS
  (1) Regulations under section 138 may make provision for the making of corrections by the Registrar General or any registrar.
  (2) The Registrar General must cancel the registration of a void civil partnership or direct the registrar to do so."
  Before Clause 140, insert the following new clause—"
  INTERPRETERS
  (1) If the registrar considers it necessary or desirable, he may use the services of an interpreter (not being one of the civil partners or a witness).
  (2) The interpreter must—

  (a) before the registration of the civil partnership, sign a statement in English that he understands, and is able to converse in, any language in respect of which he is to act as an interpreter, and

  GC 220

  (b) immediately after the registration of the civil partnership, give the registrar a certificate written in English and signed by the interpreter that he has faithfully acted as the interpreter."

  Before Clause 140, insert the following new clause—
  "DETAINED PERSONS
  (1) If—

  (a) one of the parties to a proposed civil partnership is detained in a prison or as a patient in a hospital, and

  (b) the civil partnership is to be registered in that prison or hospital,

  the civil partnership notice given by that party must be accompanied by a statement to which subsection (2) applies.
  (2) This subsection applies to a statement which—

  (a) is made in the prescribed form by the responsible authority not more than 21 days before the date on which the civil partnership notice is given,

  (b) identifies the establishment where the person is detained, and

  (c) states that the responsible authority has no objection to that establishment being the place of registration for that civil partnership.

  (3) In subsection (2) "responsible authority" means—

  (a) if the person named in the statement is detained in a prison, the governor or other officer in charge of that prison;

  (b) if the person named in the statement is detained in a hospital or special accommodation, the Health and Social Services Board administering that hospital or the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, respectively;

  (c) if the person named in the statement is detained in a private hospital, the person in charge of that hospital.

  (4) After the registrar receives a civil partnership notice accompanied by a statement to which subsection (2) applies, he must notify the Registrar General and not complete a civil partnership schedule unless the Registrar General directs him to proceed under section 137.
  (5) In this section—

  (a) "prison" includes a remand centre and a young offenders centre, and

  (b) "hospital", "patient", "private hospital" and "special accommodation" have the same meaning as in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/595 (N.I. 4))."

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clauses 140 to 142 agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61K to 61Q:
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SENT TO REGISTRAR GENERAL
  If the Registrar General directs him to do so, a person must send to the Registrar General any record or document relating to civil partnerships in accordance with the Registrar General's directions."
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "ANNUAL REPORT
  (1) The Registrar General must send to the Department of Finance and Personnel an annual report of the number of civil partnerships registered during each year, together with such other information as he considers it appropriate to include.
  (2) The Department of Finance and Personnel must lay the report before the Northern Ireland Assembly."
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "SEARCHES
  (1) The Registrar General must provide indexes to civil partnership registration records in his custody for inspection by the public.
  (2) A registrar must provide indexes to civil partnership registration records in his custody for inspection by the public.
  (3) Any person may, on payment of the prescribed fee—

  (a) search any index mentioned in subsection (1) or (2), and

  (b) require the Registrar General or, as the case may be, the registrar to give him a document in the prescribed form relating to the registration of a civil partnership.

  (4) The Registrar General must cause any document given by him under this section or section (Proof of civil partnership for purposes of certain statutory provisions) to be stamped with the seal of the General Register Office.
  (5) Judicial notice shall be taken of any document so stamped."
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "PROOF OF CIVIL PARTNERSHIP FOR PURPOSES OF CERTAIN STATUTORY PROVISIONS
  (1) Where the civil partnership of a person is required to be proved for the purposes of any prescribed statutory provision, any person,—

  (a) on application to the Registrar General, and

  (b) on payment of the prescribed fee

  is entitled to a document in the prescribed form relating to the registration of the civil partnership of that person.
  (2) An application under subsection (1) must be in such form and accompanied by such particulars as the Registrar General may require.
  (3) The Registrar General or any registrar may, on payment of the prescribed fee, issue such information (including a document as mentioned in subsection (1)) as may be required for the purposes of any prescribed statutory provision."
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "FEES
  (1) The Department of Finance and Personnel may by order prescribe—

  (a) any fee which is required to be prescribed for the purposes of this Chapter;

  (b) fees for such other matters as that Department considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Chapter.

  (2) The power to make an order under subsection (1) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
  (3) An order under subsection (1) may only be made if a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly."
  After Clause 142, insert the following new clause—
  "OFFENCES
  (1) Any registrar who signs a civil partnership schedule in the absence of the civil partners is guilty of an offence.
  (2) Any person who is not a registrar but officiates at the signing of a civil partnership schedule in such a way as to lead the civil partners to believe that he is a registrar is guilty of an offence.
  (3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
  (4) Notwithstanding anything in Article 19(1) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/ 1675 (N.I. 26)) (limitation of time for taking proceedings), proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted at any time within 3 years after the commission of the offence."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 143 [Interpretation]:
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61R and 61S:
  Page 70, line 24, after "prescribed" insert ", except in relation to a fee,"
  Page 70, line 24, at end insert "and, in relation to a fee, means prescribed by order under section (Fees)"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 143 agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61T:
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "POWERS TO MAKE ORDERS AND EFFECT OF ORDERS
  (1) The court may, in accordance with this Chapter—

  (a) make an order (a "dissolution order") which dissolves a civil partnership on the ground that it has broken down irretrievably;

  (b) make an order (a "nullity order") which annuls a civil partnership which is void or voidable;

  (c) make an order (a "presumption of death order") which dissolves a civil partnership on the ground that one of the civil partners is presumed to be dead;

  (d) make an order (a "separation order") which provides for the separation of the civil partners.

  (2) Every dissolution, nullity or presumption of death order—

  (a) is, in the first instance, a conditional order, and

  (b) may not be made final before the end of the prescribed period (see section (The period before conditional orders may be made final));

  and any reference in this Chapter to a conditional order is to be read accordingly.
  (3) A nullity order made where a civil partnership is voidable annuls the civil partnership only as respects any time after the order has been made final, and the civil partnership is to be treated (despite the order) as if it had existed up to that time.
  (4) In this Chapter "the court" means—

  (a) the High Court, or

  (b) if a county court has jurisdiction under this Part, a county court.

  (5) This Chapter is subject to section 159 and sections (Meaning of "the court') to (Applications for declarations as to validity etc.) (jurisdiction of the court)."
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment Nos. 61T to 61AB make new provision in Part 4 for the dissolution of civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. These amendments mainly mirror those contained in Part 2, which apply to England and Wales.
  The main aim of the amendments is to provide the legislative framework for terminating relationships which have broken down. They also contain provisions which allow civil partners remedies when their relationship suffers from a flaw from its very inception. There is also a provision to allow civil partners to apply for presumption of death orders in limited circumstances.
  The amendments therefore allow the court to have the power to hear applications from civil partners who are wishing to dissolve their relationship separate from their civil partner, have the relationship annulled or apply for a presumption of death order.
  Safeguards have been built into the amendments to ensure that parties are given exit routes throughout the proceedings. For example, there is a cooling-off period of six weeks before an order for dissolution or nullity can be made final, so that civil partners who want to change their minds about ending the relationship are afforded an opportunity to do so.
  There is also a time bar put in place for dissolution. No civil partner can apply for a dissolution within two years of the registration of the relationship. The Committee asked me to make it clear where there were differences from England and Wales, and this is one such area. This differs from the one-year time bar adopted for England and Wales and reflects the position as regards the time bar for divorcing spouses. It is considered that it is important to ensure that similar protections exist for civil partners as for spouses whose relationship is breaking down.
  The ground for the dissolution of a civil partnership is that the relationship has broken down irretrievably. In order to ensure that this is the case, the court is given a power to adjourn the case for attempts for reconciliation to be made.
  5.45 p.m.
  Additionally, if the parties reconcile for a short period, that period will not be counted for the purposes of showing a fact to prove the ground for dissolution in certain circumstances. The grounds for separation and the facts that prove that the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the civil partnership have taken place are four: first, that a respondent has behaved so unreasonably that the applicant cannot be expected to live with him or her; secondly, that the respondent has deserted the applicant for a continuous period of two years; thirdly, that the parties have lived apart for two years and the respondent consents to a dissolution order being made; and, fourthly, that the parties have lived apart for five years.
  As in Part 2, there is no equivalent fact of adultery, because adultery has a specific legal meaning in the context of a heterosexual relationship and it is considered inappropriate to replicate that fact for same-sex relationships.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that there is a legal interpretation of adultery, because he was flailing about on the matter yesterday.
  Baroness Amos: I will pass the message on.
  As stated, the amendments allow for annulment of civil partnerships. A civil partnership will be void if there is a defect with the formation of the partnership that is so fundamental that civil partnership cannot be said to exist in law. A civil partnership will be voidable if there is a defect that is not fundamental to the formation of civil partnership.
  GC 224
  The amendments also provide necessary protection for children. The court will not make a final order for dissolution, separation or nullity unless it is sure that arrangements for the children are satisfactory or are the best that they can be in the circumstances.
  Presumption of death orders allow civil partners to apply for an order from the court that will presume their civil partner to be dead if their civil partner has been absent for seven years and the applicant has no reason to believe that their civil partner is alive. The amendment also makes provision for the designation of the court, appeals and transfers of proceedings to ensure the smooth running of the court and provides powers to make court rules.
  Amendments Nos. 61AN and 61AP make technical adjustments to Clauses 144 and 146 in Part 4 and are consequential to the inclusion of the additional substantive material for Northern Ireland on dissolution of civil partnerships. The definitions contained in Clauses 144 and 146 will now be inserted by the amendments and are therefore no longer needed in the clauses. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, looks confused. Once the amendments have been passed, their implications for previous clauses must be taken into account. The noble Baroness continues to look confused.
  Baroness O'Cathain: The noble Baroness is absolutely right: I am confused. My brain cannot cope with all this. The reality is that we are going from one place to another and it is very difficult, but I guess that when we read the Bill as amended on Report, we will have more of an opportunity to go through it. But, frankly, it seems to be a complete dog's breakfast.
  Baroness Amos: I think that that applies only to Amendments Nos. 61AN and 61AP. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness and to copy the letter to all Members of the Committee, so that the Committee can be clear exactly what the implications are. I know that I may be suggesting something that is a little unusual in Committee procedure, but if the noble Baroness wants to return to those amendments at any point during our consideration in Grand Committee, I would be happy to give a further explanation.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may make a further practical suggestion to help. In the old days, before we had Explanatory Notes, we used to get notes on clauses and there was a big issue about whether or not they would be published. Eventually, the previous government adopted a sensible policy of publishing notes on clauses. Normally, that made parliamentary scrutiny much better. I wonder whether the notes on these Northern Ireland amendments with which the Minister has been provided could themselves be circulated. We have the Explanatory Notes on the original Bill. If those further notes were circulated, rather than—or in addition to—a letter, we would then be in a good position to see all the provisions in context.
  Baroness Amos: I am happy to agree to do that. On that basis, I propose to move Amendments Nos. 61P

  GC 225
  to 61 AB, but make it clear to the Committee that, once I have circulated the notes on clauses, if it wants me to return at any point to answer further questions, I shall be happy to do so. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61U to 62AM:
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "THE PERIOD BEFORE CONDITIONAL ORDERS MAY BE MADE FINAL
  (1) Subject to subsection (2), the prescribed period for the purposes of section (Powers to make orders and effect of orders)(2)(b) is 6 weeks from the making of the conditional order.
  (2) In a particular case the court dealing with the case may by order shorten the prescribed period."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "INTERVENTION BY THE CROWN SOLICITOR
  (1) This section applies if an application has been made for a dissolution, nullity or presumption of death order.
  (2) The court may, if it thinks fit, direct that all necessary papers in the matter arc to be sent to the Crown Solicitor who must under the directions of the Attorney General instruct counsel to argue before the court any question in relation to the matter which the court considers it necessary or expedient to have fully argued.
  (3) If any person at any time—

  (a) during the progress of the proceedings, or

  (b) before the conditional order is made final,

  gives information to the Crown Solicitor on any matter material to the due decision of the case, the Crown Solicitor may take such steps as the Attorney General considers necessary or expedient.
  (4) If the Crown Solicitor intervenes or shows cause against the making of the conditional order in any proceedings relating to its making, the court may make such order as may be just as to—

  (a) the payment by other parties to the proceedings of the costs incurred by him in doing so, or

  (b) the payment by the Crown Solicitor of any costs incurred by any of those parties because of his doing so.

  (5) In this Chapter—
  "the Attorney General" means the Attorney General for Northern Ireland; and
  "the Crown Solicitor" means the Crown Solicitor for Northern Ireland."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ORDER HAS BEEN MADE FINAL
  (1) This section applies if—.

  (a) a conditional order has been made, and

  (b) the Crown Solicitor, or any person who has not been a party to proceedings in which the order was made, shows cause why the order should not be made final on the ground that material facts have not been brought before the court.

  (2) This section also applies if—

  (a) a conditional order has been made,

  (b) 3 months have elapsed since the earliest date on which an application could have been made for the order to be made final,

  (c) no such application has been made by the civil partner who applied for the conditional order, and

  (d) the other civil partner makes an application to the court under this subsection.

  (3) The court may—

  (a) make the order final,

  (b) rescind the order.

  GC 226

  (c) require further inquiry, or

  (d) otherwise deal with the case as it thinks fit.

  (4) Subsection (3)(a)—

  (a) applies despite section (Powers to make orders and effect of orders)(2) (period before conditional orders may be made final), but

  (b) is subject to section (Proceedings before order made final: protection for respondent in separation cases)(4) (protection for respondent in separation cases) and section (Restrictions on making of orders affecting children) (restrictions on making of orders affecting children)."

  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "TIME BAR ON APPLICATIONS FOR DISSOLU'T'ION ORDERS
  (1) No application for a dissolution order may he made to the court before the end of the period of 2 years from the date of the formation of the civil partnership.
  (2) Nothing in this section prevents the making of an application based on matters which occurred before the end of the 2 year period."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "ATTEMPTS AT RECONCILIATION OF CIVIL PARTNERS
  (1) This section applies in relation to cases where an application is made for a dissolution or separation order.
  (2) If at any stage of proceedings for the order it appears to the court that there is a reasonable possibility of a reconciliation between the civil partners, the court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect a reconciliation between them.
  (3) If during any such adjournment the parties resume living with other in the same household, no account is to be taken of the fact for the purposes of the proceedings.
  (4) The power to adjourn under subsection (2) is additional to any other power of adjournment."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT OF CERTAIN AGREEMENTS OR ARRANGEMENTS
  (1) This section applies to cases where—

  (a) proceedings for a dissolution or separation order are contemplated or have begun, and

  (b) an agreement or arrangement is made or proposed to be made between the civil partners which relates to, arises out of, or is connected with, the proceedings.

  (2) Rules of court may make provision for enabling—

  (a) the civil partners, or either of them, on application made either before or after the making of the application for a dissolution or separation order, to refer the agreement or arrangement to the court, and

  (b) the court—

  (i) to express an opinion, if it thinks it desirable to do so, as to the reasonableness of the agreement or arrangement, and

  (ii) to give such directions, if any, in the matter as it thinks fit."

  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "DISSOLUTION OF CIVIL PARTNERSHIP WHICH HAS BROKEN DOWN IRRETRIEVABLY
  (1) Subject to section ( Time bar on applications for dissolution orders), an application for a dissolution order may be made to the court by either civil partner on the ground that the civil partnership has broken down irretrievably.

  GC 227
  (2) On an application for a dissolution order the court must inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into—

  (a) the facts alleged by the applicant, and

  (b) any facts alleged by the respondent.

  (3) The court hearing an application for a dissolution order must not hold that the civil partnership has broken down irretrievably unless the applicant satisfies the court of one or more of the facts described in subsection (5)(a), (b), (c) or (d).
  (4) But if the court is satisfied of any of those facts, it must make a dissolution order unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the civil partnership has not broken down irretrievably.
  (5) The facts referred to in subsections (3) and (4) are—

  (a) that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent;

  (b) that—

  (i) the applicant and the respondent have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the making of the application ("2 years' separation"), and

  (ii) the respondent consents to a dissolution order being made;

  (c) that the applicant and the respondent have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 5 years immediately preceding the making of the application ("5 years' separation");

  (d) that the respondent has deserted the applicant for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the making of the application.

  (6) The court must not make a dissolution order without considering the oral testimony of the applicant unless for special reasons it orders that such testimony be dispensed with."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS AS TO FACTS RAISING PRESUMPTION OF BREAKDOWN
  (1) Subsection (2) applies if—

  (a) in any proceedings for a dissolution order the applicant alleges, in reliance on section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(a), that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent, but

  (b) after the date of the occurrence of the final incident relied on by the applicant and held by the court to support his allegation, the applicant and the respondent have lived together for a period (or periods) which does not, or which taken together do not, exceed 6 months.

  (2) The fact that the applicant and respondent have lived together as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) must be disregarded in determining, for the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(a), whether the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.
  (3) Subsection (4) applies in relation to cases where the applicant alleges, in reliance on section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(b), that the respondent consents to a dissolution order being made.
  (4) Rules of court must make provision for the purpose of ensuring that the respondent has been given such information as will enable him to understand—

  (a) the consequences to him of consenting to the order, and

  (b) the steps which he must take to indicate his consent.

  (5) For the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(d) the court may treat a period of desertion as having continued at a time when the
  GC 228
  deserting civil partner was incapable of continuing the necessary intention, if the evidence before the court is such that, had he not been so incapable, the court would have inferred that the desertion continued at that time.
  (6) In considering for the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5) whether the period for which the civil partners have lived apart or the period for which the respondent has deserted the applicant has been continuous, no account is to be taken of—

  (a) any one period not exceeding 6 months, or

  (b) any two or more periods not exceeding 6 months in all,

  during which the civil partners resumed living together.
  (7) But no period during which the civil partners have lived with each other counts as part of the period which the civil partners have lived apart or as part of the period of desertion.
  (8) For the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(b) and (c) and this section civil partners are to be treated as living apart unless they are living with each other in the same household, and references in this section to civil partners living with each other are to be read as references to their living with each other in the same household."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "DISSOLUTION ORDER NOT PRECLUDED BY PREVIOUS SEPARATION ORDER ETC.
  (1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply if any of the following orders has been made in relation to a civil partnership—

  (a) a separation order:

  (b) an order under Schedule (Financial relief in court of summary jurisdiction etc.: Northern Ireland) (financial relief in court of summary jurisdiction etc.);

  (c) an occupation order under Article 11 of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6) (occupation orders));

  (d) an order under Article 15 of that Order (orders where neither civil partner entitled to occupy the home).

  (2) Nothing prevents—

  (a) either civil partner from applying for a dissolution order, or

  (b) the court from making a dissolution order,

  on the same facts, or substantially the same facts, as those proved in support of the making of the order referred to in subsection ( 1 ).
  (3) On the application for the dissolution order, the court —

  (a) may treat the order referred to in subsection (1) as sufficient proof of any desertion or other fact by reference to which it was made, but

  (b) must not make the dissolution order without receiving evidence from the applicant.

  (4) If—

  (a) the application for the dissolution order follows a separation order or any order requiring the civil partners to live apart,

  (b) there was a period of desertion immediately preceding the institution of the proceedings for the separation order, and

  (c) the civil partners have not resumed living together and the separation order has been continuously in force since it was made,

  the period of desertion is to be treated for the purposes of the application for the dissolution order as if it had immediately preceded the making of the application.

  GC 229
  (5) For the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(d) the court may treat as a period during which the respondent has deserted the applicant any period during which there is in force—

  (a) an injunction granted by the High Court or a county court which excludes the respondent from the civil partnership home, or

  (b) an order under Article 11 or 15 of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 which prohibits the respondent from occupying a dwelling-house in which the applicant and the respondent have, or at any time have had, a civil partnership home."

  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "REFUSAL OF DISSOLUTION IN 5 YEAR SEPARATION CASES ON GROUND OF GRAVE HARDSHIP
  (1) The respondent to an application for a dissolution order in which the applicant alleges 5 years' separation may oppose the making of an order on the ground that—

  (a) the dissolution of the civil partnership will result in grave financial or other hardship to him, and

  (b) it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the civil partnership.

  (2) Subsection (3) applies if—

  (a) the making of a dissolution order is opposed under this section.

  (b) the court finds that the applicant is entitled to rely in support of his application on the fact of 5 years' separation and makes no such finding as to any other fact mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5), and

  (c) apart from this section, the court would make a dissolution order.

  (3) The court must—

  (a) consider all the circumstances, including the conduct of the civil partners and the interests of the civil partners and of any children or other persons concerned, and

  (b) if it is of the opinion that the ground mentioned in subsection (1) is made out, dismiss the application for the dissolution order.

  (4) "Hardship" includes the loss of the chance of acquiring any benefit which the respondent might acquire if the civil partnership were not dissolved."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ORDER MADE FINAL: PROTECTION FOR RESPONDENT IN SEPARATION CASES
  (1) The court may, on an application made by the respondent, rescind a conditional dissolution order if—

  (a) it made the order on the basis of a finding that the applicant was entitled to rely on the fact of 2 years' separation coupled with the respondent's consent to a dissolution order being made,

  (b) it made no such finding as to any other fact mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5), and

  (c) it is satisfied that the applicant misled the respondent (whether intentionally or unintentionally) about any matter which the respondent took into account in deciding to give his consent.

  GC 230
  (2) Subsections (3) to (5) apply if—

  (a) the respondent to an application for a dissolution order in which the applicant alleged—

  (i) 2 years' separation coupled with the respondent's consent to a dissolution order being made, or

  (ii) 5 years' separation,

  has applied to the court for consideration under subsection (3) of his financial position after the dissolution of the civil partnership, and

  (b) the court—

  (i) has made a conditional dissolution order on the basis of a finding that the applicant was entitled to rely in support of his application on the fact of 2 years' or 5 years' separation, and

  (ii) has made no such finding as to any other fact mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5).

  (3) The court hearing an application by the respondent under subsection (2) must consider all the circumstances, including—

  (a) the age, health, conduct, earning capacity. financial resources and financial obligations of each of the parties, and

  (b) the financial position of the respondent as, having regard to the dissolution, it is likely to be after the death of the applicant should the applicant die first.

  (4) The court must not make the order final unless it has, by order, declared that it is satisfied that—

  (a) the applicant should not be required to make any financial provision for the respondent,

  (b) the financial provision made by the applicant for the respondent is—

  (i) reasonable and fair, or

  (ii) the best that can be made in the circumstances, or

  (c) there are circumstances making it desirable that the order should be made final without delay.

  (5) The court must not make an order declaring that it is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (4)(c) unless it has obtained a satisfactory undertaking from the applicant that he will bring the question of financial provision for the respondent before the court within a specified time.
  (6) Subsection (7) applies if, following an application under subsection (2) which is not withdrawn, the court makes the order final without making an order under subsection (4).
  (7) The final order is voidable at the instance of the respondent or of the court but no person is entitled to challenge the validity of the order after it is made final on the ground that subsections (4) and (5) were not satisfied.
  (8) If the court refuses to make an order under subsection (4), it must, on an application by the applicant, make an order declaring that it is not satisfied as mentioned in that subsection."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "GROUNDS ON WHICH CIVIL PARTNERSHIP IS VOID
  Where two people register as civil partners of each other in Northern Ireland, the civil partnership is void if—

  (a) at the time when they do so, they are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other under Chapter 1 (see section 132), or

  GC 231

  (b) at the time when they do so they both know—

  (i) that due notice of proposed civil partnership has not been given,

  (ii) that the civil partnership schedule has not been duly issued,

  (iii) that the place of registration is a place other than that specified in the civil partnership schedule, or

  (iv) that a registrar is not present."

  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "BARS TO RELIEF WHERE CIVIL PARTNERSHIP IS VOIDABLE
  (1) The court must not make a nullity order on the ground that a civil partnership is voidable if the respondent satisfies the court—

  (a) that the applicant, with knowledge that it was open to him to obtain a nullity order, conducted himself in relation to the respondent in such a way as to lead the respondent reasonably to believe that he would not seek to do so, and

  (b) that it would be unjust to the respondent to make the order.

  (2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), the court must not make a nullity order by virtue of section (Grounds on which civil partnership is voidable)( 1 )(a), (b), (c) or (e) unless—

  (a) it is satisfied that proceedings were instituted within 3 years from the date of the formation of the civil partnership, or

  (b) leave for the institution of proceedings after the end of that 3 year period has been granted under subsection (3).

  (3) A judge of the court may, on an application made to him, grant leave for the institution of proceedings if he—

  (a) is satisfied that the applicant has at some time during the 3 year period suffered from mental disorder, and

  (b) considers that in all the circumstances of the case it would be just to grant leave for the institution of proceedings.

  (4) An application for leave under subsection (3) may be made after the end of the 3 year period.
  (5) Without prejudice to subsection (1), the court must not make a nullity order by virtue of section (Grounds on which civil partnership is voidable)(l)(d) unless it is satisfied that proceedings were instituted within the period of 6 months from the date of issue of the interim gender recognition certificate.
  (6) Without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2), the court must not make a nullity order by virtue of section (Grounds on which civil partnership is voidable)(1)(c) or (e) unless it is satisfied that the applicant was at the time of the formation of the civil partnership ignorant of the facts alleged."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "PROOF OF CERTAIN MATTERS NOT NECESSARY TO VALIDITY OF CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
  Where two people have registered as civil partners of each other in Northern Ireland, it is not necessary in support of the civil partnership to give any proof—

  (a) that any person whose consent to the civil partnership was required by section 139 (parental etc. consent) had given his consent;

  (b) that the registrar was properly appointed under section 142;

  and no evidence is to be given to prove the contrary in any proceedings touching the validity of the civil partnership."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "PRESUMPTION OF DEATH ORDERS
  (1) The High Court may, on an application made by a civil partner, make a presumption of death order if it is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for supposing that the other civil partner is dead.
  (2) In any proceedings under this section the fact that—

  (a) for a period of 7 years or more the other civil partner has been continually absent from the applicant, and

  (b) the applicant has no reason to believe that the other civil partner has been living within that time,

  is evidence that the other civil partner is dead until the contrary is proved."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "SEPARATION ORDERS
  (1) An application for a separation order may be made to the court by either civil partner on the ground that any such fact as is mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(a), (b), (c) or (d) exists.
  (2) On an application for a separation order the court must inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into—

  (a) the facts alleged by the applicant, and

  (b) any facts alleged by the respondent,

  but whether the civil partnership has broken down irretrievably is irrelevant.
  (3) If the court is satisfied on the evidence of any such fact as is mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(a), (b), (c) or (d) it must, subject to section (Restrictions on making orders affecting children), make a separation order.
  (4) Section (Supplemental provisions as to facts raising presumption of breakdown) (supplemental provisions as to facts raising presumption of breakdown) applies for the purposes of an application for a separation order alleging any such fact as it applies in relation to an application for a dissolution order alleging that fact."
  Before Clause 144, insert the following new clause—
  "EFFECT OF SEPARATION ORDER
  If either civil partner dies intestate as respects all or any of his or her real or personal property while—

  (a) a separation order is in force, and

  (b) the separation order is continuing,

  the property as respects which he or she died intestate devolves as if the other civil partner had then been dead.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 144 agreed to.
  Clause 145 agreed to.
  Clause 146 [The Attorney General and proceedings for declarations]:
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61AP:
  Page 72, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 146 agreed to.
  Clause 147 agreed to.
  Clause 148 [Parties to proceedings under this Chapter]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 148 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Amos: This is the point at which I shall thoroughly confuse the Committee because I oppose

  GC 233
  the Question that Clause 148 stand part of the Bill, but I hope that my explanation will clear up that point. It relates to an amendment that we have just discussed.
  Clause 148 ensures that family proceedings rules in Northern Ireland may make provision with respect to the persons who are parties to proceedings for declarations in relation to civil partnerships. The clause further provides that the court may allow a person who is not a party to the proceedings to intervene in the proceedings on such terms as the court thinks just.
  Amendment No. 61AS would add a new clause to Part 4—we have not discussed this yet, but we will come to it—which would deal with the same issues as arise under Clause 148 as drafted. Amendment No. 61AS is drafted in a wider context and now relates to rules of court being made to joinder of parties to proceedings in dissolution proceedings as well as in the declaration proceedings to which they are currently confined under Clause 148. So Clause 148 as drafted is narrower then Amendment No. 61AS, so I seek to strike down Clause 148. We will then discuss Amendment No. 61AS, to which I hope the committee will agree, which takes the issue in its broader context. It is for that reason that Clause 148 as drafted serves no useful purpose and I would therefore like to remove it from the Bill and make fresh provision for those issues through Amendment No. 61AS.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Am I right in thinking that one of the great improvements in what the Minister has just suggested is that Clause 148 is framed in general terms and that the advantage of Amendment No. 61AS is that it will write into the Bill the necessary detail for the citizen to know where she or he stands?
  Baroness Amos: That is absolutely correct.
  Clause 148 negatived.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61AQ and 61AR:
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "RELIEF FOR RESPONDENT IN DISSOLUTION PROCEEDINGS
  (1) If in any proceedings for a dissolution or separation order the respondent alleges and proves any such fact as is mentioned in section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)(a), (b), (c) or (d) the court may give to the respondent the relief to which he would have been entitled if he had made an application seeking that relief.
  (2) When applying subsection (1), treat—

  (a) the respondent as the applicant, and

  (b) the applicant as the respondent,

  for the purposes of section (Dissolution of civil partnership which has broken down irretrievably)(5)."
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "RESTRICTIONS ON MAKING ORDERS AFFECTING CHILDREN
  (1) In any proceedings for a dissolution, nullity or separation order, the court must consider—

  (a) whether there are any children of the family to whom this section applies, and

  GC 234

  (b) if there are any such children, whether tin the light of the arrangements which have been, or are proposed to be, made for their upbringing and welfare) it should exercise any of its powers under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)) with respect to any of them.

  (2) If, in any case to which this section applies, it appears to the court that—

  (a) the circumstances of the case require it, or are likely to require it, to exercise any of its powers under the 1995 Order with respect to any such child,

  (b) it is not in a position to exercise the power or (as the case may be) those powers without giving further consideration to the case, and

  (c) there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable in the interests of the child that the court should give a direction under this section,

  it may direct that the order is not to be made final, or (in the case of a separation order) is not to be made, until the court orders otherwise.
  (3) This section applies to—

  (a) any child of the family who has not reached 16 a t the date when the court considers the case in accordance with the requirements of this section, and

  (b) any child of the family who has reached 16 at that date and in relation to whom the court directs that this section shall apply."

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61AS:
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS CHAPTER
  (1) Rules of court may make provision with respect to—

  (a) the joinder as parties to proceedings under sections (Powers to make orders and effect of orders) to (Separation orders) of persons involved in allegations of improper conduct made in those proceedings,

  (b) the dismissal from such proceedings of any parties so joined, and

  (c) the persons who are to be parties to proceedings on an application under section 144.

  (2) Rules of court made under this section may make different provision for different cases.
  (3) In every case in which the court considers, in the interest of a person not already a party to the proceedings, that the person should be made a party, the court may if it thinks fit allow the person to intervene upon such terms, if any, as the court thinks just."
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment would insert the new clause to replace Clause 148. I hope that that is clear to the Committee. On that basis, I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61AT to 61AV:
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "THE COURT
  (1) In this Chapter "the court" means—

  (a) the High Court, or

  (b) where an order made by the Lord Chancellor is in force designating a county court sitting for any division as a civil partnership proceedings county court, a county court sitting for that division.

  GC 235
  (2) Subsection (1) is subject to the following provisions of this section.
  (3) Subsection (1) does not apply where the context shows that "the court" means some particular court.
  (4) The Lord Chancellor may make an order such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b).
  (5) In this Part "civil partnership proceedings county court" means, where an order made by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (4) is in force designating a county court sitting for any division as a civil partnership proceedings county court, a county court sitting for that division.
  (6) Except to the extent that rules of court otherwise provide, the jurisdiction conferred by virtue of this section and section (Transfer of proceedings) on a civil partnership proceedings county court is exercisable throughout Northern Ireland, but rules of court may provide for a civil partnership cause (within the meaning of section ( Transfer of proceedings)) pending in one such court to be heard and determined—

  (a) partly in that court and partly in another, or

  (b) in another.

  (7) Any jurisdiction conferred on a civil partnership proceedings county court is exercisable even though by reason of any amount claimed the jurisdiction would not but for this subsection be exercisable by a county court.
  (8) The jurisdiction of a civil partnership proceedings county court to exercise any power under Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) (except a power under Part 7 of or paragraph 54 of that Schedule or a power under paragraph 49, 50 or 58 of that Schedule which is exercisable by county courts generally) shall, except to the extent that rules of court otherwise permit and, in particular, without prejudice to section (Transfer of proceedings)(4) and (6), be exercisable only in connection with an application or order pending in or made by such a court.
  (9) The power to make an order under subsection (4) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12))."
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "APPEALS
  (1) Rules of court shall make provision for an appeal upon a point of law, a question of fact or the admission or rejection of any evidence to the Court of Appeal from—

  (a) any order made by a judge of a civil partnership proceedings county court in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by a relevant provision, or

  (b) the dismissal by a judge of a civil partnership proceedings county court of any application under a relevant provision.

  (2) "Relevant provision" means any provision of—

  (a) this Chapter or Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) (except paragraphs 48 to 50 and 58);

  (b) the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/ 755 (N.I. 2)).

  (3) A person dissatisfied with—

  (a) an order made by any county court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by paragraph 49, 50 or 58 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland), or

  (b) with the dismissal of any application made by him under any of those paragraphs,

  is entitled to appeal from the order or dismissal as if the order or dismissal had been made in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Part 3 of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/397 (N.I. 3)) and the appeal brought under Part 6 of that Order and Articles 61 (cases stated by county court judge) and 62 (cases stated by High Court on appeal from county court) of that Order apply accordingly."
  After Clause 148, insert the following new clause—
  "TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS
  (1) This section applies if an order is made under section (The court).
  (2) Rules of court—

  (a) must provide for the transfer to the High Court—

  (i) of any civil partnership cause pending in a civil partnership proceedings county court which ceases to be undefended. and

  (ii) of any civil partnership cause so pending, where the transfer appears to the civil partnership proceedings county court to be desirable;

  (b) may provide for the transfer to the High Court of any civil partnership cause which remains undefended;

  (c) may provide for the transfer or retransfer from the High Court to a civil partnership proceedings county court of any civil partnership cause which is, or again becomes, undefended;

  (d) must define the circumstances in which any civil partnership cause is to be treated for the purposes of this subsection as undefended.

  (3) "Civil partnership cause" means an action for the dissolution or annulment of a civil partnership or for the legal separation of civil partners.
  (4) Rules of court may provide for the transfer or retransfer—

  (a) from a civil partnership proceedings county court to the High Court, or

  (b) from the High Court to a civil partnership proceedings county court,

  of any proceedings for the exercise of a power under this Chapter or Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) (except proceedings on an application under paragraph 49, 50 or 58).
  (5) The power conferred by subsections (2) and (3) includes power to provide for the removal of proceedings at the direction of the High Court; but nothing in this section affects—

  (a) any other power of the High Court to remove proceedings to that court from a county court, or

  (b) any power to remit proceedings from that court to a county court.

  (6) A court has jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings transferred to the court by virtue of rules made in pursuance of subsection (4)."
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 61AW:
  Before Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "DISPUTES BETWEEN CIVIL PARTNERS ABOUT PROPERTY
  (1) In any question between the civil partners in a civil partnership as to title to or possession of property, either civil partner may apply by summons or otherwise in a summary way to—

  (a) the High Court, or

  (b) a county court.

  (2) On such an application, the court may make such order with respect to the property as it thinks fit (including an order for the sale of the property).
  (3) Rules of court made for the purposes of this section may confer jurisdiction on county courts whatever the situation or value of the property in dispute."
  The noble Baroness said: This group of nine amendments make provision in Northern Ireland in connection with civil partnership which is comparable

  GC 237
  to the provision made for England and Wales by Chapter 3 of Part 2, as well as Schedules 4 to 7. They cover a wide range of legislative provision which deal with civil partners during a civil partnership, on its dissolution and after the death of one of the partners.
  Amendments Nos. 61AW and 61AX enable civil partners to refer disputes over property to court using a summary procedure. They allow those disputes to be resolved in the High Court or county court. The second amendment extends the availability of that jurisdiction of the court to the situation where the civil partner no longer has the money or property in possession. In these cases the court has the same powers to make orders regarding the property or money in question, including the power to order one civil partner to pay to the other a sum of money as appropriate.
  6 p.m.
  Amendment No. 61 AY extends to civil partners and their children the protections under Northern Ireland law currently available to spouses and children in respect of the proceeds of life assurance policies.
  Amendments Nos. 61AZ and 63A are concerned with the disposition of the estate of civil partners who have died. It amends existing legislation in Northern Ireland in relation to the effect of the formation or dissolution of a civil partnership on the will of a civil partner. It also deals comprehensively with the rights of surviving civil partners to a share of the deceased's estate under the intestacy rules and under inheritance legislation.
  Amendments Nos. 61BA, 63B, 63C and 63D establish a system of financial relief in Northern Ireland for civil partners and children of their family following the breakdown of the civil partnership.
  Baroness O'Cathain: It would be extremely helpful if, when running through these amendments at a great rate of knots, the noble Baroness could tell us what page they are on so that we can flick through the Marshalled List. We are going from Amendment No. 61 to Amendment No. 63 and then back again. It would be most helpful because we do have a problem.
  Baroness Amos: I am sorry. Amendment No. 61 BA is on page 29; Amendment No. 63B on page 43; Amendment No. 63C on page 78; Amendment No. 63D is, I think, on page 100.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: While we are trying to find the page, perhaps I can make another practical suggestion as an aid. This is a rather radical idea, but is there any reason why parliamentary counsel could not print out for us on a word processor the Bill in its original form and then put in all this stuff as it will come back to us on Report, so that when we return to this on Monday we will have not an official print-out, but a print-out we can use that will let us see the jigsaw
  GC 238
  puzzle put together as though the Bill had been published in this form originally? We would be able to see it in an informal way. It is just a matter of someone skilful with a word processor doing that.
  Baroness Amos: That is a very good suggestion. I was slightly concerned about the time frame, but I have checked and we will do our very best to do that for the Committee. I absolutely recognise the assistance that that would give to the Committee. We will try to do that.
  The four amendments I just mentioned—Amendments Nos. 61 BA, 63B, 63C and 63D—are the ones that establish a system of financial relief for Northern Ireland for civil partners and children following the breakdown of a civil partnership. If Members of the Committee feel that this is one of the groups of amendments that have become too complicated, then I am quite happy to stop.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I was suggesting—
  Baroness Amos: I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who I know is particularly concerned and wants to understand this. As the amendments are dotted through different pages, I recognise that they are quite difficult to follow. The Committee has been very generous in allowing me to go through a number of amendments already. We have more groups relating to Northern Ireland, but if the Committee feels that this is getting too complicated, I am quite happy to stop now and start again on Monday.
  Lord Alli: If the amendments are incorporated into a word-processed version of the Bill, will the amendments that have not yet been moved be included? That would assist greatly. It would he easier if we included the whole lot rather than just the half we have reached—which is, I suspect, the source of the confusion.
  Baroness Amos: We could do that, and perhaps find a way of indicating those that have been moved and those that have not.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: If the Explanatory Notes are tied to them as well, we can go through it much more easily.
  Baroness Amos: We will do our best. I propose not to move the group of amendments led by Amendment No. 61AW but, if the Committee agrees, to adjourn the Committee until Monday. The first group we will deal with then will be that led by Amendment No. 61AW.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): The Committee stands adjourned until Monday 17 May at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at six minutes past six o'clock.

  Irish Language Agency
  Irish Language Agency
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Ulster Scots Academy
  Ulster Scots Academy
  Residential Property
  Residential Property
  Electoral Register
  Electoral Register
  Midwives: Independent Practitioners
  Midwives: Independent Practitioners
  National Drug Strategy
  National Drug Strategy
  Consumer Council for Water
  Consumer Council for Water
  Single Railway Track: South-west
  Single Railway Track: South-west

  Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency: Performance Targets 2004–05
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  The targets, which have been set for 2004–05, are based on the strategic aims and objectives of the agency as set out in section 4 of its corporate and business plan. The targets are in line with the department's policy of seeking to improve the service provided to the agency's clients in terms of both quality and value for money and I am satisfied that they present a demanding challenge for the agency. A copy of the corporate and business plan will be placed in the Library of both Houses.

  The targets are as follows:

  Quality

  1. 95 per cent of the service provided by the agency's client support staff to external clients to be regarded as satisfactory, of which 35 per cent of the service to be regarded as either very good or excellent.

  2. 95 per cent of the service provided by the agency's project management staff to external clients to be regarded as satisfactory, of which 35 per cent of the service to be regarded as either very good or excellent.

  3. 95 per cent of the service provided by the agency's trust consultancy support staff to external clients to be regarded as satisfactory, of which 35 per cent of the service to be regarded as either very good or excellent.

  4. 90 per cent of the service provided by the agency's specialist engineering staff to external clients to be regarded as satisfactory, of which 30 per cent of the service to be regarded as either very good or excellent.

  Throughput/Service Delivery

  5. Complete eight firecode audits on HSS bodies by 31 March 2005.

  6. Complete testing against Health Service guidance and relevant British and European standards and issue test reports to the authorised person in respect of 110 sterilizers and washer disinfectors by 31 March 2005, based on an estimate of 99 installed machines at April 2004 and 11 new machines installed in-year.

  7. Respond to requests for clinical engineering support within 10 working days of receipt of a request.

  8. Issue all medical device/equipment alerts with an "immediate action" level of urgency designation initiated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) within three working days on receipt of final MHRA alert (provided that no further consultation is involved).
  WS 14
  9. Issue all medical device/equipment alerts with an "action" level of urgency designation initiated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) within five working days on receipt of final MHRA alert (provided that no further consultation is involved).

  Financial Management

  10. Ensure that the agency lives within its running cost allocation for the year.

  11. Demonstrate that the full costs of the agency are recouped, on a notional basis, through service level agreements with its clients.

  Public Guardianship Office: Key Performance Indicators and Targets 2004–05
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  I have today set the following key performance indicators and targets for the Public Guardianship Office (PGO) executive agency for 2004–05.

  KPI 1: To increase the satisfaction of its customers in the delivery of its services.

  TARGET:

  To achieve an overall customer satisfaction rating, covering professional and lay receivers, of at least 75 per cent as measured by its annual customer survey.

  KPI 2To Increase the proportion of effective visits by the Lord Chancellor's visitors.

  TARGETS:

  To maintain a minimum of 6,000 visits per year to include all receivership division clients.

  To achieve 80 per cent effective visits over the year.

  During 2004–05, to develop and implement a system to measure customer satisfaction in the visitor's service.

  KPI 3: To maintain an effective system to collect and review accounts, and use this process to review the case management regime to ensure that it is meeting the needs of each customer and client.

  TARGETS:

  To collect 60 per cent of accounts within two calendar months of the accounting end date, 85 per cent within four calendar months of the accounting end date, and 100 per cent within six calendar months of the accounting end date, referring cases to the Court of Protection where necessary or taking other steps to ensure proper accounts are produced on behalf of clients (applies to protection clients only i.e. those clients who have an external receiver).

  To complete the review of, or to have requested further information for, 100 per cent of accounts within 20 working days of receipt (to apply to both receivership and protection clients).
  WS 15
  KPI4: To deliver an improved service to clients.

  TARGETS:

  Correspondence

  To respond to 20 per cent of correspondence within five working days of receipt; 50 per cent of correspondence within 10 working days of receipt; and 98 per cent of correspondence within 15 working days of receipt.

  Release of funds

  Where access to a client's capital is requested, the PGO will give directions to the Court Funds Office (CFO), or dispatch directions to an external receiver within five working days in 80 per cent of cases and within 10 working days in 95 per cent of cases; or explain why it cannot release funds.

  Applications for Receivership

  Provided it has all the appropriate forms and information required in support of an application, PGO will list a case for hearing and notify the applicant within 10 working days in 95 per cent of cases. The hearing date will be within 35 working days of the date the hearing was listed in 95 per cent of cases.

  After the hearing, PGO will notify applicants of the outcome of the hearing and request any further
  WS 16
  information the court requires within five working days in 95 per cent of cases.

  PGO will issue orders within 10 working days in 95 per cent of cases where all information and documents have been received.

  Closing cases

  Where a client dies and PGO has a complete application for final directions, it will prepare and dispatch directions to transfer assets to personal representatives within 15 working days in 30 per cent of cases, within 20 working days in 80 per cent of cases, and within 25 working days in 100 per cent of cases.

  Enduring Powers of Attorney

  To register and return 98 per cent of correctly lodged EPAs, where there are no objections, within five working days of the end of the statutory waiting period.

  Accuracy of Orders

  To reduce the level of orders returned with errors to 3 per cent.

  KPI 5: To demonstrate improvements in efficiency by meeting a unit cost target.

  TARGETS:

  To meet a unit cost target of not more than £510 per case.