Sitting of 11 January 2005

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Deepcut Army Barracks
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government: Whether the new investigation into Deepcut Barracks will be held in public.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the terms of reference of the review conducted by Nicholas Blake QC are:
"Urgently to review the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four soldiers at Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, between 1995 and 2002, in light of available material and any representations that might be made in this regard, and to produce a report".
The review is not a public inquiry, but Mr Blake's report, along with the Ministry of Defence's response to it, will be published in full
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but would he kindly tell me if I have got it right? Four dead solders at Deepcut barracks, hundreds of complaints about bullying and brutality, allegations which mention rape and torture, many distressed families, a new Freedom of Information Act, yet this inquiry is to be held in secret. Is that right?
Lord Bach: No, my Lords, it is not right. Of course there were the four deaths and some serious allegations have been made to the Surrey police. The Army received in June the schedule in which the allegations were contained, which does not include any names, just the broad details of allegations. It is understood that the vast majority of the allegations are uncorroborated and that the Surrey police will not be making any investigations themselves, other than in one case to which my noble friend referred.
The Army has asked Surrey police for both the names and the consent of those individuals who made those allegations to enable the Royal Military Police investigations to commence and consent has been granted in two cases. These have now been passed to the RMP to investigate.
The review itself will be conducted by one of the most distinguished civil rights and human rights Queen's Counsel that there is, who will undoubtedly produce a piece of work that will be both independent and of great value to the future of these proceedings.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as many of the complaints to the police were
128
uncorroborated, there is a feeling among the Army that nothing will be done about the complaints of bullying? Surely if the service personnel feel that they cannot go to their superiors and make the allegations, they will lack faith in the system. If that is the case, should not this inquiry look at the culture of bullying which seems to have existed at Deepcut and would not a public inquiry, where testimonies would be taken under oath, be far more efficient at achieving the truth?
Lord Bach: No, my Lords. For once, the noble Lord is exactly wrong. Those coming forward who would like to say what they wish to in a confidential spirit are much more able to do that under a review of the type that we have announced than would be the case in a full-blown public inquiry, in public and in which evidence is heard. They are much more likely to come forward to put their case to a sympathetic, independent reviewer.
If there is any doubt that the terms of the review are too prescribed, I refer the noble Lord to a statement made by Nicholas Blake QC, which made the matter clear in the following terms:
"it may be that fresh lines of inquiry will emerge from an analysis of the material".
He further said,
"I will be particularly concerned to obtain an understanding of the wider circumstances of these deaths and what may have lead to them, and to make any relevant recommendations".
I encourage the House to support the review on the basis that it may well take us a good deal further forward.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although the review is confidential and is not a public inquiry, is the noble Lord aware that this case has caused great public anxiety and, therefore, that the conclusions of the review should be made public?
Lord Bach: My Lords, indeed, I am. We absolutely accept that there is great public concern about these issues, but it does not always follow that the best way to deal with that public concern is through a public inquiry, which we all know from bitter experience can sometimes take an enormous amount of time and can cut across police investigations and perhaps, in this case, one of the coroners' inquests. The noble Lord will be pleased to hear me repeat that the findings of Nicholas Blake QC and the MoD's response will be made public.
Lord Laming: My Lords, in the light of the deep concern felt and the earlier reviews, would the noble Lord consider that it might be in the interests not only of families but also of the Army and its well earned good reputation, for there to be a public inquiry with precise and clearly defined terms of reference?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I know both the noble Lord's interest in these matters from the last time they were raised in this House and, of course, his great experience. No, on balance we do not feel that that

129
would be the right course in this case. It would be difficult to lay down the precise considerations that a public inquiry would be asked to look at. The great danger with a public inquiry—and we have not rejected the idea of a public inquiry altogether—about which we worry, and the House should worry, is the length of time that it would take before it reached its conclusions.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I fully understand, and am largely persuaded by, what my noble friend said. He said that the report will be published, but will it include all the evidence or shall we be asked to accept the report without seeing the evidence?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it will be largely a matter for Nicholas Blake QC, who is conducting the review, to decide whether he takes evidence in the form of a public inquiry, which is different. He will want as much information—some of it confidential and some not— to be given to him by those who have a real interest in this issue. I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend's question about whether everything that is said to Nicholas Blake QC will be published.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, while I take the noble Lord's point about the sense of holding the inquiry in confidence, there has been much talk in the press and the media about the non-commissioned officers in this case, but where are the officers? From the commanding officer downwards, an officer is responsible. There has been no mention anywhere of officers. Surely a young officer with a platoon with four dead men has a lot to answer for. We were always taught to know our platoon and our men better than their mothers. What is happening?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as always, the noble Viscount asks a pertinent question. Perhaps I may remind him that these four absolutely tragic deaths occurred over a period of seven years—probably not under one officer or even two. But in the review that he is to undertake and report on within six months, I am certain that Mr Blake will have very much in mind the noble Viscount's question.

West Coast Main Line
2.45 p.m.
Lord Sheldonasked Her Majesty's Government:What is their assessment of progress in the improvements to the West Coast Main Line.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the west coast route modernisation project is being delivered in line with the strategy published by the Strategic Rail Authority in June 2003. Copies of the SRA's strategy and a progress report are available in the Library of the House.
130
Tilting trains have entered service and a new timetable was introduced on 27 September 2004 with enhanced service frequencies and reduced journey times. Further improvements are planned for June and December this year.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, as the train contract was settled six years ago, is it not clear that the expectation of the trains travelling at 140 miles per hour—not even 125 miles per hour—has not yet been met? Punctuality is not as good as it was five years ago, tilting trains have still not materialised after all these years, and fares are above inflation year after year. Is that not a consequence of separating responsibility for train and track—one of the important decisions made by the previous Conservative government? With £10 billion being spent on upgrading this line, what assurances are being obtained about meeting the requirements that the money is properly spent and accounted for?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course, mistakes have been made in the past but major corrective work has been carried out under the project. I can assure the House that the costs of the project have been substantially reduced, and in that respect the project is very much under control.
I share the view of my noble friend that there are areas of weakness in the performance of the trains. The full list of Pendolino tiling trains will not be available until April next year but, when it is, that will improve the service. As I indicated, improvements are being made with reduced journey times across the line, but it is the case that some of the expectations of a few years ago have not yet been met. We are working towards achieving the highest standards possible.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I note that speeds have increased but fares have risen substantially, reliability has declined compared with 20 years ago, standards of punctuality and comfort have declined and meals have got worse. Can the users of the East Coast Main Line—the franchise which is about to be let—be defended in the franchise round from that kind of progress being inflicted on them?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that the West Coast Main Line project is rather different from the franchise arrangements for the East Coast Main Line. We are describing two different developments. But he will know that the reorganisation carried out by the previous administration resulted in very severe costs to the railway system. Significant costs to the system also resulted from the Hatfield crash, requiring extensive work in relation to the safety of the railway, and that has affected train performance and timetables.
I can only assert to the noble Lord that the East Coast Main Line has improved in recent years and, through investment, the West Cost Main Line is poised to undergo substantial improvements. We are

131
therefore on line to see an improved railway system in which the substantial investment of recent years is justified.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest in having used the service to come to your Lordships' House and another place for some 40 years. My noble friend may be aware that trains occasionally tilt, but they do not perform well. I have heard something like 70-odd different excuses, such as slow-running trains in front, and so on. If my noble friend has tried the service, he will have heard some as well. Is he now telling us that the performance will be better?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the improved service, as I indicated from the timetable that we introduced in September 2004, significantly reduces the journey time from Birmingham to London, from Manchester to London, from Liverpool to London and from Glasgow to London. That is proof of the investment in and improvement to the track and the investment in the Pendolino trains which, I freely concede, have not been without their teething troubles. However, the full fleet will be available from April next year. Therefore, we can look forward with some confidence to improved service on the line, which I believe my noble friend knows only too well.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Lord not taking all this rather calmly by referring to areas of disappointment and then adding that the West Coast Main Line is poised for improvement? Is not a little more due by way of explanation?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was responding to the points that my noble friend introduced with regard to the performance of the Pendolino trains. We have already seen reduced journey times under the new timetable, which is a reflection of very substantial investment in this project in recent years. So we are seeing the first fruits of that investment and improvement. It is a major task. This is the busiest, most intensively used, most complex mainline in the whole of Europe and its refurbishment, across virtually the whole of its length, its resignalling and the development of a new train-set system are bound to produce difficulties in the interim. That is reflected in some of the contributions
Lord Snape: My Lords, does the Minister accept that my Pendolino train yesterday from Birmingham to Euston arrived six minutes early? Pendolino trains are running and, by and large, running well. Does he find it strange that those who profess to love the railways the most, praise them the least? Will he accept from me that those who work in the railway industry would occasionally appreciate a word in favour of their efforts rather than non-stop denigration from this and the other place?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with great experience of the railways, both as a Member of both Houses of Parliament and as a former railway worker. I hope he does not regard the arrival
132
of his train six minutes early as a particular benefaction to him as a former railway worker. We look upon that as evidence of the fact that the new timetable in many areas is working to great effect and is a great improvement for the travelling public.

Education: International Strategy
2.53 p.m
Lord Archer of Sandwellasked Her Majesty's Government:>When they expect to have in place an implementation plan for the strategy set out in the paper Putting the World into World-Class Education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Filkin): My Lords, officials within the department are already in discussions with a number of key organisations which are working with us to draw up and to develop the implementation plan. We aim to finalise that by the end of spring 2005.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Can he confirm the Government's commitment to the principle that there is no inconsistency between inducing a sense of loyalty to the local community and to the nation and teaching that global security and well-being are indivisible? Have we not learned that tragically in the past few weeks by the events in Asia? Therefore, can my noble friend say whether the Government will co-operate with education authorities in other countries in some of their projects and will they draw on the expertise of NGOs like the Council for Education in World Citizenship and the One World Trust?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. As most noble Lords know, one can rejoice in the village or town in which one lives, one can be proud of being British, or English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, and at the same time have a commitment to understanding the wider world and feeling part of that wider world. Of course, that is exactly the message in the strategy that we are discussing. He is also right that, in implementing it, we shall seek to co-operate with other educational institutions. That is where we can add most value from our expertise and from our experts and we shall be consulting with a range of bodies, including the One World Trust, in the forthcoming weeks.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, the very first goal in the White Paper is:
"To transform our capability to speak and use other languages".
That transformation theme is repeated enthusiastically again and again in the White Paper. Does the Minister accept that in actual fact language learning in secondary schools and in universities is in sharp decline? How will

133
the mere option of a second language in all primary schools by 2010, which is the shared goal, transform such a dire position?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not hold quite such a jaundiced view as the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, on the status of language teaching in secondary schools. He may, in part, be referring obliquely to the increased freedom that we have given schools with regard to how much they insist on an obligatory second language for more senior pupils in secondary schools. We have had that discussion a number of times.
We are absolutely convinced that by getting more pupils aged from seven to 11 involved in languages at an earlier age, we are likely to have a better commitment to language learning as part of a wider educational agenda. Of course, there are links between the relevance of language learning and the rest of the strategy because it should demonstrate to pupils that just being able to speak one's own language, one hopes well, is not enough as part of a global society.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the sentence on page 15 of the supporting paper for head teachers which says:
"A large secondary school is able to take on a specialist head of international studies, a language teacher with a broad background of interest in international development work"?
Does he agree with me that that suggests exciting new opportunities in schools for older people who have much broader experience than just teaching languages? Does the planning to which he referred earlier include arrangements for attracting such people into those exciting new roles in schools?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am delighted to find that I can agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on this—as I shall do, no doubt, on other issues today as we progress on to other matters. Increasingly, as the years go by, I share her view that one understands more and more the contributions that older people can make to many aspects of our society. On the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, the off-the-cuff answer is that I expect so, but I would like to go away and check that.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, given that a key goal of the strategy paper is to maximise the contribution made by university research to overseas trade and inward investment, is the Minister concerned about the impact that the growing number of universities closing their engineering and particularly their science departments may have on that objective?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is a rather adroit way of just about bringing a different point within the scope of the Question. As the noble Lord knows, because of the concerns of my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State for Education, Charles Clarke, about decisions made by some universities in relation to certain subjects, he instructed HEFCE to look at the issue. In the national interest, one could not
134
allow a situation to develop in which a range of crucially important subjects were eroded. Of course, we await its considerations.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, declaring an interest as a vice president of the One World Trust and bearing in mind that we live in one moral universe, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor put it, will my noble friend urge that the role and potential of the United Nations is included in school syllabuses?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, an understanding of how the United Nations and other international governance bodies affect not only our lives in our own society, but also the lives of people in other parts of the world is part of good curriculum studies. We saw a particularly good example of that recently with the launch by the DfID and Morgan Stanley of a project for schools around the G8 Summit, which allowed schools to look at issues like global warning, its importance, causes and impact on all societies and at the interesting and important issue of how some of the richest societies and economies do, often with difficulty, work together on challenging issues like how to address global warning.
One could hardly find a better practical example, about both governance and a real issue, for schools to study in their curriculum. Therefore, that is a clear illustration of the importance of bringing international issues to hone in school teaching by such a method.

Emergency Warning System
3 p.m.
Lord Gardenasked Her Majesty's Government:Whether adequate emergency communication arrangements exist in the United Kingdom to give warning to those at potential risk from tsunami-type disasters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the UK has a well established flood warning system and central and local arrangements for dealing with extreme events. They were recently tested in Exercise Triton, carried out by the Environment Agency in September 2004, and lessons are being learned from that. Nevertheless, in the light of events in the Indian Ocean, we are looking at the level of risk to the UK from such extreme events and have been in preliminary discussions with the Office of Science and Technology.
Lord Garden: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that honest Answer and appraisal of our shortage of communications for dealing with the sort of event that occurred in the Indian Ocean. As there was much criticism of the nations around the Indian Ocean for not having an appropriate communications system, I trust that the Minister will, with colleagues in the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, look at the wide range of

135
opportunities now available to us to have a proper emergency communications system that will reach those at risk.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, communications are clearly vital. As noble Lords will know, there is a communications system in the Pacific Ocean, where there is greater experience of tsunamis, but such a system apparently does not exist in the Indian Ocean. In the Atlantic we are at less risk from tsunamis than from other potential events such as volcanoes, earthquakes and so forth, and communications systems exist for those. The point of our looking again at the situation is to see whether the communications systems will work and what contingency plans are in place should those need to be triggered.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to the Minister's answer to the last question, what emergency arrangements have been made to deal with flooding on the east coast where the land is much flatter? Perhaps I may ask the Minister another question which I hope is not too wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Will he comment on the proposed new 10-mile barrier that is intended to address London's flooding risks? I suspect that flooding in such very flat country—compared with flooding in the west, where it would meet Wales and the mountains—would have to be coped with much more quickly. Who, ultimately, has total control in the matter?
Lord Whitty: Regrettably, my Lords, no one has total control in natural disasters. However, a lot of work and very heavy investment have gone into flood defences for the eastern region in order to deal with such events and with other events that we feel are within the range of experience. Although a tsunami of this size is unlikely to occur in the North Sea, we nevertheless need to be prepared for substantially greater flood emergencies than have arisen hitherto. That is why the issue of constructing a further Thames Barrier has come into play. We will be looking at that. The Environment Agency, the Government and the local authorities concerned are very much engaged in looking at the optimum flood defences for the east coast.
Lord Clark of Windermere:My Lords, will the noble Lord join me in paying tribute to the emergency workers in the north of Cumbria, in Carlisle in particular, who worked so well and effectively and particularly those connected with Radio Cumbria who, broadcasting night and day, kept morale up and gave out information over the critical period of the weekend when there was so much devastation in the city of Carlisle?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, indeed I will. The efforts made in Carlisle—the way in which the emergency services and indeed the population of Carlisle and its surrounding areas have dealt with a problem of this size—have been exemplary. As such an event has never
136
before occurred in the area's history, it would have been difficult to predict it entirely; but the way in which it has been coped with has, so far, been very effective.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the noble Lord says that no one is in sole charge. Why not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Environment Agency is in charge of flood defences and contingency arrangements for flood emergencies while larger emergencies such as a tsunami would be dealt with on a civil contingency basis. The communications system, however, would have to involve a much wider range of people. The noble Baroness is perhaps misinterpreting my remark that not all of this is under human control. We have to recognise that we cannot predict and entirely cope with some things in this country any more than they could in the Indian Ocean.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, reference has been made to East Anglia with regard to the prospect of natural disaster. Are the Government content to think that a disaster such as that which occurred in 1953 in East Anglia would now be prevented?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, 300 people died in the East Anglia emergency in 1953. I am satisfied that that would not happen again, due to the flood defences and contingency arrangements that have been put in place. That is not to say that substantial flooding and damage could not occur on the east coast.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, following on the Minister's previous answer, one understands that emergency communications is a national issue. However, is there a body that will co-ordinate the various regional responses from the devolved administrations?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the contingency arrangements would need to involve all the areas under threat. The particular contingency to which I referred related to the south and east coasts. Therefore, that would involve the Environment Agency and the English authorities. Different sorts of emergencies may well involve Wales and Scotland as well.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, immediately following proceedings on the Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill, my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Guantanamo Bay.We shall then proceed with the Education Bill. At a convenient moment after 6.30 p.m., again with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Northern Ireland.

137
The dinner-break business will begin upon conclusion of that Statement. After the Northern Ireland order, we will immediately return to the Education Bill, so long as it is not before 8 p.m. Proceedings on the Bill will then continue until around 10 p.m. as usual.

Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.— (Lord Graham of Edmonton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guantanamo Bay
3.8 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement concerning the return to the United Kingdom of the four British citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay.
"Let me first recall the context.
"The attacks of 11 September 2001 were the worst terrorist atrocity which the United States, the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world have ever suffered. In response to those attacks a coalition of countries came together to launch a military campaign against Al'Qaeda and its Taleban supporters to remove them from their strongholds in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In those operations thousands of individuals believed to be A1'Qaeda or Taleban fighters or their supporters were detained by coalition forces.
"The vast majority of those individuals were released, but those who were deemed to pose a substantial risk of returning to the conflict were sent by the United States to its naval base in Guantanamo Bay, there to be detained and questioned about their knowledge of Al'Qaeda's activity. As a result, valuable information has been gained, which has helped to protect the international community from further A1'Qaeda and related terrorist attacks.
"Approximately 200 individuals have been released from Guantanamo Bay since their original detention. However, the United States Government believe that a number of detainees so released have returned to terrorism, demonstrating the dilemma faced by the US in considering such releases
138
"Nine British citizens were among those originally detained at Guantanamo Bay. I, and the Government as a whole, have taken our consular responsibilities to those detained very seriously. British officials have visited them regularly, delivered messages and mail from their families and secured improvements in the physical conditions of their detention. I have made a Written Statement to the House following each of those visits."I have set out to the House on many occasions the British Government's consistent position in relation to those detainees. As the House will recall, discussions took place in 2003, led by the Attorney-General on the United Kingdom side. The Government then requested the return of all the British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Five of the nine British detainees were returned to the United Kingdom last March.
"In announcing their return to the House, I said that the Government would continue to work to resolve the position of the remaining four British detainees: Feroz Abbasi, Moazzam Begg, Jamaal Belmar and Martin Mubanga. Since last March, the Government have been in regular discussion with the United States authorities about this. Foreign Office Ministers and I have also held meetings with the families and lawyers of the four men, and with their Members of Parliament. Officials have been in regular contact."Following contacts between the United Kingdom and the United States, involving in particular my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and his office, and between the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and me, the United States Government have now agreed to the return of all four men to the United Kingdom. That decision follows intensive and complex discussions to address US security concerns. All the families have been informed of the decision this morning.
"The four men will be returned in the next few weeks. Once they are back in the UK, the police will consider whether to arrest them under the Terrorism Act 2000 for questioning in connection with possible terrorist activity. Any subsequent action will be a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The House will understand that it would not therefore be right for me to comment on this aspect of the matter. "I should like to assure the House that every practical step will be taken by the relevant United Kingdom authorities to maintain national security and to protect public safety. "Throughout the period of detention of British nationals in Guantanamo Bay, the Government have sought to balance the need to safeguard the interests of Britons detained overseas with our duty to meet the threat from international terrorism.
"Terrorism is opposed to the values of every faith and religion, and seeks to deny the most basic of human rights—to life, to security, and the right to go about our daily business free from harm. Working with our allies, we will continue resolutely

139
to defend these rights through a robust and determined approach to combating terrorism and its networks of support wherever it is to be found".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for repeating the Statement. I should make clear that we welcome the announcement. We recognise that some of those still detained at Guantanamo Bay may have committed the foulest deeds, and that there has been genuine ambiguity over the status of individuals there who have acted with unparalleled violence, outside all the rules of war—in particular, whether they are prisoners of war or illegal combatants, or simply charged with criminal offences.
Nevertheless, the three-year history of Guantanamo Bay and its detainees leaves a nasty taste. Disputes continue, not least in the United States, about how its inmates have been handled, are being handled or should be handled. At least all the British citizens are now clear of Camp Delta.
Have we established the true circumstances in which the four remaining detainees were originally arrested, and does that satisfy the noble and learned Lord that there can be a clear basis on which to decide whether they should be re arrested here? Will the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which the noble and learned Lord mentioned, be in a position to proceed with full investigations as soon as they return? If it should happen that charges are preferred under current anti-terrorism legislation, can we be assured that the four remaining detainees, or any one of them, will be subject to law by due process, meaning a free and fair trial? Can we assume that these four, having been held longer than the earlier five, are considered less straightforward cases than the previous batch? Is there some sort of differentiation here that led to the delay of their release or return to this country? Above all, can we be assured that nothing in this process will in any way involve a further danger to national security and public safety, beyond the permanent threat that terrorism offers every day to open societies such as ours, which is always with us now, whether we like it or not.
On the wider context of all the Guantanamo detainees, which obviously must concern us as allies of the United States, is it now the position that the military commissions set up by the US Administration have been suspended by order of a federal judge? Has the Supreme Court ruled on those matters? What exactly is the commission law under which the US Government want the trials to take place, and do they, as appears to be the case, exclude the calling of all expert legal witnesses? Have we raised these broader but important issues with Washington? Is it correct that an inquiry about prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay is now under way? Were we consulted about that, and are we being kept informed about its progress?
140
We are fighting for a world of law and civilised behaviour against enemies who respect no laws and rules, and who believe in pitiless barbarity and contempt for civilian life. Guantanamo undoubtedly contained, and may still contain, some deeply dangerous men. There must be no weakness in defending our values against such people, but there must be no weakness either in adhering, ourselves, to the values for which we are fighting.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what has happened in Guantanamo Bay in the past three years has been a matter of very great concern to all of us concerned with the rule of law, due process and human rights It was described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, in a public lecture that he gave in November 2003, as a "legal black hole" and a "monstrous failure of justice". We were encouraged by the decision last summer of the Supreme Court of the United States that Guantanamo Bay was subject to the jurisdiction of the American courts. But serious concerns remained, and still remain, about the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and the validity of the process in the tribunals set up to try them.
We must now congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General most warmly on his part in the successful conclusion of the obviously very long and difficult process of negotiating the release of all British prisoners. I fully understand why he cannot comment on whether any of the four may be prosecuted when they return here, but I have some other questions.
First, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the return of the four is unconditional—that the United Kingdom has given no undertakings to the USA about what will happen to them when they are returned? Secondly, can he confirm that, unless they are arrested and charged with offences, the four will be subject to no special restrictions; for example, on their contacts with the media or their movements? If that is not the case, what are the restrictions and under what authority are they to be imposed? Thirdly, can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not take the view that, since all Britons have now been released, we can forget about Guantanamo Bay? As America's strongest and most influential ally, we should continue to monitor what happens at Guantanamo Bay and to make our criticisms plain if there are any further abuses.
Finally, if no special restrictions are to be imposed on the four former Guantanamo Bay prisoners, does that not emphasise the difference between the treatment of the British citizens—for whose release from Guantanamo Bay the Attorney-General and others have fought tirelessly—and the continued detention of non-British prisoners detained under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, in spite of the recent decision of the Law Lords? Belmarsh has been described as Britain's Guantanamo Bay. While that is certainly not an exact comparison,

141
it is close enough to be disturbing. When will the Government decide what they are going to do about these detainees?
3.20 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I start by thanking both noble Lords for welcoming the Statement, and I have noted the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
I shall turn straightaway to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. What will happen on the return of the four men will be, in the first instance, for the police to determine. As I said when repeating the Statement, it is for the police to consider whether, from the information available to them, they should arrest any or all of these men in order to question them under the terms of the terrorism Act. It is then for the police and subsequently the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether or not proceedings ought to be taken. In the circumstances and at this point in time it would be quite wrong of me to predict in any way what will take place.
In response to the noble Lord's second question, the important point to be made is that it will be done in accordance with due process of British law in all respects, and that is precisely what will be applied to the four returning men.
The noble Lord asked about the position as regards security. Perhaps I may repeat what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said this morning and which I repeated in the Statement; that is, to seek to reassure the House, as did my right honourable friend, that every practical step will be taken by the relevant United Kingdom authorities to maintain national security and to protect public safety. We have of course always regarded that as a very important consideration.
The noble Lord asked me about the status of the United States military commissions. He will understand that that is not really a matter for me, but both he and other noble Lords will be aware that the United States courts are currently engaged in considering some of the aspects in relation to those commissions. It will be for them and ultimately, perhaps, the United States Supreme Court, to rule in due course. In answer to his question, it is right to say that we have ourselves raised broader issues in relation to these matters. It is also plain that the negotiations I led which looked in detail at the terms of the military commissions will obviously have given the United States our view of those commissions overall. Having said that, the Statement sets out what the Foreign Secretary was anxious to emphasise when he spoke in another place; namely, the context in which the United States authorities took the action that they did.
Finally, the noble Lord asked whether, so far as we know, an investigation by the United States authorities is taking place into recent allegations about treatment in Guantanamo Bay. The answer to that is yes, the United States has announced a new investigation into the allegations, which is being led by US Army Brigadier General John T Furlow.
142
I turn to the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, what will happen as regards the men will be in accordance with existing British law in all respects. If they are arrested, plainly that will give rise to restrictions; but no restrictions are imposed on their travel within the United Kingdom, or on matters of that sort.
I can also tell the noble Lord that, as my right honourable friend also said in another place, while our involvement directly on a consular basis will cease once all British nationals have returned, that does not mean that these are not matters which we will continue to raise with our very close allies as circumstances require.
The one note of discordance that I must make relates to the noble Lord's final observation. I have to say that I regard the comparison with the provisions under Part 4 of the anti-terrorism Act as not only an inexact analogy, but one that is totally misconceived. The circumstances of detention have been entirely different; the fact is that, at all stages, there has been access to full, independent civil lawyers. The most important consideration is that, at all stages, those who have been detained under the anti-terrorism Act have been free to leave if they can find a country to go to. If the same conditions had been applied to Guantanamo Bay, I would not be here today because all the British nationals—and, indeed, many others— would have left a long time ago. So I do not accept the analogy at all.
As the House will know, before Christmas my right honourable friend the Home Secretary indicated that the Government are actively considering, in the light of the Law Lords' judgment, whether conditions can be adjusted so as to meet the concerns of the Law Lords. That consideration is taking place at the moment. I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will make a Statement as soon as he can once that consideration has been concluded.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, while recognising fully, and not for the first time, the dangers of terrorism and paying tribute to the patient efforts of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General over many, many months, perhaps I may ask one simple question. Among the representations made by Her Majesty's Government, was it made clear that they regarded the detention of British prisoners in Guantanamo Bay as contrary to the rule of law?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as I and other Members of the Government have said on a number of occasions, we made plain that we saw only two alternatives: either the men detained should be tried in accordance with standards we regard as fair and in accordance with international standards, or they should be returned to this country. I think that explains our position.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I should like to echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, at the beginning of his speech, in

143
particular his congratulations to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General personally, and the Government generally, on securing the return of these four detainees. That is excellent news.
Could the noble and learned Lord tell us a little more about what has happened to the five who were returned last March? What is their present position and what has been their history since they were returned?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I cannot give a detailed history, but the principal planks are that the police did decide to arrest four of the five under the terrorism Act. That was done and the men were asked certain questions. Having given answers, the men were released and no further proceedings have been taken. Since the men returned, some have made allegations about their treatment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a layman's question. It is clear that any government must have power to detain those who have committed crimes and to charge them when they are in their territory and that time must be available for them to decide whether to bring charges. That, I think, is agreed. However, what is puzzling is the convention under which a foreign government, ally or not, are able to detain without charge a citizen of this country for an indefinite period—until it is concluded by the noble and learned Lord's own great exertions, for which we are grateful.
Is the result of this sorry episode going to be an international convention under which an international law is established which determines when a country may and may not detain a foreign national?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as a result of many of the episodes that have taken place, I cannot say whether any of the bright and expert minds involved in international law will consider that there is good reason to come together and talk about how the law might be brought up to date, amended and so forth. However, I note the point made by the noble Lord.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, to what extent have Her Majesty's Government been given explanations by the United States authorities about the conditions in which the total of nine British people have been held— explanations as to what led to the remaining four being held for a longer period than the original five, and questions of that sort? In so far as explanations have been given by the United States authorities to our Government, will there be a point in time when it is possible to give such explanations to the public in this country?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, if there are concerns about the conditions in which British nationals are being held, it has always been the Government's position to raise those matters with the foreign government or power that is holding them. Allegations have certainly been made in relation to one of these people, and that matter has been raised. In addition, British consular officials have visited on nine occasions to consider the welfare of the men
144
involved. These are difficult conditions and one therefore has to be careful about comparison, but it is fair to say that the Government have done more than any other government to look to the welfare of their nationals. So far as the noble Lord's first question is concerned, we have been concerned to ensure that the conditions are satisfactory and have raised such issues as seem appropriate to us.
In answer to the noble Lord's second, broader question, many questions have arisen in the course of the negotiations and those have informed the discussions that have taken place. I can add that each time a consular visit has taken place, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made a statement and reported to Parliament, so Parliament has also been kept fully informed of these matters.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that all consular involvement would cease the moment the detainees were released. Does that mean that no further assistance will be given to any of them in pursuing their remedies against the authorities in Guantanamo Bay for any ill treatment that they may have received there?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, that is a different matter from that to which I referred when I talked about consular activity in relation to people present in another country. If they require assistance, it will be a matter for individuals to make representations to the Government. I am sure that all those representations will be studied very carefully and considered on their merits.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I add my words to those who have congratulated the noble and learned Lord on what is, in part, a very personal achievement but also on the Government's achievement in bringing about such very good news. I also appreciate the way in which he expressed, in very stark and simple terms, the alternatives available in relation to the people held at Guantanamo Bay.
However, I ask him to reflect on the last paragraph of the Foreign Secretary's Statement. It seems to me that the Statement ends on a note of robust determination to defend "these rights" against terrorism—what he calls the right,
"to life, to security, and the right to go about our daily business free from harm".
In combating terrorism, will the Minister confirm that the Government agree that it is essential that we do not give terrorists the power to cause us to depart in any way from our standards governing the rule of law and the rights of individuals to due process and fair trial?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, throughout this process the Government have sought to meet the twin objectives of protecting the United Kingdom and its citizens from international terrorism while playing their role on behalf of British citizens detained abroad, and indeed our commitment to the rule of law and the principles that it contains. Some might say that it is the challenge of

145
democracies today to meet the very important objective of protecting citizens against potentially the most atrocious outrages while at the same time defending the values that the Government continue to hold dear.
Lord Acton: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Borrie, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said that certain matters had been raised with the United States Administration. Were satisfactory answers received?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it is not our practice to give blow-by-blow accounts of any discussions with foreign governments. I am very grateful to the number of noble Lords who have so far spoken unanimously in welcoming the development. The satisfactory answer that we have had is that we have reached a resolution of this problem on which both countries have been able to agree. That is, indeed, a satisfactory answer.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I would like to add my voice to what has been said in appreciation of the work of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and also of his colleagues in the Government in securing this outcome. I should particularly like to say how much I appreciate the discretion with which the Attorney-General spoke as these discussions went ahead. It is easy to envisage that someone incensed about what was going on could have used language that in the end would have made resolution more difficult than it has been.
I would also ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm what I understood him to say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Can he confirm that the handing over by the United States of the British nationals to the United Kingdom is unconditional?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I can confirm that. As I said, the Statement makes it clear that we must take every practical step to protect national security and the citizens of this country. We shall do that in accordance with the law of the United Kingdom, and I am sure that the United States are aware of the content of that law. I note with appreciation what the noble and learned Lord said, particularly about the Government as a whole.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord detected any change in the reporting restrictions at Guantanamo Bay, which are exceptional? In addition, did he notice the article featured in the Financial Times recently, which shows that there may be some window of change?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Earl any information on that.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thought that I had understood my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford to ask whether the Government are aware of the evidence being held against these men. First, is
146
the Minister satisfied that it has all been passed on to the Government; and, secondly, and will be passed on to the police?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, we have very good bilateral relations with the United States, as we have with other countries, in relation to matters of justice. I have no doubt at all that our law enforcement authorities will be in a position to make the judgments that they need to make, informed by information from their counterparts in the United States.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble and learned Attorney-General has very rightly referred to the obligation to take every practical step to protect the citizens of this country from terrorist attacks. With particular reference to what is said to occur in Belmarsh Prison, could he tell us what steps other major European countries, such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain, take to provide the same protection?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, standing at the Dispatch Box, I cannot give a detailed reply along those lines. However, I shall do my best to provide a Written Answer to the noble and learned Lord and will place a copy in the Library of the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, further to the noble and learned Lord's answer to my original question, is it not extraordinary that there was no convention or document that our representatives could point to and say, "You have had these people for the agreed maximum length of time without charge. Under this convention it is now for you to return them"—and then for them to argue against that case rather than the other way round? As I said, I am a layman, but it seems an extraordinary state of affairs. If the noble and learned Lord agrees with me, can he say what steps the Government will take to initiate discussions about this?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord—at least not quite in the way in which he has put his question. The issues involved are legally complex. That, no doubt, is one of the reasons why cases are proceeding at the highest level through the United States courts. Indeed, there was some litigation in this country as well. I can only repeat my previous answer and not add anything to it.

Education Bill [H.L.]
3.41 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin. )
On Question, Motion agreed to
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools in England]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England]:
[Amendment No. 2 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Perry of Southwarkmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 67, line 10, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4A and 42, which stand in my name, and speak in support of Amendments Nos. 16, 77, 78 and 82, to which I have added my name. I also wholeheartedly support Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Unfortunately there were already four names attached to those amendments by the time I came to read them.
The aim of the amendments is to ensure the quality of inspection, particularly through the quality of the people engaged in the inspection. At this early stage it might be worth reminding ourselves of the new arrangements for inspection.
First, they allow for only short inspections—one to two days. Secondly, they still require that the inspectors observe and report upon the formidable list in Clause 2, including the quality of the education; how far it meets the needs of the range of pupils; the standards achieved; the quality of the leadership and management, including financial management; the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils; the contribution made by the schools to their well-being, and so on. It is a very formidable list on which inspectors are required to report in that very short time. Thirdly, we should remind ourselves that the inspection team has the power to put the school publicly into special measures—in other words, to declare it as failing to meet the needs of its pupils. We should also remind ourselves of the effect that such a public report has on the children at the school and on their teachers.
I rehearse all this because it leads inexorably to the conclusion that the people involved in such inspections must be of the very highest competence, not only in their ability to form professional judgments based on their own experience and knowledge, but also in their understanding of the methodology of inspection, which seems to have been squashed out of the Bill as if anyone could do it at any time. As Amendment No. 42 provides—I support entirely the thrust of the amendments—both the competence and effectiveness of the team are important.
148
Inspection would become nonsense if teachers, parents and pupils had no confidence in the professional competence of those inspecting; if the inspection proved to be inadequately organised and prepared; if it was conducted with prejudice and one-sided views; and if plain factual errors were made. Unfortunately, as was well rehearsed during Second Reading, such faults have occurred even with the system of registered inspectors. It is my view and the view of my noble friends that we should be tightening the procedures for registration and training, not dismantling them in the way the Bill seeks to do.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me after Second Reading to explain the Government's thinking behind the changes. Perhaps I may briefly extract from his letter the core of what he said. The letter states:
"Currently, registered inspectors have an independence protected by the … 1996 Act. Whilst the majority of inspection reports meet the schools satisfaction, there are a small minority which do not. In these cases, it is not possible for the Chief Inspector to have the reports amended without the agreement of the registered inspector".
"We wish to change this".
So do I. It is absolutely right that responsibility for the quality of the report should rest with the chief inspector and I support those parts of the Bill which ensure that that happens. But there is no sequitur from the wish to put the chief inspector in the driving seat with responsibility for the quality of inspection reports and doing away with the system of registered inspectors. It is important that the registered inspectors should be able to hand their reports to the chief inspector for final vetting, checking and quality control. That is what these amendments—together with what is already in the Bill— would achieve.
I welcome, too, the parts of the Bill which give the chief inspector heightened responsibility for the whole process of inspection. This has been gradually whittled away over the years under the system of contracting-out. The fact that the chief inspector is put firmly in the driving seat and that HMI, through the new arrangements, is to be much more involved—the Minister assures me that up to 80 per cent of inspections will now be under the control and in the hands of HMI—as a former chief inspector myself, is very dear to my heart.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the need for high quality registered inspectors and will restore to England what the Bill leaves for Wales. If Wales believes that registered inspectors are important, why are they not also important for England? I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 4 or 4A.
Lord Hanningfield:: I support this series of amendments and fully endorse the comments of my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark. who made a powerful and insightful speech.

149
Unsurprisingly, these amendments are not new. They should be familiar to all noble Lords, coming as they do from a previous Act that the Bill seeks to reform. Their intent is clear: they are designed to retain the status quo in regard to the position of registered inspectors in England.
The Bill as it stands would remove the requirement of the chief inspector to maintain a register of approved inspectors. We on these Benches—despite the best efforts of the Minister during Second Reading—remain highly sceptical that abandoning a system of registered inspectors will bring any significant improvements to the inspection regime. Nor are we convinced that it will speed up and simplify the process, which is one of the principal objectives of the Bill.
We are somewhat in the dark about how the measure found its way into the Bill. None of the various consultations by Ofsted on the revisions to the framework specifically refers to, or provides, a rationale for the removal of registered inspectors. Perhaps the Minister can indicate what prior consultation was undertaken, for how long and with whom, before the proposal was included in the Bill. If there was no prior consultation, will the Minister explain the rationale of the measure and the department's thinking behind its inclusion in the Bill?
A serious concern is how the change will impact on the quality of inspectors and the inspections that they carry out. The Bill will allow the chief inspector to appoint,
"such persons as he thinks fit"
as additional inspectors. There is nothing to ensure accountability or the suitability of such inspectors for that role. Under the previous system there was provision for a person who was no longer fit to be an inspector to be removed from the register. Without that qualifying hurdle of the register of inspectors, how will the Minister remove substandard inspectors?
Further questions need to be answered. What impact will the proposals have on existing inspectors? Does the Minister believe that the number of existing inspectors will be reduced? Will he explain how the adoption of this system will speed up the inspection regime? What is meant by the phrase "persons as he thinks fit" in relation to the chief inspector appointing additional inspectors? How will the accountability, quality, impartiality and independence of such individuals be guaranteed?
I have tried to highlight our concerns about scrapping the register of inspectors regime, which are many and varied. That is why I am happy to lend our name from these Benches to all the amendments before the Committee today.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: From these Benches, we, too, have added our names to the amendments, and I shall add a few words to those that have already been said.
150
Accountability and quality control are real issues. I echo entirely the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the importance of inspection and the effect of inspection reports on the reputation of schools and teachers. Such reports should not be taken lightly as they are important documents. Therefore, there must be proper quality control. The reason for registration was to maintain quality control over those who participated as inspectors. If inspections were undertaken by those who are employed by Ofsted—in other words, those who are directly Her Majesty's Inspectorate—there would be no problem. It is clear that, while retreating a little from the regime in which there are many subcontractors and many small firms who undertake inspections, the Government are not retreating completely from that regime. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I, too, received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who explained at some length why the Government saw the need for change.
In that letter, the noble Lord states:
"We shall remove the requirement for the Chief Inspector to maintain a register of inspectors, leaving him solely accountable for the system".
That is fine, but he continues:
"The intention is that Ofsted will contract with a small number of inspector provider companies through efficient value for money contracts. These inspectors will be required to constantly and consistently demonstrate their continued effectiveness and suitability to conduct inspections".
It is clear that if they are to be independent, small provider companies, they will be free standing and will have free-standing legal powers. It is important to have some means of keeping tabs on who is operating on behalf of those free-standing companies. Therefore, the quality control and accountability issue is central. Our questions have not been answered, and we do not know why.
We used to have a register, but no clear explanation has been given for it being dropped. We know that Wales has opted to keep the register, and we believe that Wales has made the right decision while we are making the wrong one. What will happen when there are differences between Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools and the independent providers? What is the appeals procedure?
There is a question about the accountability of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, and the need for the chief inspector to work through registered inspectors who have the right to appeal to an independent tribunal, thereby providing accountability. The Bill sweeps that away and gives additional powers to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to decide the arrangements for school inspections. For example, scrutiny indicates that Ofsted is moving from 40 providers of inspection services to six, all of which have a regional focus. There will be two providers in each of three regions: two in Bristol; two in Manchester; and two in Nottingham. How will competition be undertaken? If we are to have a smaller number of providers, the power of Her Majesty's chief inspector becomes even greater. There is a question of accountability in that direction, too.
All told, we are unhappy about the removal of the concept of the register, and do not understand why it is taking place. We should like those clauses to be

151
reinstated. I go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that we have no problem with control and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools being responsible for reports, but we cannot see how that necessarily means that the registration process needs to be dropped.
Lord Dearing: I put my name down in support of Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, added his name to Amendment No. 43 and would have done so for Amendment No. 42, but the list was already full. I know that the noble Lord would wish me to say that he is engaged in the work of another committee. As a former chief inspector of schools, he supports the proposal that there should be registration. I agree very much with the noble Baronesses, Lady Perry and Lady Sharp, that because Her Majesty's chief inspector is responsible for inspection reports it does not follow that there should not be registration. Indeed, it increases the case for it. Inspections are his responsibility and he should determine whether a person is fit and proper or whether someone should be removed. It works the other way round.
The inspection team is in the position of being investigating officers, judges and jury—sometimes of the fate of a school. It is a weighty responsibility—a quasi-judicial responsibility. Those who exercise it should be explicitly approved for the purpose and the chief inspector should be accountable for their appointments. I note, also, the wisdom of Wales. Who can resist it? I, therefore, add my support for the amendments.
Baroness Andrews: I am grateful for the powerful advocates in the debate, who have a great deal of experience in the education inspection system. I hope that I can respond to the overwhelming cry to explain why we have gone down this route, as there are, necessarily, few clues in the Bill.
The amendments have been spoken to with great passion, so I shall take some time to address the central question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about the need to ensure that we have people of the highest possible calibre within the system and that we lose no value in the changes that we intend to make.
With that in mind, I thought it might be useful if noble Lords had on the record a longer statement of our thinking, particularly on issues which have been raised, such as quality and accountability within the system, and on why we believe that the register has outlived its usefulness in the context of what we are trying to do. I can do so within a broader context that will allow me to address the amendment more swiftly. I hope that noble Lords will be happy if I do that. It will be a rather longer note than we would normally provide.
We had a very positive and extensive consultation process on this whole package with schools and with the providers who are responsible for the registered inspectors, and a pilot in 100 schools is testing the new
152
system. We believe that we have found a way forward that builds on the strengths of the system of the past 12 years and makes it fit for the future.
Like other noble Lords, I should like to pay tribute to all the inspectors across the system and to the extraordinary contribution they make towards raising standards in education. We have had a register for more than 12 years in schools. In that time, the cadre of registered inspectors, working with 250 HMIs, has increased to 5,000, with more than 700 of those being registered inspectors and the rest being enrolled inspectors. They have carried out more than 50,000 inspections over the years; so they have a huge body of experience and a huge and conscientious expertise which we certainly do not want to lose. I hope that I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that there will be no damaging impact on the inspectorate and that we are in fact offering enhanced and welcome opportunities.
4 p.m.
Noble Lords have recognised in recent debates on the new inspection system that our proposals present new challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, referred to that in her opening remarks. We are asking for shorter inspections, smaller teams, and a targeted approach that focuses more on core systems, engages more with the management team through self-evaluation and engages with parents and pupils. That will place new demands on the inspectorate. We need to ensure that inspectors are fully competent and can continually demonstrate competence to deliver the new model. Far from dismantling the system, we see this as a tightening up which will bring improvements.
Noble Lords are rightly concerned about what will happen to the existing pool of inspectors who have brought such value to the system. The inspectors have been recruited from many different backgrounds over the years. Their enrolment is covered in law under Schedule 3 of the 1996 Act and was introduced by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. But regardless of where they come from, the inspectors have in common an ability to produce the standards necessary to lead and manage a school inspection. That means taking account of the school environment and ecology, recognising what a stressful time an inspection is for a school, and recognising the impact that the report will have on the school in the community. They must be able to demonstrate the experience and skills for the phase of education they intend to inspect. They have traditionally worked alongside HMIs who are directly employed by the chief inspector.
Being on the register has simply provided a status that means that the individual can be trusted to undertake a school inspection—it is a badge to do so— and can be trusted to write a report. To get on to the register an individual must initially demonstrate fitness to practise. However, the register has not been an indicator of how good an inspector is at delivering inspections to the required standard. That is reflected in the fact that being on the register is, paradoxically,

153
no guarantee of employment or regular participation. It is possible to be on the register without intending to inspect regularly, and some inspectors may make only three or four inspections a year. For some, inspector status has been a passport to other forms of employment.
Moreover, registered inspectors are not a part of Ofsted; they are employed by a range of contractors who are themselves independent of Ofsted. Many of them operate on self-employed terms as autonomous units. The chief inspector has little or no say on which individuals are used to conduct which inspections; he can only require that they meet the specification for a tender exercise.
We are asking schools to learn and improve continuously and to look critically at how they might do so. It is right and proper that we ask the same of the inspection system. So in making the decision to replace the system of a register of inspectors with a greater role for HMIs in the inspection and reporting process, we have been motivated by the intention to enhance the inspectorate system and to enrich the professional development opportunities and systems that will ensure that quality, performance and accountability are improved. That reflects the progress that we have made through the inspection system in recent years. That will keep and mobilise the experience and mix of skills that we already have. It will improve the consistency of inspection, make the process simpler for schools and develop greater flexibility in the inspection system as it grows and develops.
I think that it would help noble Lords if I were to sum up what we believe are the defining differences between the old and the new systems. Our proposed new system creates a new relationship between Ofsted and the providers which is based on collaboration and teamwork rather than regulation. It builds in quality provisions across an integrated system where HMIs and those who we have designated as additional inspectors will together and equally be charged with delivering the new inspection system.
How will we build in quality? It will be built in at all levels. Every additional inspector, HMI or not, and regardless of skill, competence or experience, will have to undergo the same training to implement the new system as HMIs. They will be trained together to deliver the new framework. Indeed, they are already being trained together in the pilot. That will be assessed by senior HMIs and delivered through the providers. Feedback from the providers suggests that the inspectors are very supportive of these changes because they regard the additional opportunities as welcome.
How will we achieve greater consistency and quality? It will flow from the fact that, rather than sample checks by HMI on reports, which is what we have at the moment, there will be a scheme of continuous performance assessment that will apply to all inspectors and inspections and set out the principles for quality in terms of new inspections and the principles for performance management. I refer noble Lords to the Ofsted website where the new scheme for
154
performance management is set out. That is a lengthy and detailed document which is still in development and has been the subject of a lot of hard work. It is difficult to describe because it is long and detailed but I will do my best to boil it down to a few key elements.
Performance management will be undertaken on a team basis. Ofsted and RISPs will share responsibility for HMIs and contracted inspectors. They will work to key performance targets. There will be a continuous process that feeds individual professional improvement and development. There will be no new entry test for additional inspectors but there will be a clearer, tighter framework for continuous professional monitoring and improvement.
A third element of quality assurance will come from clearer accountability and a greater role for HMIs. The independence of the registered inspectors left him or her entirely accountable for the system and. sometimes, as we all know, at war with the HMI who was powerless to intervene to change things. That will be replaced by the chief inspector who will authorise inspectors who are fit to practise and remove that right if necessary. I am very pleased that noble Lords have welcomed the fact that every inspection report will be quality assured by the local managing inspector to ensure that the judgments match the evidence and will go out in the name of the chief inspector himself.
HMIs, the elite of the inspection process, will have a clearer role in leading and reporting on inspection. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has mentioned that the proposal is for HMIs to lead 80 per cent of secondary school inspections and 20 per cent of primary school inspections. In future they will work alongside the additional inspectors.
Who are these additional inspectors? They may be inspectors who are already registered or who would have sought registration under the old system. To what standards will they be working? As I said, there will be no new entry threshold, but they will all have to meet the criteria that HMIs set out and on which we have been working. The criteria will be much nearer to those that we would expect for HMIs themselves. Inspectors will have to demonstrate the ability to meet those criteria in the inspection process, the evaluation of evidence, the choice of evidence and the quality of judgments. HMCI will be directly responsible for ensuring that they are all up to the job.
Why do we regard the system as simpler and more accountable? The reports will certainly be issued in the name of the chief inspector. At the moment a registered inspector, independent of Ofsted, can publish a report without the approval of the chief inspector. Even in the most serious cases, where he feels that special measures are warranted, an inspector could in theory publish a report although the chief inspector disagreed with the judgment. That means that at present Ofsted can make changes to inspection reports only with the agreement of the registered inspector. As a result, schools have in some cases been left frustrated, dissatisfied with the judgment and unable to have their concerns addressed swiftly and helpfully. Discussions with the Secondary Heads

155
Association and other teacher associations highlight the frequency with which they are called in to arbitrate in school-inspector disputes. That is, no doubt, one reason why schools and teachers have supported the changes we propose.
Clearly, schools should have a right to swift action. To that end, the new arrangements will also allow the chief inspector to establish a helpline to which schools can address questions. Where there are more serious concerns, he can have a more direct role. He can send one of his HMIs to ensure that all is going well or that the inspector addresses the school's concern. If we retain the terms and conditions for registered inspectors, he cannot do so and our schools will not have the support they need. In the most serious cases, the chief inspector could order HMI to take control of the inspection. If that were to happen, the chief inspector intends that the contractor provider will risk heavy fines.
Under these new arrangements, inspectors will not have free-standing powers to issue reports as all reports will be issued by the chief inspector. Since a key purpose of the register of inspectors is to confer the right on those inspectors to issue reports in their own right, the requirement for a register becomes redundant. However, there is another element. A simple fitness to practise register will not be sufficient to meet the new demands which we are building into the system—a more comprehensive system with performance management, a quality assurance system and a process which is being tested successfully in the pilot schemes at present.
Let me reassure noble Lords that removing the register does not remove the independence which is reflected in the market operation of the provider system. The experience of contractors—who will be fewer but not less competitive—will be used to best effect working in partnership with Ofsted. Contractors will have a vital part to play. They will have to recruit inspectors and demonstrate that those recruits meet the criteria defined by Ofsted, matching the competencies expected of HMI. HMI will monitor the process and ensure that they are of consistently high quality.
A further expansion of independence flows from the difference in conditions of employment. Under the new system, given the likelihood of far fewer inspectors, many individuals are likely to become employed by these contractors with the employment protection that that brings. Individuals who feel aggrieved will be able to call upon the full range of employment protection laws and other services.
Those changes anticipate another, final, change to simplify the system. Deregistration in the past was a cumbersome and expensive way of removing a less than effective inspector. While complaints are relatively few in number, they impact severely on those affected. In future, we want a system where Ofsted can intervene quickly and effectively. If contractors have, or HMCI has, doubts in future about an inspector's competence they will simply be able to cease to use that inspector, without a time-consuming deregistration process. They are not able to act arbitrarily. There will
156
be arrangements to follow up complaints from inspectors. But the system will be much more responsive to evidence of quality.
Given the changes we wish to see, the excellent pool of inspectors who will make up the new additional inspectors, the shorter, sharper, more frequent inspections and greater flexibility, we believe that the notion of a fitness to practise register has served its purpose. Not only will the HMIs have that extra quality and accountability, we believe that the register has outlived its usefulness. It has served the nation extremely well for 12 years. It is time to look for something better; and a better system comes with better performance management and quality controls.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raised the issue of tribunals. One of the problems with the tribunal system is that during the tribunal Ofsted has to prove that you are no longer fit to inspect. It is a complex and expensive process which adds little to the quality of inspection. To operate the system is also expensive. It can run to £100,000 in a single extreme case. We do not believe that the tribunal process adds any real value to the system.
4.15 p.m.
Wales is different. I am probably one of the few people in this House who can say that with total authority. However, in this instance Wales is keeping a registration process for good, pragmatic and sound reasons. The inspection system in Wales, reflecting the size of the country, is smaller. The workforce is very stable. There is low turnover. We have a highly experienced, small group of registered inspectors who are working closely with HMI, not least because these are people who are always drawn from the same pool. They know the schools, the teachers and the situations. In Wales, there is not a need for changes which build in the performance management which we shall see. Also Wales has just introduced a common assessment framework for inspection. That is very recent— September of last year. It is bedding down. We want to see that change introduced successfully. Wales reserves the right to innovate. It will be able to make any changes which are consistent with what we seek to do in England as and when it wants. Indeed, I am sure that as we watch standards rising across the education sector in Wales, it will develop a system which ensures that that continues.
To summarise, Her Majesty appoints a chief inspector to ensure that inspection is carried out. He or she should be held accountable for the system and be accountable for the quality of all reports. That is what the Bill achieves. We believe that there will be greater accountability and transparency. I hope noble Lords are happy with that description. I shall be happy to write with any further detail.
Amendment No. 3 removes the chief inspector's ability to arrange for additional inspectors to assist him in carrying out his functions across the range of his remit. His ability to operate in this way was put in place at the outset when Ofsted was established, as I am sure the noble Baroness remembers well. It remains an important feature.

157
Ofsted uses this power to engage inspectors to work alongside HMI on inspections of further education colleges, LEAs, and initial teacher training. We do not want to lose that power. Many additional inspectors will have specialist skills. The amendment would prevent Ofsted engaging additional inspectors in these or in any other capacity in the future. I am sure the noble Baroness and noble Lord would not want to prevent the chief inspector doing that.
The current system has a register of inspectors who lead school inspections as well as inspectors who support them—and additional inspectors will be engaged in the way I have just described, drawn from the best of the existing pool. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw that amendment.
Amendments Nos. 4A and 42 seek to reintroduce the system of registered inspectors. In the light of the detail I have provided, I hope that noble Lords will not press those amendments. Without this change, the greater use of HMI, which has widespread support, will highlight the fact that the chief inspector is responsible for inspection reports.
Amendment No. 43 enables the chief inspector to remove inspectors from the register. Perhaps I may refer to specific points. The amendment provides for the removal of an inspector. Under the proposed system, if the chief inspector is dissatisfied, he simply does not have to use that inspector. Were the register still to be in place, to maintain its credibility, although he would not be using the inspector, he has to consider whether there are grounds for that inspector to be struck off. That would mean that the inspector would face a double jeopardy situation. The whole process would be burdensome and time-consuming.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 82 would give inspectors a right of appeal to a tribunal. Again, I covered this in my opening statement. We believe that an appeal would have no practical outcome. A tribunal could overturn the chief inspector's decision to deregister an inspector: it could not insist that the chief inspector use that inspector. Given that the legal costs alone run into many thousands of pounds, it would be difficult to justify the maintenance of an expensive and inefficient process.
Amendment No. 16 seeks to introduce some of the architecture of the system in which Ofsted's role is that of regulator. A regulator gives guidance, lays down standards and monitors. A regulator should keep under review the system that he or she regulates. However, we do not want Ofsted to do that in the future. We want to make the chief inspector directly accountable for the delivery. He will need to ensure that all inspectors receive appropriate guidance and support. He will be held to account for all of that through the Select Committee on Education and Skills, the Public Accounts Committee and the Cabinet Sub-Committee.
Amendment No. 77 also concerns the process of tendering for inspections and the constitution of inspection teams. This would require the chief
158
inspector to consult the appropriate authority for the school which, in most cases, is the governing body, about the tender specification and only then to invite tenders. While supporting the noble Baroness and the noble Lord in their concern to secure value for money and efficiency, it is quite difficult to believe that the amendment reflects their intentions. I am not aware of any evidence that there is concern among schools about the specification for an inspection that would suggest that schools need to be consulted on this matter.
One consequence of the amendment would be to prohibit a move to short notice inspection. Once the appropriate authority was consulted, notice would have to be given to the school. There would have to be a significant time lapse to allow for tendering to take place. It is easy to imagine that this would increase the notice period—currently six to 10 weeks—at a time when we are all trying to move towards shorter inspections.
Of course we are concerned about value for money. Tendering for individual inspections is costly and time-consuming. Moving to a system based on strategic contracts will help secure consistency in standards.
The amendment would also require the inclusion of a lay inspector in every inspection. Let me place on record the Government's acknowledgement of the valuable contribution of lay inspectors over the years. Some of them are among our most experienced and effective inspectors, and they may well be engaged in the future as professional inspectors, where their skills and experience meet the standards.
Lay inspectors were introduced at a time when little was known outside the profession about the performance of schools. Much has changed. There are a great many more performance data available to parents to access; inspection reports have proved an extremely popular hit on the Ofsted website. Many more parents are involved in the performance of schools, both nationally and locally. There is no room for cosy professionalism.
Given that in the future some schools, particularly smaller primary schools, will be visited by only one or two inspectors, it would be hard to justify having a lay inspector as a discrete role. We have proposed that the requirement for a lay inspector on every team be removed. However, I can assure Members of the Committee that the chief inspector and Ministers are committed to ensuring that the user or the lay voice is heard within the inspection process. The school self-evaluation form will need to show how the school is engaging with parents, pupils and others.
Furthermore, we are considering using lay inspectors in other contexts such as area-based and cluster-based inspections. In addition, there could be a lay input to some aspects of the quality assurance process.
Finally, the amendment proposes to place a duty on the registered inspector to ensure that no person takes part in an inspection if he has a connection with the school that might raise doubts and conflicts. We fully support this concept; we assure Members of the Committee that our provisions already include this

159
requirement. That will be achieved through the stringent contract management procedures being developed.
On Amendment No. 78, I am sure the Committee will be relieved to know that I shall not go over in detail the argument about registered inspections. Needless to say, if there is to be no register of inspectors, the issue of rights of entry becomes irrelevant. Other provisions cover the rights of entry for HMI and additional inspectors.
The amendment also picks up the issues of meeting parents and training for inspectors. Again, I am in full agreement with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the principle of parental involvement in their children's education. Indeed, we seek to strengthen this through the package of reforms in the Bill. However, it is important to bear in mind that under the new inspection system, schools have a very limited time in which to organise such a meeting. Ofsted acknowledges this and is working with focus groups of parents in the trials to understand how best to manage this. Often a meeting is not the preferred medium for parents, who may feel the meetings are being hijacked by other, over-anxious parents. So we have included in Clause 6 requirements that steps are taken to notify parents, which may well include a questionnaire.
Amendment No. 78 also requires that all inspectors complete appropriate training prior to conducting inspections. I have spoken at some length about that training programme, what it will involve and how it will be different. This is in place and has been supporting the implementation of trial inspections. Feedback has been very positive. Satisfaction rates about the inspection process are significantly higher than those achieved under the existing system, which themselves are very good.
The programme of training will continue through to the planned roll-out of the new system from September. That includes training inspections overseen by HMI experienced in the new approach.
I hope Members of the Committee do not feel that I have gone into the amendments in inordinate detail. I felt it important to put those points on the record. I hope that my explanation will reassure noble Lords who have been seeking a rationale and that they will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Baroness for that very detailed explanation, which we shall have to analyse. I have a particular question for her. The amendments are concerned with the current register of inspectors. The noble Baroness went into detail regarding the training and continued assessment of new inspectors, which we all approve. But are we not creating a new type of register? Surely the inspectors will go on a list when they are trained and assessed. If one analyses what the noble Baroness has said, the Government are getting rid of one register and creating another one. If that is their intention, perhaps we should look at the whole question in the light of getting rid of one register and creating a new one. These people will be on the list once they have been assessed and trained, and the list will be held by the Government or by someone else. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on this very relevant point.
Baroness Andrews: I do not want to say that that is a semantic point; the noble Lord has raised an important point. The register is essentially a professional register; many professions have such registers, and they serve different functions. This register was intended to badge people up, and it was very useful. Instead of that badge of initial proficiency, we intend to have a continuous rolling system of professional development. People will know when they are on the list.
Lord Hanningfield: Surely there will be a list.
Baroness Andrews: Providers will have to have a list of people that they put forward as qualified to carry out inspections. Additional inspectors will be listed somewhere. The significance of the list will be to show that people serve the purpose. We could probably have quite a long debate on the list's significance, but I will leave it at that.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I, too, have a number of comments on what the Minister has said. It seems to me that the driving force in what is being proposed probably comes from the wish to get rid of the cumbersome and expensive appeals procedure mechanism. We agree with the Minister that it is an expensive procedure. Equally, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, indicated, from what the Minister has said, a new register is effectively being created.
We know that a limited number of private sector contractors will provide inspectors. The Minister indicated that it is up to them to monitor those whom they recruit and ensure that they meet the standards. She also said that if inspectors did not meet the standards, they would be dropped—they would, in effect, be blackballed. There would be some whose names were not acceptable. So there is a list, and people can be dropped from it, but there are now no appeals procedures. If you are dropped from the list, that is that—there is no appeal against the decision. It is much cheaper for Her Majesty's Government but it begs natural justice. It is arguable that you should not blackball people on that basis.
What is not being proposed is that all those who constitute the inspection teams should be HMIs. If that were so the whole thing would add up, but it does not. The Government are still proposing to use outside independent contractors to constitute the inspection teams. Whether you talk about them collaborating or competing does not make much difference—that is purely semantics.
I believe that in some senses what the Minister said about the way in which the system operates in Wales demonstrates how we should be aiming to do it; namely, on a regional basis where there is a stable register of known inspectors who know the schools and who can be relied on. The kinds of relationships that have been established in Wales have worked so well and they are precisely those which we would like to see established throughout the country. There is a great argument there for decentralising rather than centralising the whole procedure.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I have been looking for a conceptual gap or divide here. I heard the opening speeches and began to think that there was a serious conceptual divide. Then I heard the Minister replying at some length, which probably means further discussions. I may be a bit thick and thinking too much of the "little list" in the "Mikado" because the word "list" has been used this afternoon. I wonder whether the conceptual point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about outside inspectors is not the nub of the problem and whether the other matters are not beginning to settle. I may not have understood this debate.
Baroness Andrews: I am sure that the right reverend Prelate has understood it. We shall be drawing heavily on his experience as regards many aspects of the Bill. I shall reply to the most important point that the noble Baroness raised, which is that we are being driven by a wish to rid ourselves of a cumbersome appeals procedure. Far from it, I spent what felt like an age talking about the need to drive quality through the system in a manner that we have not previously attempted because we have been unable to do it. That is because HMIs, registered inspectors and others have been two sides of the regulatory mechanism. We are trying to improve quality and raise standards to those which we would naturally expect the HMI to have by virtue of the competence and knowledge that they bring to the inspection process.
The right reverend Prelate spoke about outside inspectors. They are "outside" in the sense that they are not HMIs, but they are inside in the sense that, from now on, they will share competence in the training process for the new inspection system looking at the sort of things that go into making quality judgments under the performance management description. They will reassure while acting as a critical friend. It is not about competence in the academic curriculum, but competence in the skills, not least of the personal kind, that are brought in to the process of inspection.
In doing that, we have to do something different by way of dealing with those who are not good enough. We have not addressed that issue. We shall not abandon natural justice and there will not be arbitrary decisions. We will not expect HMIs, with all their huge experience and conscientiousness, to get into a situation where they are dropping people. Blackballing people is a very pejorative term to use. It is about setting standards.
I agree that with a more regional base and possibly a more stable team of inspectors, we may achieve the more familiar and routine aspects of inspection which we have in Wales because it is a small and intimate community.
As regards getting rid of one register and replacing it with another, the statutory register does currently give an inspector the power to issue reports. The chief inspector does not have the final power to pull or amend an inspection report. If we wish to maintain a list of qualified persons, but not the concept of a
162
register which gives individuals such power, we would have to maintain a list and people will know who is on it and the standards achieved. But it will not be the same concept of the register that we have at the moment.
Lord Dearing: We may be misunderstanding and I shall need time to read through what the Minister has said. We all welcome the greater involvement and control through HMI, but because some of us argue for a register, that does not mean to say that the registered inspector should conduct his business independently of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. It would be consistent with the chief inspector still having the decision.
Twice during the long reply reference was made to the greater role of HMI inspectors. Perhaps the Minister can remind me whether in earlier documentation there has not even been an assurance that there would be an HMI on all secondary school inspections. I had the impression that for primary schools there probably would not be an HMI, but it would be carried out by an unregistered inspector.
The key person in all this is the one who makes the inspection. The controlling, distant Her Majesty's Chief Inspector has to rely on what is going on in the front line. It has been said that it is important that we should learn from experience, but the concern is that before someone is let loose in a primary school who is not an inspector, he or she is the kind of person who the chief inspector and the school are confident can do the job well and there is an assurance to the school that the person has that "tick" from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. That lies underneath my concerns.
Baroness Andrews: The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, spoke about confidence, too, and I meant to refer to it. It is very important. When I speak about the greater role of the HMIs. I am not speaking simply as regards report making. The noble Lord is right in saying that an HMI will not be leading every secondary inspection. There will be fewer of them. The greater role arises in the matter on which the noble Lord has asked for reassurance. It means HMIs not only being alongside the registered inspectors as they train to become the new, additional inspectors; it involves the constant process of individual and team assessment and evaluation of the quality of what is taking place. That will put HMIs nearer the ground to ensure that they know what is going on and can correct matters.
Lord Roberts of Conway: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I ask her to clarify a point. What exactly is the role of HMI in relation to additional inspectors' reports? Do those reports have to be approved by HMI?
Baroness Andrews: No. In future every report produced on inspection will be put out in the name of HMI. Previously, a registered inspector, by virtue of being on the register, could write and sign off a report and no one could challenge that. Her Majesty's Inspectorate had no status to challenge or disagree with

163
it. We have given HMI the responsibility and control over the quality of the report. He or she is now in charge of saying that the inspection report reflects exactly what has been found and that is the judgment on it.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I am very grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I am particularly grateful to the Minister who has given us such a detailed and careful response, delivered with such sincerity and charm that it is very difficult to be churlish about it. However, I believe that I am.
The great hole in the Minister's argument appeared when she spoke about Wales. It is perfectly true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, that if what works in Wales does so because it is a small community where people are well known, that could and should also work for the regions in England. Given that HMI is being divided back into regions, it would be perfectly possible for the same kind of close relationships, close working and knowing people which the noble Baroness rightly said was the essence of the success in Wales, to be repeated in England. The conceptual hole to which the right reverend Prelate referred is very much in terms of what the Government are unhappy to call a "register", but who the new, approved people will be and what they will be doing.
It appears that the Government totally agree with the comments of noble Lords on the two opposition Benches and the Cross Benches that it is vitally important that there should be quality control over everyone who is involved in inspection. All of us in this Committee agree on that. The conceptual difference relates to whether there should be overt and clear standards and people who have status, as the registered inspectors do. All the careful performance controls that the Minister described delight my heart. It is right that the assessment should be extended to performance of the inspectors, not just the initial threshold standard, but that is not an argument against having them as registered inspectors, or whatever they need to be called. There should be an open list, which has a threshold, where all the necessary threshold tests have been met, where proper training is introduced and then where quality controls over performance can be exercised.
The other hole in the Minister's arguments is simply in terms of numbers. It is wonderful to hear that the training that these non-registered inspectors will receive will be equivalent to that of HMI. It was that part of the Minister's speech which rang warning bells in my head. The number of inspections in any one year runs at around 2,000. One cannot involve a very few and carefully controlled number of people in that when you are contracting it out to people who then have the right to use anyone they wish. There will no longer be a quality threshold. That is very worrying, because you are talking about several thousand people over a couple of years who could be involved in inspections with no threshold control over their competence to do the job. That seems to be a worrying issue.
Baroness Andrews: Perhaps I may intervene just to say that HMI and HMCI will have the power to tell
164
who is qualified and competent. That will be the quality threshold and many of those people will come from the very best that we have at the moment—the registered inspectors and the enrolled inspectors. Although there is no entry qualification, test or new training, that ability of HMI to determine who meets those standards will be the most important.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: But there is nothing whatever on the face of the Bill which says that those people will be quality controlled at the point at which they are engaged to carry out the inspection. The noble Baroness may assure us that HMI will have control over everyone who is used, but it is a long chain. Even when HMI are involved in 80 per cent of the secondary inspections and only 20 per cent of the primary inspections, the contracting system of using teams from outside will require HMI to take on people with different expertise and specialisms and it will have to draw on a wide range of people. If all those people will be on some list, please can we have a list which also has a threshold with something equivalent to the registration as well as all the wonderful things that the noble Baroness described about quality control over the performance of these people once they are engaged in inspection?
I shall read the Minister's comments with great care. I approve of and agree with much of them, but there still remains a conceptual gap—to use the right reverend Prelate's words—between what the Government are advocating and what we would wish to see. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 67, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) The Chief Inspector shall ensure that those additional inspectors assigned to inspect any school shall between them possess the necessary specialist knowledge, including where appropriate, knowledge relating to children's affairs as defined in sections 10(2) and 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31). in order to complete that inspection satisfactorily."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment nicely follows the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. Its purpose is to ensure that the people inspecting schools have the relevant knowledge and understanding necessary properly to evaluate how the needs of children are being met by schools in the light of the new regime of children's services brought in by the Children Act 2004.
In relation to the inspection of children's services in this brave, integrated new world, the chief inspector faces a formidable challenge. Indeed, the Education Select Committee's recent report on the work of Ofsted noted that:
"Ofsted faces a considerable challenge in developing an inspection regime that is thorough and fit for purpose, yet does not impose too great a burden on services which are themselves coping with a major transformation"
It is essential that inspection teams represent the full spread of expertise needed to assess additional services for children and their families, in extended schools, for example. This is particularly important, given the proposed reduction in the number of inspection team

165
members under the new arrangements. The proposal that only one person will be expected to undertake inspections in smaller schools is a matter for concern, as it would make the personal characteristics of that single inspector of even greater importance than is currently the case.
Currently, Section 10 inspectors undergo a rigorous regime. They are required to be qualified teachers and generally have had substantial experience in education. The preparation for inspection is a relatively rigorous process involving a course of training and practical experience of inspection, both of which are assessed. In addition, in order to inspect the foundation stage, inspectors have to demonstrate background knowledge and experience in that phase and attend an additional one day's specialist training—which I very much welcome. Section 10 inspectors are expected to keep up to date with inspection developments and in order to do so are required to attend five days' annual professional training.
That is in stark contrast to the experience of inspectors responsible for Section 122 inspections, the majority of whom have a social services background and minimal training in early years development and learning. To qualify as inspectors they are required to attend only one day's training, which mainly concentrates on inspection procedures. Additional professional training and guidance is provided, but that is attended only on a voluntary basis. In addition, social inclusion will be vitally important in relation to monitoring children's services. The inspectorate will need to be alert to a wide range of issues, including race and gender equality, provision for disabled children and those with special needs. In that context, Ofsted needs to address the profile of its own staff, which currently displays rather limited diversity. What assurances can the Minister give about the suitability, training and experience of inspectors?
The General Teaching Council contacted us and was particularly concerned about the need for a common language across the different professions in the inspection teams. We on these Benches believe that that is important. At Second Reading we raised our concern that there appeared to be a lack of alignment between the children's agenda and the Bill. Those criticisms were answered to a degree by the new inspection plans for children's services issued by Ofsted at the beginning of December, which made clear that the aim was to run integrated inspections with CFCI, focusing on how a council's services were improving outcomes for young people and replacing the annual Audit Commission comprehensive performance assessment.
I notice that on page 5 of the draft for consultation, Every child matters: The Framework for Inspection of Children's Services, principle (6) states that inspectors must,
"aim to secure the co-operation and confidence of those being inspected and contribute actively to the improvement of services"
They seek to do that by various means, one of which is,
"using teams with appropriate experience, relevant skills and shared understanding".
166
In view of the existence of that principle in the Government's document, I hope that the Minister will have no objection to enshrining it in the legislation by accepting my amendment. The amendment states:
"The Chief Inspector shall ensure that those additional inspectors assigned to inspect any school shall between them"—
not "each one" but "between them", which I think is very reasonable—
"possess the necessary specialist knowledge",
to relate to the responsibilities that schools now have under the various sections in the Children Act. Therefore, I hope that my amendment will be well received by the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: The noble Baroness is always very persuasive. When she spoke, I had a sense of déjä vu in respect of the Children Bill. She is seeking to require the chief inspector to ensure that, between them, the additional inspectors have the appropriate knowledge relating to children's well-being. I shall speak far more briefly on this matter than I did on the previous amendment.
As the noble Baroness knows, many inspectors will already have considerable experience of these matters both through their work as former teachers and through their inspection role. Although it is not explicitly required in the current purposes of inspection, most aspects of well-being are in fact included in the existing framework for inspection and inspectors are used to assessing concepts of well-being.
However, the noble Baroness is right that not only does the Bill increase the emphasis on the school's contribution to the well-being of children but the Children Act itself, with its very powerful five outcomes, has changed the landscape surrounding what we expect people to recognise and reflect on. When we look at the range of inspections—the area inspections and so on—which will be brought into being as a result of this legislation, we see that that landscape has changed dramatically.
The most helpful thing that I can say to the noble Baroness—if she wishes, I shall be very willing to write to her with further details—is that the current trials are looking at the aspects of the framework which capture the outcomes as set out in the Children Act in terms of the process of development. From the pilots, we have good and early evidence that that job is being done through the inspection framework, and it can certainly be developed and enhanced through the new training which will be available for the additional inspectors as they come on stream. The new inspection training will reflect that and all inspectors will have to demonstrate it fully through the training inspections.
Therefore, we do have some evidence. We are absolutely alive to the problems raised by the noble Baroness and to the opportunities. We are alive to the mechanism which is in place through the training inspections and through the framework.
I turn to two specific points. Speaking personally, I think that the notion of common language is extremely powerful. The more we look for the integration of well-being, welfare and learning, the more we shall search

167
for that common language and the common experiences and practice. That is the burden of the children's trusts and it is part of everything that we are trying to achieve through the Children Act.
Furthermore, as some inspectors will both undertake school inspections and participate in joint area reviews, children's trusts and so on, there is bound to be cross-fertilisation of skills and knowledge on children's well-being. That will include issues relating to the more powerful recognition of social inclusion and social exclusion. Therefore, there is progress to be made. The trials are in place and they are piloting the new ways of looking at, identifying and auditing the outcomes and so on.
Where inspection covers extended schools or children's centres, we shall certainly be looking to include specialist inspectors for the early years and elements of childcare in extended schools. Inspectors who picked up on the new after-school learning elements of the framework may have a particular interest in that, and we shall be looking for people with that kind of expertise. We shall ensure that all aspects of provision can be covered in a single inspection event so that people will not be going back and forth and continually looking at different parts of the extended school in the system.
With the chief inspector personally responsible and accountable for all aspects of school inspection and leading the implementation of joint area reviews, together with the other points that I made, particularly about the ongoing pilots, I hope that, tempting although it is, the noble Baroness will not push me to include her amendment in the Bill but that she will withdraw it.
The Earl of Listowel: I shall intervene briefly. Having visited a number of nurseries in this area and spoken with providers of nursery education, I am aware of their concern that much of the workforce consists of very young, poorly educated women. Therefore, it seems to me to be vital that the inspectors have the expertise to help to develop that workforce.
What I have heard has been reassuring but it emphasised the point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark. We need to be absolutely confident that the people entering these settings have the necessary qualifications and expertise to do a thorough job.
Baroness Walmsley: I am very grateful for the Minister's response. To some extent, I am reassured. We shall look very carefully at any evidence that comes to us from the pilots. I was particularly reassured by the Minister's statement that inspectors will have to demonstrate that they have looked very carefully at the integrated services in the light of the five outcomes in the Children Act 2004.I am not sure how they will have to demonstrate that, but I am prepared to leave that for the moment unless the Minister has anything further to add.
Baroness Andrews: There is relief from this Front Bench. I can add a few more details. We shall be using
168
a common evaluation that will cover the foundation stage, primary, secondary and post-16 education. Part of the evaluation is about ensuring a common language of inspection, which is interesting because the pastoral language may run through it. Teams will be configured to ensure that appropriate skills exist in the way that the noble Baroness wishes. The trials include extended schools and children's centres to help to determine the requirements, and the trials themselves will be evaluated. Therefore, the process is rigorous and we know what we are expected to do. We understand the challenge and we are trying to meet it.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for that further detail. I shall look with great interest at her remarks in Hansard and give them further consideration. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4A not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 9, leave out "the Secretary of State" and insert "Parliament"
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment we return to the issue of accountability. The question here is whether the accountability is to the Executive or to Parliament. Again, there is an interesting difference here between Wales and England. Clause 1 makes it clear that it is Her Majesty who appoints Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, but to whom does he report? Clause 2 states:
"The Chief Inspector has the general duly of keeping the Secretary of State informed".
There then follows a list of things that the chief inspector must do. Under Clause 3, the chief inspector,
"must make an annual report to the Secretary of State".
who must lay that report before Parliament. But Parliament comes second here, not first.
When we turn to the Welsh clauses—Clauses 18 to 20—once again, it is Her Majesty who appoints the chief inspector of schools for Wales. However, Clause 19 states:
"The Chief Inspector has the general duty of keeping the Assembly informed".
Clause 20 states:
"The Chief Inspector … must make an annual report to the Assembly".
Therefore, as I said, there is an interesting difference, and the purpose of the amendment is, once again, to bring England into line with Wales, as we sought to do in the amendment on registration. It raises an interesting issue of accountability.

169
I was interested to see that, in the letter that he sent to me, the Minister said firmly:
"We shall remove the requirement for the Chief Inspector to maintain a register of inspectors, leaving him solely accountable for the system. As the Head of his organisation he will be accountable, both to the Public Accounts Committee and to the Education and Skills Select Committee, for the quality of inspections and for the judgements in all inspection reports".
I found it extremely interesting that the Minister should, in writing to me, imply that the Chief Inspector of Schools was accountable to the Select Committee and to the Public Accounts Committee—in other words, accountable to Parliament. That is what we want, but it is not what is in the Bill.
I suppose that what we would like to see is the Minister's words translated into words in the Bill. Therefore, we suggest the replacement of the words "the Secretary of State" in Clause 2—we did not carry the amendment through to Clause 3, as we should have done—so that the chief inspector has a general duty "of keeping Parliament informed". As the Minister suggested, that was his prime concern, and it is an important issue. As we all know, the power of the executive has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. The power of the legislature is far too small. Where we have the opportunity of increasing the power of the legislature in relation to the executive, we should do so. The amendment is a small element in that process, and I hope that it will meet with the Minister's approval. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: I support the general thrust of the amendment. We shall come back to the matter with other parts of the Bill. The amendment is an important test of the situation, and I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. The letter stated that the chief inspector would be more accountable to Parliament, but, according to the Bill, he is not. We should rectify that, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the matter.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I support the thrust of the amendment. I think that I remember correctly that the original legislation in 1992 provided for the chief inspector to be accountable to Parliament. The introduction of the Secretary of State was, in part, a technicality. The chief inspector is, of course, not a Member of Parliament and there had to be a mechanism for laying the chief inspector's report before Parliament; this was the chosen mechanism.
The point about the reference to Parliament was to emphasise the independence of the inspectorate and, therefore, its independence, in at least one sense, from the Secretary of State. There is good sense in the amendment.
Lord Filkin: I shall surprise the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, by saying that, in fact, the Bill is right. I shall try to persuade her that that is so.
170
As the noble Baroness knows, Clause 2 places a general duty on the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about a number of matters, including educational standards, the quality of education and the well-being of pupils. That information is key to the Secretary of State in the discharging of her responsibilities for ensuring that education policy and provision in England are of the highest quality. She is accountable to Parliament for that. As Secretary of State for Education, she needs the service that the chief inspector provides, but that does not mean that the chief inspector is, in any sense, the puppet or servant of the Secretary of State. He provides information on the basis of his professional service to her about the state of education in the country, and she needs that in the discharge of her duties. She needs the best independent intelligence and advice to assess the impact of the Government's policies, inform the development of new ones and account for those decisions. I expect no difference between us on that.
That is not to say that Parliament should not benefit also from the independent advice of the chief inspector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, signalled, Clause 3 specifically requires the chief inspector to produce an annual report, which must be laid before Parliament. The report is made to the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, said, for exactly the reason that he gave. I shudder to describe my Secretary of State as a "vehicle", but, in this context, that is what she is in constitutional terms. That is the route by which the report comes to Parliament, which is emphasised by the fact that the Secretary of State has no power to change even a comma in the report.
Parliament receives the chief inspector's independent assessment. The annual report distils all the inspection evidence that Ofsted collects into the now familiar "state of the nation in education" report. The evidence makes an important contribution to parliamentary debate and scrutiny. One of the biennial meetings of the Select Committee on Education and Skills with the chief inspector focuses on that report, for good reason. The chief inspector also publishes over 100 thematic and subject reports each year. All contribute to parliamentary debate and the scrutiny of education policy and are therefore accessible to Parliament and, more specifically, to the Select Committee on Education and Skills as part of its functions.
The Secretary of State needs to be informed about standards and quality to perform her parliamentary function and her governmental functions, and there are mechanisms that ensure that Parliament is informed about the chief inspector's findings and can engage face-to-face with the chief inspector on those findings through the Select Committee. We believe, therefore, that the amendment is neither desirable nor necessary.
As we suspected, the amendment was triggered in part by the situation in Wales. The situation in Wales is more different in appearance than it is in reality. In Wales, the chief inspector has the general duty of

171
keeping the Assembly informed about standards, quality and so on. That is a more appropriate model. However, the reference to the Assembly in the Wales equivalent to Clause 2—Clause 19—is open to misinterpretation. The Government of Wales Act 1998 does not provide for the Executive Committee of the Assembly to have a separate legal existence from the Assembly. In practice, most of the Assembly's powers are delegated to the First Minister and, therefore, to the Assembly Government. This is one such example. The position in Wales is, therefore, similar in practice to that in England.
In conclusion, I turn to the power of the inspector's contribution to parliamentary scrutiny. Since 1999, the Education and Skills Select Committee has formalised its scrutiny of Ofsted. It calls the chief inspector twice yearly to examine Ofsted's work and the issues raised by the chief inspector's annual report. It produces regular reports on such matters. The inspector's most recent appearance was in November 2004, and it is open to the Select Committee, if it wanted, to develop and enrich that engagement with the chief inspector. The executive have no power to intervene between Parliament and the chief inspector, nor should they have.
I apologise for that lengthy answer, but, in essence, that is how things are. The chief inspector is independent; he has a duty to report and give his professional judgments on the state of education to the Secretary of State. Parliament has a direct ability to engage with him and the judgments that he makes on the basis of the work that he has undertaken. That is as it should be, and that is what the legislation reflects.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister. I am better informed, and his reply was helpful. The intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, indicated that there was independence in the establishment of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools of which I had not been fully cognisant.
There is an interesting difference between the position of the English Parliament and that of the Welsh Assembly. In the English Parliament, we have to use the Secretary of State as the vehicle by which we can approach Parliament, whereas, in Wales, there is a different set-up, and the Assembly can be approached directly, so to speak. In that sense, the legislation is perhaps slightly misleading because it initially gives the wrong impression. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 11, leave out "by" and insert "in"
The noble Baroness said: This is a small amendment, but it is perhaps a fairly important one. This is an interesting issue. In Clause 2 it says,
"the quality of education provided by schools in England".
It happens that schools have no legal identity. If schools have no legal personality, how can they provide something? The providers are the governing
172
bodies of schools; they are the ones with legal identity. In law, schools cannot do anything. The issue raised in the amendment is a small but subtle point. If we change the clause to read,
"the quality of education provided in schools",
one overcomes the problem that schools have no legal identities as such.
Perhaps there is too widespread a tendency to speak of schools having obligations and doing this and that. It covers up issues of who, within the school management structure, has the relevant responsibility. In turn, that leads to disguising responsibility and sometimes, as far as schools are concerned, to the overload of responsibilities. It is a rather subtle, little amendment but it has quite important repercussions.
Lord Filkin: Not for the first time, I fear it is too subtle by half for me. One tries to get one's head around what is behind an amendment and sometimes one misses.
I do not believe that there is a problem on the legal identity point because the amount of scrutiny that the Bill has had by parliamentary draftsmen and departmental lawyers would have exhibited that by now. However, I do not expect the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to take that on trust; I believe that it deserves a really detailed and nastily complex letter on why there is no problem, which we shall supply for her.
I believe that there would be a problem if we took her advice. As we interpret the point, again with the benefit of our excellent lawyers, it would have the unintended consequence of limiting the process to what took place physically within a school and, therefore, would quite literally put out of bounds all the functions that a school undertook in the wider community, such as school trips, sports activities outside the school, work experience with local employers and so on. In other words, it would imply a physical definition on the activities of the school, which I am certain is not what the noble Baroness intended. I am sure that she will be the first to see that that is part of the wider responsibilities of a school and that a school could not always fulfil those responsibilities simply within the physical curtilage guarded by the school caretaker.
For those reasons I hope to be able to persuade her that there is no legal problem. I hope that she will accept my suggestion that, if on this occasion we did what she suggests, there might be a problem. I hope she will feel minded to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend sits down, I understand his feeling of anxiety about going into a morass of legal issues. I trust his speech did not imply that when he writes to the noble Baroness he will agree with the proposition that schools have no legal identity. I know of a number of schools with very young children aged from three to five which recently have incorporated themselves. They did not realise what troubles they would get into

173
with the returns that have to be made, but at least it should be on the record that it is not true that schools always have no legal identity.
Lord Filkin: I thank my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. I am sure that in our response we shall mind what he has said and ensure that we enrich our answer as a consequence.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I look forward to the letter that I shall receive from the Minister. It was the legal minds within the National Union of Teachers that informed me that schools have no legal identity. It is true that the school governing bodies have legal identity in relation to schools. The point that the Minister made in relation to the wider issues of education would surely be caught by, for example,
"spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at those schools".
Other aspects within this would pick up the point that he raised. I shall leave it to the lawyers to argue this one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 20, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Lord said: A number of the amendments that we have tabled at the early phases of this Bill are designed to probe and elicit from the Minister assurances that we seek. I stress that that does not necessarily mean that we are opposed to particular elements of the legislation, but we are taking our time to scrutinise properly the Bill as the House has come to expect, and to hear from the Government how such changes will operate and work in practice. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take these amendments in such a light and see them as essentially probing in their nature.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 27 are a case in point. By their nature, in England and Wales they would leave out a new duty to which the chief inspector must have regard in the inspection of a school; namely, reporting on how a school contributes to the well-being of its pupils. Such a step arises from the very important piece of legislation in the Children Act, to which we referred earlier. We on these Benches were happy to support the intent of that Act, which is a very important piece of legislation involving the well-being of children, believing that it introduced important efforts to safeguard and to guarantee the rights and safety of children.
While I understand the reasoning behind why such a new duty is to be included as part of the inspection process, I believe that there are a number of practical questions that need to be answered. The definition of well-being as set out in the Children Act and which will be used in this scenario is wide-ranging and comprehensive. Therefore, basing an inspection category on such a definition raises a number of questions.
174
How will Ofsted and each inspector measure and judge such a definition in each school? Elements of the definition, such as social and economic well-being and the protection from harm and neglect, would appear to have more to do with life outside a school environment and would appear to be matters that a school is limited in its ability to influence. Therefore, is there not a danger that such a wide-ranging definition of well-being will differ from one school to another and from one inspector to another? How will the Minister guarantee that there is a standard comprehension and application across the country? What percentage of the report and the time taken for an inspection does the Minister envisage will be taken up in the judging and reporting of well-being?
If there is to be a significant increase in the work undertaken to judge well-being, does the Minister believe that that could have resource implications? Furthermore, what additional burdens and work does the Minister estimate will be placed on each school in the evaluation of what they are doing in this area? Does the Minister believe that, in incorporating such a major category as the contribution played by each school to the well-being of its pupils, there is a danger that elements of the inspection regime, notably around educational attainment, may suffer as a consequence. Is there not a concern that schools may be diverted from their principal objective of providing quality education, given the inclusion of this new category?
As I said earlier, we are not opposed to this at all, but we want to elicit from the Minister some answers on the concept of including this measure in the inspection regime. I hope that the Minister can provide some of the assurances that we seek. I beg to move.
Lord Dearing: I am grateful that this issue has been raised. It is an issue of interpretation rather than disagreement. The requirements of the Children's Act, as incorporated in the Bill, are very wide indeed.
Amendment No. 8 from the Liberal Democrat Benches will again look at this particular subsection and seek to tie it down to those things for which teachers and the staff in schools are specifically responsible. Some provisions imported from the Children's Act are so wide that one wonders—for example, in primary school X—how on earth they could impact on the economy of the community, and so on. One is concerned that the breadth of this provision may detract from the sharpness—the focus—of what the inspectors are required to do in a very short period.
The Government have made clear their very strong commitment to improving the physical development of school children. There is an investment of £1 billion up to 2006 in PE and sport—excellent. Two hours a week is to be committed to PE and sport—excellent. I say "excellent" to both those propositions because, as I said previously in the House, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in a report found that by 15 years of age 15 percent of our young people are obese. It defines that as a weight gain which is a serious threat to health.

175
The Government's example is that one wants to make sure that the remit of the inspectors is not interpreted so widely that they will not be able to give the weight of attention to this that the Government clearly intend. My own preference would be to import the word "physical" into the "social, moral and cultural development of children", which provision has been there for a long time, because the school is concerned with the physical development of children through physical education and the quality of school meals.
In a private discussion, the Minister and I noted a report by the Evening Standard last week on the quality of some school meals; and again it was concerned about it in a report last night. One just wants to elucidate that, in this very broad requirement of the Children Act, the inspectors will be given the kind of focus on the physical development of our young people that seems to be in the Government's mind.
Lord Filkin: I was slightly surprised when I read this amendment because it seemed, on the face of it, to unwind the Children Act on which we spent many important hours in the previous Session of Parliament, by the removal of the well-being responsibility from the inspector's duties and leaving only the discipline elements of well-being. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has made it clear that while that is what it looks like on the face of it, in practice it is a probing amendment for the reasons he has articulated.
There may be a slight sense of déjà vu therefore in some of the things I say in terms of why we think that this must and should be an appropriate part of an inspector's functions when inspecting schools. The House knows well that the Children Bill, as it then was, really rested on two key ideas—one of which was the recognition by most teachers that the capacity of a child to learn in the school was so massively affected by other factors in terms of the child's wider well-being. One does not need to labour the point, but clearly the parental environment, the attitude to learning, the health of the parents, the physical health of the child, in the sense if the child or young person was on drugs, quite clearly impact on the child's capacity to learn.
We know that one does not deal in schools with standard raw material. The child sits in the context of a wider sense of well-being, or not so well-being, which impacts on his ability. Therefore, if we are concerned only about educational attainment, we would also have to be concerned about how one removes some of those wider barriers to educational attainment. The Children Act does not sit simply on that as an argument: it basically says that the child is a person, not just a vehicle for importing educational learning; and that, therefore, we have to be concerned as a society about the total well-being of the child.
That is why we think that the Children Act is one of the most fundamental and powerful pieces of legislation that this House has passed for some time, and why it is also necessary that the inspector has a responsibility to look at well-being within the school.
176
The devil is in the detail of course. We recognise that the school can have an impact on wider aspects of well-being than simply the educational attainment impact of it. Clearly, it can have an influence on health outcomes; it can have an influence on the attitude of the child on whether he goes into meaningful employment; and it can have an influence, along with other partners outside the school, on whether a young person drifts into crime or other forms of activity.
Essentially the Bill recognises that the school, whose primary function is undoubtedly educational attainment, is also a crucial contributor to the wider well-being attainment of the child. We expect that of the school and therefore it is right that the inspector has an appropriate look at what the school is doing to contribute to those wider aspects of well-being.
How will Ofsted judge the matter? That is a good question, to which there is no glib or quick answer. Ofsted is currently consulting on the framework for inspection of schools, which includes physical health and wider aspects of health. We are happy to give more details of that in correspondence, so that the House can get a flavour of its nature. We do not believe that this should be burdensome on schools, because, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said, well-being in practice is already within the remit of schools. The Children Act has just made it sharper and more explicit. Otherwise, there will be a diversion from standards; in fact, one would hope for the reverse.
Let me make that last point. Because schools work better with other partners in attending to, for example, the mental health of a child, which is affected by the mental health of the mother—which, in fact, is often the cause of mental health problems of children in school— you will get better learning by that child at school. So, it is not simply that we do not believe it would create burdens. If it works well progressively, you will actually get better educational attainment because you are addressing some of the impediments to educational attainment as part of the process. In a sense, that obliquely addresses why I do not think that it would be right to limit the provision just to physical well-being, not least because I have responsibility for child and adolescent mental health. I would not want to let that one pass.
Also there is harm and neglect outside. Let me not go on for too long, but part of what we are saying is that all public bodies, of which schools are one, have a duty to contribute to the safety of a child. It is not only social services that have responsibility; teachers will also pick up issues that worry them—for example, a child is bruised, but why is that child bruised? This provision makes it clearer that that must be part of their responsibilities. Therefore, they will know how to act in that situation without having the prime responsibility for making the judgments about whether the child needs to be taken into other forms of care or protection.
On the difference between schools and inspectors, these are also the challenges of inspections. As part of what I promised in terms of more detail on the testing of the framework, I shall give a flavour of quality assurance

177
on those issues because it is a proper question. Let me try to ensure that there is good moderation and that there are no significant differences between schools and inspectors.
I believe I have probably touched on many, if not all, the points.
Lord Hanningfield: Could the Minister explain a bit more? I wear another hat as the leader of a large local authority with 600 schools. They are very different. A lot of schools spend much time supporting families. I totally agree with what the Minister has said, but if you go to different parts of my county of Essex, the well-being could be interpreted in totally different ways. I was trying to probe how this will actually work in inspections, because some inspections might have to devote a lot more to the well-being of what is happening in that school and—almost—whether parts of the Children Act are being complied with.
In other schools the situation would be different and the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that there should be more physical activity in that school might apply. Therefore, if the Minister cannot do so today, I hope he will let us have more details because I can see that it could be an important new part of the inspection regime, particularly in some areas because of the nature of schools. As I say, we have 600 of them and they are very different; indeed, there are many diverse problems in different areas. I do not want to go into details here, but different problems in different schools must be looked at. Well-being is very important, but it can be interpreted in different ways in different places. Perhaps the Minister will comment further on that.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord is right; he has partly answered his own question. In Essex there will be different situations in Basildon, if I have got it right, compared to the most rural part of Essex. In other words, the challenges to the well-being of children will differ between schools. One of the reasons that local government has leadership responsibility for the Children Act 2004 in communities is to reflect that function.
Secondly, the inspection process hangs off the school's self-evaluation of how it is addressing the five well-being responsibilities. Again, that is right. Because of the differences between areas, the inspector will look at what a school says are the challenges to its children's well-being, based on its understanding of their school environment, and what they are doing about them. No doubt the SIPs and the inspector will at times challenge a school about whether its focus has been too lopsided on one outcome rather than another. That is part of what good inspection is about. But the process will start with a school's perception of the issues. Therefore, while the five outcomes will be common, as splintered down into the 25 more detailed ones that we have set out in subsequent documents, it is right that schools will respond at times with a different emphasis or different initiatives. There is not a set of perfect answers to all the issues. Part of the
178
process is for schools to demonstrate their own creativity in getting around the issues. If we knew the answers to obesity or drug-taking, we would have dealt with them by now. There should not be a national rubric in this sense.
I hope that those points are helpful, because they relate to why local government should have the lead role in this respect. Despite that, it is important that I set out in a little more detail how within that diversity there needs to be fair commonality. I think that that is the nub of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that reply and look forward to his further response. I still wish to know more about how the Government feel that Ofsted would operate in the system, given the diversity of schools and the nature of well-being.
Lord Filkin: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will bear with me if I say a little more on health, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, whose questions I should have addressed.
Health and well-being are of the utmost importance. We share the concern about obesity and other health challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has spoken powerfully and passionately about the issue at previous stages. We know some of the complex of factors leading to obesity and other negative outcomes. We want all schools to be healthy schools, which means promoting a school ethos and environment that encourages a healthy lifestyle; using the full capacity of the curriculum; offering healthier food and drink across the school day; and promoting physical activity. We want all schools to be working towards being healthy schools by 2009.
To support schools we have developed a healthy living blueprint, which offers resources and guidance on teaching and learning, including cooking; suggests ways of helping pupils to understand where food comes from and how it is produced; promotes physical activity and sport, and offers help with the physical environment, indoors and out. It draws in many other facets that have an impact on good health and well-being.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, signalled, we are providing £1.1 million to support schools in ensuring that healthier school meals are available; reviewing national nutritional standards for secondary schools; providing advice for schools on procuring a healthy school meals service, and training for school caterers.
Physical education and sports are obviously crucial. Active children are less likely to be obese. Investment now stands at over £1.5 billion, more than £680 million of which is funding a step change in school sport facilities. Already over 50 per cent of schools are involved in a school sport partnership, and every school will be in a partnership by 2006. The network of schools comes together and receives extra funding to enhance and increase sports opportunities.
Adding to the purposes of inspection the contribution that schools make to the well-being of pupils will ensure that health and well-being are captured in the routine inspection of schools and used

179
to inform the wider requirements on services to children, as required by the Children Act 2004. In addition, Ofsted will, through its separate programme of subject and thematic reviews, look at specific aspects of pupils' health and well-being in more detail. There are at least two such studies in the programme for 2005–06. The Government have set a challenging PSA target to address obesity, focusing on children.
Schools cannot take full and absolute responsibility for tackling child obesity but have an important role. We will give support and encouragement to help them, their pupils and their families to work together to make each school a healthy school.
I apologise for interrupting the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, but it probably was efficient to seek to address the question of the noble Lord. Lord Dearing.
Lord Dearing: I am immensely grateful to the Minister. I am reassured and satisfied.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I understand that the Minister made an additional point, on which I would like to ask a question. When guidance is given down the line on all those enormously important matters, which become increasingly wider the more one debates the subject —the whole life of the child and his or her family—surely one should bear in mind the teachers who must prepare for inspections. Preparation for an inspection, and the inspection itself, can be emotionally and psychologically traumatic for some teachers. They worry that they have not done enough. I know people for whom inspection was the last straw that made them leave the teaching profession. It does not happen very often, and I hope that it will not happen at all.
Does my noble friend think that some boundaries will be indicated? If not, teachers preparing for an inspection on all the matters that have entered noble Lords' minds—they are valid, of course—will find it increasingly difficult to know whether they have left anything out. I hope that that aspect will be borne in mind. Having disagreed, it seems, with the advice of the National Union of Teachers, I have an interest in making up by asking such a question. However, it is a genuine question, which is particularly applicable to young teachers facing their first inspection.
Lord Filkin: At one level, the five outcomes are not new; they have implicitly been part of many schools' responsibilities to the wider education of their children. Secondly, we will touch later on the shorter notice period, which, we believe, helps to reduce teachers' anxiety and stress, because it is better to worry for a week rather than two months, if I can so put it. Thirdly, this is not, I am glad to say, theory. The process of testing the new system is extensive and has been extensively advanced. So far the feedback from head teachers and teachers has been very positive. They are finding the new system possible and perceive it as working better than the old one. My noble friend
180
is right that the anxiety and burdens on teachers must remain part of our concerns, but so far the evidence looks positive.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I wish to follow up the points on physical exercise that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, raised. Like him, I was very impressed with my noble friend's response and the amount of resources and activity going into improving the provision of physical exercise opportunities in schools. I wish to raise two points.
I hope that the Government's provision will include encouragement to take part in competitive sports. I know that competitive sports are not particularly attractive to some pupils and that schools must ensure that some of the activities made available will appeal to such students. But over the past 10 to 15 years the opportunity for many children in state schools to take part in competitive sports has been reduced. They have lost out considerably.
One of the problems that arose during the industrial disputes of some years ago was out-of-hours activities by teachers. I raise in particular the question of primary schools. With the gender imbalance among teachers, it can sometimes be very difficult for kids in primary schools to have any access to team games, particularly in leagues. It is a great pity. I hope that my noble friend will agree to take the matter back to the department and, as part of the impressive programme for encouraging physical activity, he will look into the ways in which we can encourage competitive team sports.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I probably ought to have entered into the discussions a little earlier.
I was extremely pleased to hear what the Minister said about the flexibility that the schools would have in interpreting the range of provisions set out in subsection (1). During the passage of the Children Bill, we received a number of rather surprised comments from the education side on the fact that they were not as involved as they thought they should have been. An attempt is being made here to remedy that and leave a degree of flexibility, particularly in subsection (l)(b) which deals with,
"how far that education meets the needs of the range of pupils at those schools".
I am not going to go into that matter because we will come to it. This emphasises the real concerns we have about whether growing children receive the support they need to achieve the Government's aims of getting children—and particularly the most vulnerable children— out of the state that they are in and able to make the best of their qualities.
I would like to emphasise the question of recreation and sport which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned. Though a huge amount of money has been put into this, there is a long way to go to achieve the two or three hours of recreation and—it is to be hoped—of competitive sport. I could not agree more on that matter. There was a period when any form of competitive sport in schools was regarded as highly undesirable. That was an appalling time.

181
Like my noble friend Lord Dearing, I have raised the matter of obesity on several occasions. We have had a debate on the subject. It is a matter of growing concern and I see that the Government are taking it more and more seriously. I hope that there will be no need for legislation, but a great deal more needs to be done here. I am glad that there is room for it in the range of requirements under the Bill.
Lord Filkin: I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, acknowledged that there needs to be—and is—proper flexibility according to local circumstances, needs and creativity as part of both the responsibility set out in the Bill and the way in which schools respond to it.
I strongly agree with both the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the subject of competitive sports. There was a rather strange fashion when anything competitive was seen as slightly suspect. Those days have gone. Without being too personal, one knows that when one swims against someone one gets more exercise than if one plods up and down the pool alone.
I would like to give a fuller answer on what we are doing to promote competitive sports in schools that I will set out in a letter and copy to other Members of the House.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I would be grateful if the Minister would give way for a second.
In view of what we have heard in this debate—and what the Minister has said about the Government's concerns—is it not very surprising that the word "physical" does not occur in the clause? The words "spiritual", "moral" and so forth occur, but "physical" does not. Should it not be included somewhere?
Lord Filkin: As I touched on earlier, health is absolutely and categorically one of the five outcomes that the Children Act has as its central responsibility. I signalled why this is a wider concern than just physical health. Mental health will, I fear, increasingly be one of the problems of our society in the future. Schools can make a contribution to that as well. The Bill deals with both physical and mental health in their totality. I am well paid by the House for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on his closure.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: We have had a very interesting debate. I was going to withdraw the amendment a little while back but a lot more discussion was precipitated— particularly about sport—which I found very interesting and worth while. We are all united on that matter. My noble friend Lord Moynihan announced the Conservative Party's policy on sport about a month before the Government announced theirs. We have identical policies on sport in schools and wish to support that.
I look forward to the Minister's response on this matter, as the issue of all types of well-being in schools is very important. That has engendered a much longer
182
debate. I am sure that we will pursue this at further stages of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 20, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
"(f) the contribution to the well-being of those pupils by the teaching and other staff of those schools according to their different responsibilities"
The noble Baroness said: As your Lordships well know, Clause 2 adds two elements to the duties of HMCIS to keep the Secretary of State informed: first, the extent to which the school meets the needs of all students; and secondly, its contribution to well-being as defined in Section 10(2) of the Children Act.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I do not want to delete subsection (l)(f) completely, but it needs clarification. That is why we on these Benches have chosen to move the amendment. Its intention is to probe what "well-being" is supposed to mean in a school setting, and how the Government envisage the teaching and other staff of the school contributing specifically to that.
The other side of the coin is this. What constitutes a lack of attention to well-being? Can the Minister indicate how staff might fail in an inspection on this factor?
Can the Minister say something about how he sees all five elements of the outcomes—physical, mental and emotional health, protection from harm, education, training and recreation, their contribution to society and social and economic well-being— playing out in an inspection? I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on the stressful effect that the very breadth of what we are asking schools to achieve could have on teachers.
We know that schools are a major contributor to children's well-being and always have been. I do not know if noble Lords saw a programme during the Recess entitled "The Child of Our Time" which was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. Both my noble friend Lady Sharp and I saw it. There was a perfect example in it of a lovely little boy who, despite all kinds of terrible situations in his family background, managed to keep school as a special place. His behaviour in school was totally different from his behaviour at home.
Conversely, we know that very often difficulties at home spill over into behaviour at school. The role of a school in a child's well-being is, as the Minister said, nothing new. But what is new is that it is specified clearly in the Children Act and now the inspection framework will include inspecting how well schools are doing in that context.
It is odd that the Government are making so much of the role of schools in well-being in the Bill, while at the same time refusing to accept in the Children Act that schools should be listed as co-operating partners.
Both the Ministers will probably remember that during the passage of the Children Bill, with the support of many children's charities including the

183
NSPCC, we tried to persuade the Government that the duty to co-operate should exist not only between strategic bodies such as strategic health authorities and probation boards, but also between operational delivering agencies including schools. In response to our amendments the Government stated that one of the levers of influence to ensure that co-operation took place between delivering agencies would be inspection. While we welcome the provisions set out in the current Bill to inspect the contribution made by schools to the well-being of their pupils, there are no explicit provisions for inspection to ensure that co-operation between other strategic and operational agencies takes place in schools.
That is why we have tabled this amendment. It seeks simply to probe how the lever of inspection is to apply, as the Government stated it would, during the passage of the Children Bill last year—and very specifically how it relates to what teachers and other staff in schools are expected to do. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I want to speak to my Amendment No. 9. This is something of a catch-all group around the definition of "well-being". I must confess that my amendment might have fitted better with our discussion in the previous grouping on physical activity than it does with these amendments, but I hope that noble Lords will bear with me on that as the other course of action would be decoupling the amendment from this group.
As we know, Clause 2 sets out the functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England. Subsection (1) specifies the chief inspector's general duty of "keeping the Secretary of State informed" about a number of aspects of the performance of individual schools including paragraph (f), covering the well-being of pupils. My amendment seeks to ensure that in any assessment of the well-being of pupils, a school's commitment to out-of-school learning is an important matter to be considered. As we heard on the previous group, "well-being" is defined in Section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004 as,
"physical and mental health and emotional well-being; … protection from harm and neglect; … education training and recreation; … the contribution made by them to society; … and social and economic well-being".
I think that that rather wide definition ought to embrace out-of-school learning—or as I no doubt incorrectly refer to them, school trips.
School trips contribute enormously to the well-being of children. They can enrich a pupil's education by contributing to physical activity, as we have just discussed, and by providing adventure and raising environmental awareness among students. In particular—and this is where there is a connection with the other amendments in this group—school trips can be especially helpful to less able children. The evidence of the advantages that such trips bring to many of our young people is clear, but there is currently a real problem in schools when organising them.
Many schools have negative perceptions about trips. Performance between schools on their attitude towards them is very patchy and we know that there
184
are particular financial problems for schools in inner city areas. The fact is that schools often depend on so-called voluntary contributions from parents towards the financing of trips. Anyone who has read the letters that are cleverly crafted by head teachers to encourage "voluntary contributions" will know that unless parents are prepared to contribute, the trips will not be undertaken.
We know that there are problems related to the so-called blame culture, with fears of litigation when an accident occurs. The NUT reckons that insurance premiums for school trips have increased by 25 per cent over the past few years because of the problem of litigation. Some teacher unions are reluctant to encourage their members to supervise trips. There is also a lot of bureaucracy involved. My noble friend has debated with Members of the House on a Starred Question on school trips the whole issue of those wretched risk assessment forms that teachers have to fill in. I would say to my noble friend that he really ought to look at some of them. If a teacher wants to take a group of sixth-formers from a sixth-form college to a local museum, he or she must fill in these ludicrous forms. That is absolutely ridiculous and no wonder they are so off-putting to teachers. There is also a problem with regard to teacher training. I am not sure whether enough focus is put on encouraging the value of expeditions and school trips among new teachers.
I am not here to criticise my noble friend or his department; indeed, the record of his department in this area has been encouraging. For instance, the Growing Schools programme has included in-depth studies of outdoor sites and centres and the advantages that they bring. Practical guidance on health and safety has been published, although I must say that I think it very much goes over the top. I know that his department has encouraged the importance of school trips and has opened up a dialogue with the teacher unions.
I also draw attention to the work of the Better Regulation Task Force and its report entitled Better Routes to Redress, published in May of last year. The report looks at the whole question of the compensation culture and at what I would describe as the urban myths of people suing public authorities for large sums for trivial reasons. It is a very encouraging report because it states in essence that fears of a compensation culture are often over-expressed and not substantiated. It also makes the point that our judicial process is very good at sorting the wheat from the chaff. The compensation culture is actually rather a myth in our society, but because people, public authorities and schools believe that there is a culture of compensation, it leads to defensive management and a fear of litigation, with the result that organisations are overly cautious about what they do.
Because of that, we hear of schools banning or not holding events that they used to hold because of the fear of being sued. They worry that if anything happened to a student, the parents would take the school to court. That affects the culture in which school trips take place.

185
I acknowledge the work of my noble friend's department in seeking to do something about it, but I want to take this opportunity to encourage him to do still more. I know that establishing task forces sometimes leads to criticism about the way the Government go about their business, in particular among Members of the party opposite, but I cannot think of a better subject for a task force and a rapid action plan if we are to turn the whole business of schools trips around.
The kind of work that we need to embrace over the next few months is this. First, we must send an absolutely clear message to schools that out-of-classroom experience is important and ought to be an integral part of every child's education. Secondly, we need to find the resources to help poorer schools and students meet the cost of school trips. Thirdly, I ask my noble friend to look at whether we ought to give students a statutory entitlement to a minimum number of days out of the classroom. I acknowledge all the problems associated with trying to fit the curriculum into a busy school year and we have already heard about the intention to provide two hours' worth of physical activity a week, so trying to sort all this out is not easy. But one way of enhancing out-of-school education as a whole would be to provide a minimum amount of time that students spend out of school.
We ought to ensure, through the Training and Development Agency for Schools, that current and future teachers are adequately trained to undertake schools trips.
Above all, we need to work with teachers, heads and school governors to attack the compensation culture myth. As a minimum, if the DfES would summarise the work of the Better Regulation Task Force report and ensure that it was circulated to all schools with some support from the department, that might have a beneficial impact on the current climate, which makes people fear litigation so much.
We also need to help teachers. We have to ensure that they feel supported when things go wrong with certain school trips, as they sometimes do. It is impossible to devise out-of-school activity that really means something to a young person if there is to be no risk whatever of physical accidents. It is impossible to reach that situation.
Where accidents happen, the very least that teachers can expect is that there will be no knee-jerk, blame-culture reaction to suggest that if something happens, the teacher in charge must automatically be wrong. My noble friend Lord Winston is in his place. The same considerations apply to doctors and medical staff who are concerned with accidents in the health service. If we automatically assume that the person in charge has made a mistake, it is no wonder that professionals are very reluctant to accept the responsibilities that we want to place on them.
I hope that my noble friend will listen sympathetically to the points that I have made. I do not expect him to accept my amendment. However, I hope that he will consider whether his department will be prepared to
186
develop some kind of task force, some kind of action plan, to get back to the idea of school trips that really are supported. They can do so much good for so many young people.
6 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: I intervene very briefly in the debate on paragraph (f), which seems to have caused many issues to arise.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn spoke earlier about the burden on teachers of undergoing inspections. As a school governor who has just undergone a school inspection, I appreciate that the present system is indeed a burden and causes tremendous pressure on staff, governors and parents. However, we should remember that the intention of the Bill is to reduce that pressure by having far less detailed inspections. We should not forget that these inspections are about inspecting the school development plan, which will, one would hope, be developed with governors and would involve parent governors at least.
I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Hunt said. I believe that we could become involved in some obscure detail about what we mean by learning out of school, but I shall not elaborate on that. I wonder whether we could get round the problem by simply adding to paragraph (f) a form of words as defined in the Children Act and set out in the school development plan. The Children Act is fairly precise about outcomes, and I know that those are defined later in the Bill. However, I wonder whether they should be mentioned here, which would get over the business about the physical and mental areas to be developed in pupils and might indeed include everything that we are talking about, apart from the liaison with other agencies, which is due to be debated shortly.
Lord Hanningfield: I support much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. I am not so sure about the task force that he proposed. As he said, we may not be quite so keen on it. However, I certainly support all the sentiments that he expressed about school trips. I have visited literally hundreds of schools during my pleasurable career. Sometimes one meets young people who would not have had a chance to develop by seeing all kinds of things and visiting all kinds of places without their schools having organised such trips. I certainly know from my own experience that if I had not visited many places when I was at primary school, I probably would not be here, as I am sure is the case for many Members of the Committee. Actually seeing the way that things operate has contributed greatly to our personal development. I have sometimes felt very depressed about the opportunities missed by young people as a result of schools failing to organise such outings for them.
I therefore very much support what the noble Lord said about school trips. Unfortunately, because of problems in recent years, I believe that not very many trips are currently taking place, and certainly people are withdrawing from them because of the culture of our society these days. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that in his response.

187
I now want to speak particularly to Amendment No. 26 in this group of amendments. We discussed this kind of issue when we debated previous amendments, but this is a serious and important amendment which would add to the inspection criteria. Together with the comment made just now, it is very relevant to the Children Act. It relates to how effective the school is at enabling vulnerable children to thrive within its environment.
It is estimated that about a quarter of all school children experience difficulties at some time in their schooling. Such difficulties could arise as a result of being disabled or handicapped or from statements of special educational needs, with which we shall deal later in this legislation, but also as a result of suffering from learning and behavioural difficulties.
I am a supporter of special schools for many of these requirements, but now more are being integrated and will be integrated into mainstream schools. That is the specific reason why this amendment is important. It is crucial that every school should do everything possible to ensure that these children benefit from the same learning and physical environment as their fellow pupils.
This amendment would be used by Ofsted to gauge how successful a school was in providing such facilities and how well it had achieved the objective of integrating these children, and, most importantly, in providing them with life chances and educational opportunities. There could be further advantages. With such knowledge, the parents of such children would be better placed to make informed decisions about which school was best suited to the needs of their children.
The Earl of Listowel: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 tabled in my name. However, before doing so, I also voice my support for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Having been involved previously in organising trips for 11 and 12 year-old children, having taken them ice skating, some of them for the first time, and having seeing their delight when they began to master that skill, I believe that it would perhaps also be of great benefit to teachers to be able to take pupils on such trips and to see them having such a good time and enjoying themselves. I also took a group from White City on a dry skiing trip, which I believe was a very good experience for them.
Both of my amendments concern children in local authority care. The first refers to the educational attainment of looked-after children in the school, and the second refers to the adequacy of the plans for looked-after children in the school. The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that inspectors consider very carefully whether the guidance regarding the education of looked-after children is being properly followed and implemented in schools.
Concerns have been expressed in the Government's Social Exclusion Unit report, A Better Education for Children in Care, about the consistency with which this guidance has been implemented. That has been
188
supported by perhaps the first piece of really thorough investigation of the education of looked-after children in schools, Taking Care of Education, by the National Children's Bureau. The senior researcher who supervised that project, Dr Isabelle Brodie, recently sent me an e-mail in which she states:
"it seems that schooling experiences continue to be variable and the ways in which existing guidance has been implemented differ considerably between LEAs and schools … The evidence from the first phase of our study indicated that even when PEPs were being completed, the quality of the content was often poor".
The matter needs to be addressed and this guidance is fundamental.
There are particular challenges for children in local authority care. First, they come principally from very poor backgrounds; black children are over-represented; and black boys are likely to spend far longer in care than other children.
The people who work with such children, regrettably, lack professional development. Very often they are committed people but, for instance, in 1998, 70 to 80 per cent of residential care workers had no relevant qualifications to work with children in children's homes.
As to foster carers, in France people have to undertake an obligatory 240 hours of training before they can be registered as foster carers. In France and Denmark there is a very substantial remuneration for the work they do with foster children, whereas in this country, it is gratifying to learn, the Government have recently introduced a minimum allowance to ensure that payments for clothing and food are adequate. But that is a long way from what happens on the Continent.
Such children tend to lack the advocates that other children may have. For example, many children with disabilities have middle-class parents who are very vocal in getting what is needed for them, but children in the care system tend to come from poor backgrounds and both parents may not be able to act as powerful advocates for them. The people who look after them are often not professionally trained and therefore not necessarily the best and most effective advocates for such children. So that is one issue; one challenge.
A second challenge is that many of these children arrive in schools in the middle of the school year. Sometimes the schools which have places at that time of year are those to which parents would prefer not to send their children. So, quite often, children in the care system tend to end up in poorly performing schools. That is further disadvantage for them.
Thirdly, the Government's policy on statements is, quite rightly, to try to reduce the number of statements so that the money can be used to build up the capacity of the whole school to support children with particular needs. Statements tend to go to children with clearer physical disabilities rather than to those with emotional behavioural difficulties. Of the group of children I am discussing at the moment, because of their backgrounds and histories, 40 per cent have some

189
kind of psychiatric disorder according to the Office for National Statistics. That compares with about 10 per cent in the general population.
So these children are disadvantaged by arriving in the middle of the year, perhaps, and by missing out on getting a statement and not necessarily getting the resources they need to be supported in the school. They make up only 1 per cent of the school population and so, again, it is easy to overlook the particular needs of these children.
It is important to recognise these challenges for such children and it is also important to recognise the challenges for the teachers. As I say, because of their experience, some of these children present quite challenging behaviour. So it is vital that the right processes are in place in schools to ensure that teachers know what is going on and can respond strategically to what is happening with the children.
Many of these children benefit from smaller settings— special schools—as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, commented earlier. We also want them to be in the mainstream if at all possible and there have been recent innovations to make it easier for these children to be in a mainstream school. I emphasise that it is a diverse group; some children are very academically inclined and do very well, but others have more difficulties.
Perhaps I may briefly give an example from my own experience of working with eight and nine year-olds this summer. Anne Longfield, the chief executive of 4Children—formerly Kids' Club Network—kindly arranged for me to have some practice work with these children in north London. On the third day, the Wednesday morning, I was walking with the senior worker and one of the children, a nine year-old. We had been having some problems with the child, who had difficulties relating to the other children and with his behaviour. As we walked along he said, "Well, I have started my new parents now"—and that is how we learnt that this child had just moved from the care system and become adopted. It would have been extremely helpful if we had known that at the beginning of the week. Looking back on it, there are a number of things that we could have done that would have helped.
I was very pleased that we were able to do some good work with this child on the Thursday. Returning from a trip to go canoeing with the group, in the van back he had a good, long conversation with an eight year-old girl. She had been to Butlin's many times and he was going with his new adopted parents to Butlin's for the first time. So she was very happy to talk about her visits to Butlin's and he was very interested to learn what to expect when he got there. This was all mediated by a worker. It is an example of what can be done but it is helpful to have all the information when one tries to do that kind of work.
6.15 p.m.
There is also the issue of confidentiality. For many of these children who are taken into care, their experience of the adult world has not been a positive
190
one. Many express strongly the feeling that schools should not know anything about their backgrounds; that this should be kept in confidence. But they also say that they would like their experience to be acknowledged to some degree in some way. So there is a certain tension there. Those who have looked carefully at the issue think that such information needs to be shared, but I emphasise that the processes behind sharing that information have to be absolutely top notch.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, the experience of being in school can be a tremendously positive one for any of us, but for children who are experiencing a great deal of chaos in their home lives and a great deal of instability it is especially vital. The programme of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I believe, bore that out. I should also emphasise, as I have found myself with a particular teacher, that a teacher who speaks to the child and has a good relationship with the child can raise that child's self-esteem and inspire the child to be involved with education. Again, Dr Brodie refers to this. Young people themselves report that teachers can play an extremely supportive role in their lives.
Perhaps my amendments are not the right instrument to ensure that this happens but the point I am trying to reach—and this should be on the face of the Bill—is that there is a real motor here to ensure that inspectors very carefully check procedures; check that there is a senior designated teacher in the school, who is given the time to liaise with local authorities; and check that personal education plans are not merely tick-box exercises and are continually up-dated.
This is a real opportunity to improve the educational experience of these children. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am conscious of the time. We have had a very interesting debate on this clause and I will briefly put the main point which led me to anticipate the noble Earl as I did. I am sorry.
My noble friend Lord Hunt surely raised a tremendously important point. As it has been said so often I shall merely subscribe to it and leave it there.
But it also raises the question of what the Committee is doing. There is a relationship between drafting and reality. There is an easy way out, which Mr Balfour took in 1905 when challenged on the way that he had put the question that trade unions were corporations, which is wrong. He said, "I know that. I am talking English, not law".
But that is a glib way out. If there is a justification for this House and its procedures, a question which I prefer to leave pregnant in the minds of some of your Lordships, and if there is a worry about a compensation culture—I put it that way advisedly because sometimes it is in the imagination of well-stocked bars rather than reality—and people do believe that risks have increased, my noble friend Lord Hunt is quite right about that, then that is not invented by lawyers; it is partly invented by Parliament because Parliament does not take enough care with Committee stages. The difference between

191
reality and drafting is what the Committee stage is all about. I dare to raise this question in a technical form as it will be quicker that way. My noble friend may not want to answer it tonight, but I hope that he will keep it in mind.
The debate has rather assumed that the tremendously important word "well-being", which underlies the entire debate about how far teachers must look, what they must do, and what inspectors must do, is in the form set out in Section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004. There must be a relationship between the meaning of well-being and all that goes with it, including:
"physical and mental health and emotional well-being; … protection from harm and neglect; … education, training and recreation"—
which my noble friend Lord Hunt will be especially interested to note. Section 10(2) continues:
"the contribution made by them to society; … social and economic well-being".
But the Bill does not tie the meaning of well-being to those targets.
It is interesting that there is no amendment tabled to Clause 11, so the point may be lost if it is not raised now. The clause states:
"'well-being', in relation to pupils at a school, is a reference to their well-being having regard to the matters mentioned in section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004".
It manifestly could include something that is not mentioned in that section. Whether or not there is a compensation culture, there will be litigation. It is a fact of life that in any free society there will be litigation. One of the most important words that will have to be defined in those proceedings will probably be "well-being".
Perhaps my noble friend and his officials can look at Clause 11 to ensure that it is in the form that he wants. A reference to "having regard to" a list of things is a long way short of a conclusive definition. Perhaps such a definition is not wanted; there may be other things to be kept in mind. But Clause 11 contains peculiarly loose phraseology, which I mention at this stage so that it is not missed.
Lord Filkin: There is much to respond to, and I shall do my best. One well respects and is sympathetic to the intention of the amendments. There is strong consensus about the broad spirit of the Bill, and the debate is about whether such things are best achieved by making specific amendments to it. We clearly recognise the importance of schools both in improving the well-being of their own pupils, including, in particular, the most vulnerable, and those children and young people in the wider community.
That is why we have proposed changes to the statutory purposes of inspection, requiring inspectors to consider and report on how far the school meets the needs of the range of pupils at the school, and its contribution to the well-being of its pupils.
192
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke fulsomely and passionately about the issue of looked-after children. His amendment and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, relates to vulnerable children.
The purposes of inspection are delivered through the framework for inspection. During the trials of the new system, inspectors have used the framework to ask schools about looked-after children, using a case study approach to track the experience of those children within the school and the impact on their educational and personal development of the school environment. I hope that the noble Earl found that as he would wish it to be. It includes looking at how the school works with other agencies in meeting the needs of looked-after children, as well they need to, given the appallingly poor educational outcomes of looked-after children.
There is a section of the inspection report dedicated to the attainment of pupils in the school. Inspectors report on their assessment of whether there is significant under-achievement between groups of learners, for example. That ensures that attainment of all groups of learners, including looked-after children and other groups of vulnerable children, such as pupils with special educational needs, is evaluated.
Schools are responsible for promoting the educational achievement of all their pupils, as your Lordships know from discussions on the Children Bill. We do not, therefore, see what a specific duty for one particular group of children would achieve. We would be in danger of having a list of particular groups that the inspector had to think about and assess, and which would be adding one thing after another. That would fetter the inspector's discretion. It would also single out individual children from vulnerable groups. The number of looked-after children can be one or two in a primary school, and as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, signalled, there are also issues of confidentiality in that respect.
Evaluating the impact of all services, including education, on the attainment and progress of looked-after children will be an important element of the joint area reviews and will be picked up there. In such an inspection it will be possible to report on that group of children as a whole without drawing attention to individuals.
I hope that that provides the assurance that the needs and experience of looked-after children must be an important part of the system. But it would not benefit from being explicitly addressed in the way suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
On the amendment regarding Ofsted reporting on the adequacy of the plans for looked-after children in school, evidence shows that it is the local authority, as corporate parent for looked-after children, that holds the key to improving their educational achievement. I shall not speak at length, but issues such as stability,

193
out of authority placements, and the ambition of foster parents or care homes make an enormous contribution to whether looked-after children do or do not achieve.
School inspection is moving to a model built on self-evaluation by the school and focuses on the outcomes achieved within the school, as opposed to the processes by which those are achieved. Reporting on the adequacy of the plans is in danger of taking us back to the world that we have well lost rather than trying to evaluate the outcomes. Therefore, such reporting and the institutional inspection of school will be better captured as part of the wider assessment of children's services at local authority level. Should there need to be a more detailed look, that would be best achieved by other means, for example, the evaluation of the relevant policies, which could include a thematic study conducted by Ofsted as part of its annual work programme that is agreed separately with the Secretary of State.
We heard a passionate speech on out-of-classroom learning from my noble friend Lord Hunt. I cannot do it full justice in the time available, particularly as my noble friend the Leader of the House will be snapping at my heels if I go on for too long as the other debate is about to start.
What my noble friend said is important. We recognise that there is concern about a blame culture. The Better Regulation Task Force, as he signalled, has demonstrated extremely powerful common sense in that respect. I shall give some thought to whether there are ways in which to get the good messages of the Better Regulation Task Force to schools, without breaking our self-imposed abstinence of not showering schools with more advice and paper. That might be a bit of a challenge. Nevertheless, there is a kernel of common sense in what my noble friend said, on which we need to reflect.
I shall be even more cautious about setting up a task force from the Dispatch Box—my noble friend will be surprised to hear that. But his proposal requires considered thought rather than a quick letter bashed off within 24 hours of the debate. I shall try to give my noble friend a slow letter and an even more thoughtful one, which would be better. I shall not speak at greater length on that issue as time is pressing.
On well-being, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, started to stray into the next debate, and I shall resist the temptation to debate Clause 10 now. I hope that she will forgive me, as we shall have plenty of time after dinner.
The amendment concerning inspecting the contribution of the school to the well-being of pupils requires the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about the contribution made by various groups within the school to the well-being of the child. I am pleased that the noble Baroness is at one with the Government that we must assess the contribution made by schools to the well-being of children as they are clearly major players. Children develop in a great many ways and base their views on a great many factors. It is not the individual contribution of each group of the school work force that is important, but the environment that they
194
combine to provide, which should be one that encourages learning and stimulates the young, keen mind and challenges the learning that they receive in a positive, developmental way.
Where they require support, it is important that the staff ensure that it is of the right quality and suited to the needs of the individual. I believe that the manner in which the clause is currently drafted, requiring the chief inspector to report on the contribution made to the well being of the child by the whole school, is the right way forward, and I hope that the noble Baroness will take that positively. Inspection contributions are important, but their overall impact on the child must be paramount.
Perhaps I may look to some of the other points that I have not addressed so far. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, answered the challenge made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, by reminding me that well-being is defined in Clause 11 by reference to Section 10(2) of the Children Act. I shall take the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to ask our lawyers whether there are any risks in the way in which the law is currently drafted in the Bill. I thank him for that. I could talk on hard-to-place pupils and the contributions that protocols will make for them, but we will, I hope, come to that later tonight.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, started by talking about the risk of failing an inspection. In a sense, inspection starts with self-evaluation. The issue of the new system is the stimulus of self-evaluation within a soft framework, rather than a rigid one. We hope that that will stimulate the school and its leadership, both the paid staff and the governors, to think about how they can do better to achieve the outcomes for the children. It will therefore be less of a case of pass or fail, except in the most extreme cases. Without using ghastly jargon, it will be much more of a learning journey whereby the school's self-evaluation, the contribution of SIPs and the dialogue with the inspection process will stimulate the school to raise its ambition and its performance and do better, rather than a "fail". I mention that because it is crucial to the philosophy of how we hope the new system will work.
I have spoken at greater length, though not at as much length as some noble Lords would have wished. I hope that, at least for now, I have persuaded various Members of the Committee not to press their amendments.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: I rise to speak briefly in the full knowledge that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will wish to proceed. To be brief, I wish to thank the Minister for his customary thoroughness in his response and for his understanding. I look forward to studying his reply.
However, I have two points to raise. The first is about the specificity of distinguishing these children from all other children. This is a debate that we had during the Children Bill and I recognise the concerns about the matter. There was a careful consideration of this in this House and the conclusion that we reached was that these children have had poor outcomes in the

195
past and that they are children of the state whom the state has unfortunately failed in the past. In these circumstances it is perhaps right to make an exception for these children. But I shall look carefully at what the Minister said, consider it and see what the options are for the next stage.
With regard to local authorities, it is very welcome that the responsibility for these children has been laid so clearly on the doorstep of the local authority. It is for them to ensure that these children find the stability that they have lacked in the past. We also now recognise throughout government the importance of partnership working. I hope that I have been emphasising that it is for local authorities and schools to work in partnership together to improve outcomes for these children. Local authorities have the principal responsibility, but schools also play a very important part. This may also be a point to which I shall return at the next stage of the Bill. However, I thank the Minister for his response.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, before commenting on my amendment, which started this group, I shall say a word about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with which I have an enormous amount of sympathy. My focus on out-of-classroom learning is not only on physical education and participation in sport, but also on field studies in my own subject, biology. I think that such study has suffered over the years from the kinds of problems outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I would like to see something done to improve teachers' abilities to take students outside the classroom for the kind of educational enrichment that is so important to the subject.
Before adding the obligation to inspect out-of-classroom learning, it might be helpful if we could also incorporate into this Bill something like the provision contained in the Private Member's Bill of Julian Brazier MP which was introduced in another place. That legislation addresses the problems of the providers of outdoor activities in relation to the risks involved. Although it had the support of the DfES, it was dropped from the agenda of another place. I detect considerable support around your Lordships' House for something of that kind. That needs to go hand in hand with what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is trying to achieve in inspections. But perhaps we ought to talk among ourselves about that before the next stage of the Bill.
I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment. I look forward to talking more about these subjects after the break, when we come to Amendment No. 10. I was not expecting him to say specifically what the contribution of individual teachers and other members of staff was meant to be, but I am sure that he will accept that looking at a very big subject such as the school's contribution to the child's well-being is like eating an elephant—it must be done one bite at a time.
It is clear to me that many teachers and other members of staff are concerned about what they will be expected to do and the basis on which they will be inspected. Anything that the noble Lord has to say on
196
that subject is helpful in setting their minds at rest that the demand will be reasonable and appropriate to their responsibilities in the school. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed

Northern Ireland
6.37 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on Northern Ireland.
"As the House will be aware, a major robbery took place at the Northern Bank in Belfast just before Christmas. At the end of last week, the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland indicated that, in his professional opinion, responsibility for that robbery should be attributed to the Provisional IRA. He also made the point that, quite apart from the massive scale of this robbery, over £26 million, it was in no sense a victimless crime.
"Two families were kidnapped and threatened with death if they did not co-operate with the criminals concerned. In the case of one of the families, the gang, masquerading as police officers, tricked their way into the house by claiming that a family member had been killed in a car accident. Once inside, they donned masks, produced guns and threatened the family. One of the hostages was later taken to an isolated forest where her car was burned and she was abandoned in the snow. She was forced to struggle in severe weather and in darkness across country to seek assistance in a highly distressed state and suffering from hypothermia. I want to reiterate my utter condemnation of those who planned and carried out this appalling crime.
"The chief constable's public remarks were necessarily constrained by the ongoing investigation. He has briefed me fully on the background that led him to make the statement he did. I have no doubt that the chief constable's opinion is well founded. He did not rush to judgment.
"The Police Service of Northern Ireland thought initially that five groups could have been responsible for the robbery. Only when a great deal of evidence had been sifted did the chief constable make his statement. He is a man of the highest calibre and integrity, leading a professional team of officers acting entirely independently and objectively in pursuit of the criminals concerned.

197
"The Irish Government have also made their views on this aspect of the matter entirely clear. There will, of course, be a further dispassionate assessment of the position when the Independent Monitoring Commission makes its next report. I shall be discussing with the Irish Government the timescale in which that report should be made.
"On the immediate follow-up to the robbery, I welcome the announcement by the Northern Bank of their intention to withdraw from circulation their current banknotes and replace them with notes of a different design and colour. This decision will reduce very materially the value of the robbery to the perpetrators. We will be discussing with the bank how best to publicise the detailed arrangements.
"Since the Chief Constable's statement, there has been much comment about the impact of these developments on the political process in Northern Ireland. I cannot hide my own judgment that the impact is deeply damaging.
"On 9 December I came to the House to report on the proposals by the British and Irish Governments for a comprehensive agreement which had been published the previous day. They represented a series of statements that would have been made if there had at that stage been an overall agreement. They included a statement to the effect that paramilitary activity by the Provisional IRA would cease immediately and definitely. There was also a statement, to which the Democratic Unionist Party was committed, that after a period during which the good faith of the Provisional IRA's commitments had been demonstrated, an inclusive power-sharing executive would be re-established in March this year. I need hardly remind Members of the House that this would have been nearly two and a half years after the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland were suspended.
"In the event, there was an outstanding issue which could not be resolved in relation to the transparency of the process of decommissioning. But as I said to the House in December, we had made significant and substantial progress, not least in rebuilding the trust and confidence which is the essential requirement of a stable, inclusive, cross-community devolved administration in Northern Ireland.
"Today, I deeply regret that that progress has been put in jeopardy. I cannot forecast with certainty when it will prove possible to re-establish an inclusive power-sharing executive, which the Government continue to believe provides the best long-term guarantee of peace and stability. We shall not abandon our commitment to that ultimate goal.
"We are, however, in no doubt that that can be achieved only if the Provisional IRA gives up not only terrorism but also all the other forms of criminality in which it is implicated. Unionists in Northern Ireland have made clear that if those tests are met, they will work with Sinn Fein in a power-sharing executive. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has
198
said repeatedly, it is entirely reasonable for Unionists to withhold their co-operation until those tests are met.
"We have consistently made clear that if a political settlement is to be achieved, any illegal activity has to come to an end. The documents published before Christmas were unambiguous on that point.
"Let me, however, reiterate to the House that this Government will not promote a political settlement in which a party inextricably linked to an organisation which has carried out major criminal acts can assume responsibilities again in a devolved administration. Nor could it take on the further responsibilities implied by the devolution of justice and policing while criminal activity of the kind we have just seen, and the capacity to plan and undertake such activity, continues in existence. It would be ludicrous for anyone to suggest that the people of Northern Ireland, from whatever background, voted for a political settlement on that basis in the referendum held in 1998.
"Against that background, it is clear to me that decisions and responses on this are now needed from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. The comments from the Irish Government in recent days indicate that they share that view.
"Without the required responses from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA I cannot see how we shall be able to reinvigorate the political talks that must precede a comprehensive settlement. And without those responses the Governments, and indeed this House, will need to consider how best in the changed circumstances to bring pressure to bear on the republican movement to complete the transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, including any penalties that might be applied to Sinn Fein.
"I spoke to the Irish Foreign Minister on Friday and will be meeting him when he returns from a visit to the tsunami-stricken areas of Asia. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be meeting the Taoiseach towards the end of the month. In the mean time, I expect to be talking to the Northern Ireland parties over the course of the next two weeks with a view to hearing first hand their assessments of the current position and their views on a number of difficult questions that now face us, including, for example, on the appropriateness of continuing to pay the salaries and allowances of the individuals elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly in November 2003 and on our proposed way forward on the regulation of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland.
"I cannot disguise my deep disappointment at what has happened. But my disappointment is as nothing by comparison with the disappointment of the people of Northern Ireland. They deserve better, given the progress in so many areas of their lives in recent years.

199
"The Government, continuing to work in close partnership with the Irish Government, will be doing everything they can to ensure that this progress is not lost and that we can continue to move forward as soon as possible to a comprehensive political settlement. In the meantime, my colleagues and I will continue to apply ourselves to governing Northern Ireland as effectively as possible in the absence of a devolved administration"
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier today by the Secretary of State. I am also grateful to her and to the Secretary of State for allowing us early viewing of the Statement.
Today's Statement comes as a profound disappointment to all of us who want to see the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland on a stable and inclusive basis, and I am sure as a massive disappointment to the majority of the population of Northern Ireland. At this stage, I should like to offer our commiseration with the victims of this crime who must have been seriously traumatised by their experiences; and with the lady who must have very nearly died of hypothermia that night. This crime will have serious implications for the future of the political process.
On Friday the chief constable was unequivocal in apportioning blame for the robbery at the Northern Bank last month to the Provisional IRA. He quite rightly described it as a brutal and violent crime, totally at odds with a commitment to "exclusively democratic and peaceful means" and paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration issued in 2003.
The Provisional IRA is, of course, one part of the republican movement—"inextricably linked" with Sinn Fein, as the Independent Monitoring Commission said in its report last April. Some senior members, of Sin Fein are also senior members of PIRA. Sinn Fein, particularly through their senior members, are in a position to exercise considerable influence on PIRA's major policy decisions.
Therefore, is it not clear, as the Taoiseach himself said at the weekend, that senior members of Sinn Fein would have known about this robbery at precisely the same time that they were negotiating a process which, if successful, would have seen them have four ministerial posts in the Government of Northern Ireland?
Does the Secretary of State agree that this renders Sinn Fein completely unfit to hold ministerial office for the foreseeable future unless and until they have turned their backs on all paramilitary and criminal activity for good?
Is it not entirely reasonable and justifiable in the light of the chief constable's statement that other political parties should refuse to entertain any thoughts of sharing power with Sinn Fein while that party remains linked in any way to organised crime, gangsters and terrorists?
200
There is no way that we in my party could support any legislation designed to devolve powers over policing and criminal justice to Northern Ireland until we are certain that all the ministers concerned in a devolved executive are committed to supporting the PSNI and the rule of law.
I have a number of further questions for the noble Baroness and the Secretary of State. In the light of the intelligence now in the possession of the chief constable, is there not a case for looking again at the cases of individual criminals released early on licence under the Belfast agreement?
In view of the suspicion that the profits of crime are helping to fund political parties with paramilitary links, will the Secretary of State reconsider the Government's decision to continue the exemptions that political parties in Northern Ireland have from the normal rules on publishing their accounts and receiving foreign donations? If nothing has changed for the better when the relevant statutory instrument comes before your Lordships' House, I shall be arguing against it.
Will the Secretary of State, the noble Baroness and her colleagues table a Motion in the House of Commons to suspend the privileges and parliamentary allowances that were exceptionally given to Sinn Fein's four MPs, even though they refused to take their seats? It is just wrong, I suggest, for taxpayers' money to be doled out in this way to a party that remains "inextricably linked" to organised crime.
Finally, just before the Leeds Castle talks in September, the Prime Minister said that if there was no deal:
"I think we've got to look for another way forward".
There is no deal. It is time to look for another way forward. Either we seek to restore devolution without Sinn Fein until that party comes up to the democratic standards expected of everyone else, or, as both the Irish News and the Belfast Telegraph have suggested in the past couple of days, we should continue with a more accountable form of direct rule. I emphasise the words "accountable form". I know it is difficult for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, but there are some very serious issues before the representatives of the Northern Ireland people. They need the democratic process that will enable them to have their say and to hold Ministers accountable.
In the words of yesterday's Belfast News letter, it is time for the political process to move on and for a society that is peaceful and prosperous to be created. The people of Northern Ireland deserve nothing less.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for repeating the Statement made in another place. I should like to express the sympathy of noble Lords on these Benches for those victims who were abducted in the course of this robbery.
That said, I have to ask: what was the purpose of the chief constable's statement? We accept what he said; Mr Orde is a chief constable of the highest quality and

201
integrity, but the fact is that this statement is almost without precedent. It would have been more reassuring to have had a statement that a number of arrests had been made. Can any be expected, or is the chief constable's statement to be a substitute for such arrests? There is a real problem in that there has been too much concentration, in terms of the ceasefires, on regulating and diminishing paramilitary activity, as opposed to criminality. We have seen the results of that differential policy in the Northern Bank robbery.
If the purpose of the chief constable's statement is unclear, the consequences, as the Statement says and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has confirmed, are stark and obvious. I predicted more than a year ago that if devolution was not restored fully by last November, a year after the elections to Stormont, it would be put off for a generation. I suspect that the events of the past few days will lead to that conclusion. None of us would like it, but I think it is becoming almost inevitable.
The restoration of devolution will not be practical if Sinn Fein is excluded. The idea that there can be devolution involving the other parties but not Sinn Fein is politically not on.
We have to pick up the pieces from the fallout. There are two immediate reactions. First, I was pleased to note that the pay and allowances for members of the Legislative Assembly are to be looked at seriously. I have asked for this to happen for more than a year. I believe— and I ask the Leader of the House to consider this—that we should give notice that these will be stopped three months hence. There is no point in continuing to pay half a million pounds a month of taxpayers' money to keep a show going that is not on the road.
Further disapplication for Northern Ireland parties from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 would be a serious mistake. I wrote to the Leader of the House about this yesterday, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has also raised it. Such a move would make money laundering into the coffers of a party that much more easy if there is no proper set of accounts listing donations. As I have said privately to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, we, too, would find it extremely difficult to support such an order.
Secondly, again I echo the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in asking how government by direct rule is to be held publicly accountable with adequate scrutiny. It is quite clear that the existing Westminster structures cannot do justice to the amount of Northern Ireland legislation we are having to consider. One has only to recall our recent attempts in this House to look at the budget. We had only a couple of hours. As my noble friend Lord Shutt pointed out, he, as a local councillor, would normally have spent eight weeks considering the budget for Calderdale local authority. What are we going to do to revamp our provisions for looking at Northern Ireland legislation?
Can some provision be made for pre-legislative scrutiny by local Northern Ireland politicians? I suggested some time ago that perhaps the Assembly Members could be used as a committee for pre-legislative scrutiny, which would greatly help us in
202
Westminster. While the Assembly may well have to be stood down, I wonder whether it is beyond humankind's contrivance to create a consultative body which could help us here.
As others have said, this is a very sad time for Northern Ireland, coming at the end of a process where hopes had been raised to expect a return to devolution. That has not happened, it is not going to happen, and we must now look at the consequences.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally share the disappointment expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith of Clifton, about the process.
On the specific questions, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that I totally agree that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. The Taoiseach is right to point that out, as this Government have done consistently. As the chief constable said, it is too early to establish exact details, but it is clear that the activities of the IRA undermined the political negotiations which took place before Christmas.
In this process, we have made it absolutely clear that criminality must be eradicated. There is no place for terrorists within the Northern Ireland Government. That was the Government's position and it remains their position. It is absolutely clear that the political institutions of the agreement will not function while criminality continues. It is our view that the onus is on republicanism to find a solution by bringing a definitive end to all its illegal activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that it is important to look for another way forward. Of course we need to talk to the parties. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is already going through that process. We need to talk to our colleagues in the Irish Government.
As regards the specific issue of parliamentary allowances and Sinn Fein MPs, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made it absolutely clear that we shall be considering a range of possibilities in the coming days. We need to consider the most effective way of bringing pressure to bear on the republican movement to ensure that it makes a definitive break with violence. A whole range of options is being looked at. I know that it is an issue to which we shall return and debate not only in the Chamber, but also I hope with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in a more informal atmosphere.
The question of accountability was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I totally recognise the concerns which were raised across the Chamber. As noble Lords know, proposals have been made by the SDLP and the DUP which suggested a committee of the Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, spoke about the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny. We will be looking at all of these proposals because I entirely agree that the present situation as regards the accountability of direct-rule Ministers needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

203
As regards the issue of licensed prisoners and their recall if they are connected with the robbery—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would not hesitate to use the powers that he has to suspend the licence of any ex-prisoner involved if he is satisfied that he has broken, or is likely to break, any licence conditions. That has always been the position and it continues to be so.
Regarding the continued exemptions for Northern Ireland political parties from the normal rules on publishing their accounts and receiving foreign donations, I hear very clearly what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who has written to me on the point. Noble Lords know that we intend to move away from the current exemptions. We have been discussing new arrangements with the Northern Ireland parties, the Irish Government and the Electoral Commission. Legitimate concerns have been raised about intimidation and the need for Irish citizens to be able to donate to nationalist parties. I indicated that we would be seeking an extension of the current exemption. I hear the concerns expressed in the Chamber about this issue. I shall be talking to my right honourable friend about it and will report back to noble Lords as soon as I can.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said that he was not clear about the purpose of the statement made by the chief constable and that it was without precedent. It is not without precedent in Northern Ireland, but it is in England and Wales. There is always a huge amount of pressure in Northern Ireland as regards attribution. Noble Lords will remember, for example, Tohill last February. When he made his statement the chief constable made it absolutely clear that speculation on the matter was beginning to interfere with the investigation and he felt that the time was right to make the attribution. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, that this is not a substitute for arrests. The investigation is in hand involving more than 40 officers working around the clock.
On the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, as regards allowances to the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I can tell him that we shall be looking at it in the very near future.
7 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. This was not a victimless crime. Families were intimidated, families were kidnapped and families were terrorised. I also send out tonight my sympathies from this House and hope that these families may rebuild their lives quickly.
The noble Baroness said that her disappointment in this escapade is nothing compared with the disappointment of the people of Northern Ireland. I could not agree more. But is not the Minister also aware that this is the latest in a long line of links between Sinn Fein/IRA and criminality that the people of Northern Ireland have had to endure over many years?
204
The Northern Bank robbery follows the break-in at Castlereagh police station, the Stormont spy-ring, the well known activities of the Colombian three with the FARC rebels, not to mention the nightly punishment beatings and continued violence, all of which were, and continue to be, sanctioned and carried out by IRA/Sinn Fein personnel. Do not the Government understand that the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, already at breaking point, as a result of this latest heist, has been absolutely and completely shattered? If confidence in Sinn Fein/IRA is in tatters then this Government do not fare much better in the eyes of the Northern Ireland people. Without firm and decisive action against Sinn Fein/IRA, this Statement tonight will be seen as little more than an empty, meaningless gesture.
The Government must show strength and their willingness to stand up against terrorists and criminals. Such people simply cannot be allowed to continue to be the driving force in Northern Ireland's political agenda. The driving seat should be reserved for democratic parties only.
I am pleased to hear tonight that, perhaps; as an indication of the Government's willingness to take action, they will seriously consider, where the evidence suggests that it is necessary, recalling those republican prisoners currently out on licence who have been involved in criminal and terrorist activities.
On a final note, the noble Baroness mentioned that the Government were looking at the regulation of donations to political parties. While we all welcome the transparency of donations, is such an idea not actually counter-productive? Sinn Fein does not need political donations, it robs banks!
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may make three points in response to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. The Government will continue to work for a peaceful outcome in Northern Ireland. We will continue to work for an inclusive process. I also agree with the noble Lord that we must look at the areas where action can be taken. We have made it absolutely clear that there is no room for criminality in the political process. That remains our position and we will work very hard to find the best mechanisms at our disposal to take action as regards what has happened.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I must declare an interest, not in the robbery, but as a member of the policing board in Northern Ireland. In saying that, I should like to defend the police to a certain extent against some of the barracking they have had. It is amazing that, knowing how forensically aware the terrorists are and how clever and thorough they are at covering their tracks, the chief constable has been able to say what he said and that is to his credit.
Paragraph 12 of the Statement refers to required responses from Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. We have to get down to the practical problem. We should forget about the consequences for one minute, but consider what is happening. What are the responses now that the Government require? We want to know what they are in detail: most certainly

205
Sinn Fein will want to know to see how to get round them. We need to know those responses now. We need to know the timescale of those responses. We need to know for how long Sinn Fein/IRA have to run clean before we are asked to believe them again. What or where will there be verification of what they say because it is quite clear that the verification that the Government were standing by until very recently is not enough and it is lacking?
If you are dealing with criminals such as these and totally untrustworthy, dare I say, liars, there is only one form of verification that can apply—the intelligence from behind them. I am well aware, and so are many others in your Lordships' House, that the intelligence-gathering effort has been greatly decreased against the very echelons of the people who committed this crime— and that includes against the Sinn Fein leadership. No one should be afraid of the intelligence services listening in or doing whatever if they have nothing to hide. But we have seen a large reduction in intelligence gathering. I am not saying that it would have prevented this crime—the perpetrators have had practice for this in Strabane, kidnapping people and so on—but not having that reduction might have contributed much to preventing it.
Part of that reduction is in the total number of patrols in Northern Ireland. The military are being told, "You are not to patrol". The police are being told, "You have got to do it on your own and call in the military only when necessary". Intelligence is not just what one person hears over a mobile phone. Intelligence is gathered from grass roots leading up to that. It is association; it is people being seen with other people; it is people carrying out "reccies" of buildings and so on.
My question to the Government is, what are they going to do about it? It is no good saying that these statesmen are their friends and they will not look in their back yard. It is not good enough for us.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that the Government have made it absolutely clear that not only do we want to see an end to all violence, but we want to see an end to all criminality. In seeking that we want to see the actions taken on the ground which will deliver that. With respect to the noble Viscount's statement on intelligence and policing, I reject his claims about a reduction in intelligence gathering. I understand that the senior investigating officer in this case has access to all the intelligence, irrespective of where it comes from. Of course I have full confidence in the investigation team.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I was referring to prior to the incident, not the amount of intelligence received after £26 million had gone. I was talking about the six months in the year prior to it.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of that, but one of the reasons why the Serious Organised Crime Agency was created in relation to Northern Ireland
206
was precisely to bring together the intelligence and policing aspects, so that they were able to share information.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, did not the Government recently justify their decision permanently to reduce the overall infantry strength of the British Army on the grounds that the Police Service for Northern Ireland needed now, and would need, less support from the Army in providing security for Northern Ireland? Was that decision not founded upon the Government having been persuaded that Mr Adams, Mr McGuinness and Sinn Fein were trustworthy? Where does that leave that decision now and should it not be urgently revisited?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that decision was made on the basis of the length of time that we have seen ceasefires in operation in Northern Ireland and the implications of that for our military and for policing in Northern Ireland.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I believe that the political repercussions of this matter will reverberate for a long time, but I do not wish to ask a question about that. I am grateful to the Lord President for repeating the Statement in this House, but I must ask her whether she believes that there has been adequate transparency in terms of what really happened.
We know that Northern Bank notes are distinctive. We know that many of them can be traced. But are we not being led to believe that the whole £26 million is traceable? We have not been told what notes from other banks, including used notes and notes from the Bank of England, form part of that £26 million and whether it will be easy for the criminals to disperse that money. So we need some information on that if we are fully to understand how these criminals, even at this late stage, can be thwarted in benefiting from the money that they have stolen.
It has been suggested—indeed, a member of my own party suggested to the Secretary of State—that the numbers that are available on banknotes that are traceable should be circulated to every household and business in Northern Ireland. The citizenry of Northern Ireland—and that is the only place that Northern Bank notes are likely to be circulated— should be recruited to a man and to a woman over the next 20 weeks, which will be critical, given that that is the time it will take for the Northern Bank to print new notes and withdraw the old notes. Can the Minister assure us tonight that the numbers on traceable notes will be circulated to every household and business in Northern Ireland? That would help.
I also wish to ask the Minister about policing. I share many of the doubts that have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, about the chief constable. Although he ameliorated what he had to say, I shall not do so, because I believe that we have a police command which is preoccupied with statistics. As your Lordships know, statistics can be misleading. If there was any intelligence available—and there

207
should have been, given the background intelligence in Northern Ireland over 30 years—that there would be a robbery of some sort, why, when there was a tip-off from a traffic warden that something suspicious was happening outside Northern Bank headquarters, were two "peelers" sent along on foot instead of a tactical support group dispatched to deal with the incident?
Those are questions that people like myself, who have served in the security forces over the years, wish to know, because we feel that there is an incompetence in policing that should not happen and that the responsibility rests with the chief constable.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, while I can appreciate the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, I know that he will understand that I really cannot comment on the details of the investigation. However, I will tell the noble Lord that the chief constable did cover in some detail in his statement on Friday the amounts and the types of notes that were stolen. I also said in the Statement that we will be discussing with the bank how best to publicise the detailed arrangements once the bank has put in place its intention to withdraw from circulation its current banknotes. I appreciate the frustration, but I cannot say any more at this stage.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Leader of the House say whether the Special Branch has been severely reduced in the past two or three years, on the recommendation of the Patten commission? It has been said in the press—and I do not know the truth—that a number of the normal police sources have had to be discarded because they were considered to be potentially criminal. You do not get inside criminal groups without having someone with normal connections with them. I should very much like to know whether the police have in any way been given the reasonable prospect of penetrating the IRA at this level.
I greatly respect the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and I think that the Government are right to treat this as a straight criminal, rather than political, issue. But it is a political issue, too—all the more so because we have seen the Stormont break-in and the IRA activity in the Special Branch involving the removal of records. Nothing has been done about either of those incidents and we are always told that that is because there are legal procedures which cannot be hurried. We are talking about three years. I feel that something needs to be done to enable the police to do the job that they should be able to do.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Park. A great deal of concern has been expressed about a reduction in numbers as a result of the merging of the two groups. I can say to the House that the chief constable has said consistently that the police have adequate resources in place to deal with any situation that may arise, and they are of course supported by the military as necessary. I said in response to an earlier question that the decisions on the military in Northern Ireland were made in relation to the decisions on the ceasefires.
208
It remains absolutely vital that the police and other security forces can respond flexibly within the context of Northern Ireland. My understanding is that they feel able, and sufficiently resourced, to do that. If any concerns in that respect are brought to my attention, I shall of course write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether, in advance of the Statement made by the chief constable, discussions were held with the British Government, the Irish Government and, more particularly, with the American Administration? Has she any idea how the American Administration view this crime?
There is another serious element to this matter. When the robbery took place, two of the people who were so badly mishandled by the robbers were Catholics. A story has been going around Northern Ireland over the past few weeks that this was an inside job. People in Northern Ireland believe that, if it was an inside job, it certainly did not involve any Orangeman, Protestant or Paisley supporter. The suspicion is that it was a Catholic employed in the bank. That puts every Catholic who is in any position of trust in any bank in Northern Ireland in severe jeopardy. Did the IRA take that into consideration?
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, desperately seeking a way to continue with the peace process, said that committees should be set up to inquire into the government of Northern Ireland. On those committees would sit two MPs—McGuinness and Adams—who are Members of this Parliament and also Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As they exclude themselves from sitting in the House of Commons, would they be excluded from the committees advocated by the noble Lord?
On the question of finance from abroad, I vividly remember speaking in this House against any exoneration when I was trying desperately to include the IRA in the legislation at that time.
I think that the noble Baroness may be able to answer the following question but I ask it directly of the Prime Minister. In the absence of arrests and of some of the money being found, will members of Sinn Fein be permitted to run daily into Downing Street? Are we going to be told that we are still in search of a political solution by way of devolution? From what I hear, the Taoiseach in Dublin would be totally unable to have further discussions with them if the present situation were to be maintained.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that in the Statement it is made clear by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he was briefed on the background by the chief constable. As I said in response to a number of questions, my right honourable friend will now be having meetings with the parties, the Irish Government and others in order to look at ways of taking this matter forward.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 2004
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Amosrose to move, That the order laid before the House on 17 November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the decision to despecify the UDA/UFF was taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland following a period of contact between officials in the Northern Ireland Office and the political representatives of loyalism. The Secretary of State himself spoke to them directly prior to making a final decision.
In explaining his decision to despecify, the Secretary of State said that it was a further step towards resolving the problems that had dogged political progress in Northern Ireland and towards achieving an inclusive future for all, based on an enduring political settlement. However, the Government are mindful of the consequences of the decision for others, particularly victims. I take this opportunity to reassure victims that we have not forgotten their suffering, and we shall continue to support and work with them.
When the UPRG made its statement on 14 November 2004, it contained a number of important undertakings. The first was its commitment to work towards the day when, to use its own words, there will no longer be a need for the UDA or the UFF. It reaffirmed that the UDA will desist from all military activity and declared that the organisation's strategy will focus on community development, job creation, social inclusion and community politics. The second was its agreement to enter into a process with the Government which will see an end to all paramilitary activity. The third was confirmation that it will re-engage with the decommissioning commission. Indeed, I understand that that has already begun.
However, the Government have always made clear that, while they welcome this initiative, all paramilitary organisations will be judged by their deeds and not by their words alone. To that end, I have taken a close interest in reports of loyalist paramilitary activity over the past few months. I am encouraged by information provided to me by the PSNI which shows that, since the UPRG statement in November, the number of incidents involving loyalists generally, and the UDA/UFF in particular, has fallen dramatically.
In recognising that, I wish to acknowledge the efforts of the UPRG. I am also appreciative of the contribution of members of other political parties who have helped to create the conditions whereby this initiative has at least been given a chance to develop.
It is my sincere hope that all paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland will recognise that the Government are willing to encourage and facilitate those who are prepared to leave violence behind and create a new way forward for their communities. We agree with the UPRG that the loyalist community's enemies are issues such as poverty, social deprivation, drugs and crime. Those are not problems faced only in loyalist communities; they are
210
issues which affect everyone in Northern Ireland. I earnestly hope that all organisations which claim to represent their communities will acknowledge that fact and work with us to tackle common issues so that all in Northern Ireland, no matter where they come from or who they vote for, can enjoy a society free from the burden of paramilitary and drug-related crime.
In mentioning crime, I remind the House that the UDA remains a proscribed organisation. The police will pursue relentlessly any criminal activity undertaken by its members or those of any other group. All in this House who have followed the undoubted progress in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Good Friday agreement will agree that the time has long since passed for all paramilitary groups—loyalist and republican—to cease their activities once and for all and to decommission the weapons which have brought so much suffering.
The future that we all seek for Northern Ireland can come about only through inclusive, peaceful, political engagement. This order is an important move in that direction and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 17 November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos. )
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for introducing the order, but when it appeared on the Order Paper I must say that I was concerned and not altogether delighted.
My personal view is that it is almost tactless to leave the order on the Order Paper after the happenings of recent days. It is an extremely unwise time to pass such an instrument. As I understand it, there is no special hurry for it, and a little more due consideration of the involvement of people in the bank robbery, about which we know nothing, would have been wise. It would not have landed the Government in any difficulties just to have postponed the order quietly. I am not at all happy. I shall not divide the House, but I wish the Government to know that I am far from happy about the order. I think that they are making a mistake.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran: today is hardly a propitious time to move the order.
We shall not oppose the order, but I will take the opportunity to ask the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council what exactly the term "ceasefire" means. We have asked that question before. It seems to be a very elastic, ambiguous, ill-defined concept. It seems to be defined by all and sundry as they like, with the result, as I said, that there has been a tendency to focus on paramilitary cessation, while crime is not taken into account—hence, perhaps, the Northern Bank robbery.
It is also true that crime by loyalist paramilitaries is continuing. It is not so much paramilitary or military activity as what was once called "normal, decent crime". It is as corrosive as anything of moves towards the restoration of peace. The Government should come up with their own definition of "ceasefire" and

211
tell us what it embraces and what it does not embrace. We cannot pick and choose about this. We have been led by the nose by the IRA and by loyalist paramilitary organisations, who have imposed their definition of "ceasefire", rather than having the body politic impose its definition.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, when I have to consider such an order, I do not know whether I am mad, the Government are mad or the world generally is mad. When we have just been discussing the difficulties with the criminality that exists in Northern Ireland, there is something wrong with deciding to despecify organisations such as the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters.
Johnny Adair is a member of one of those organisations. Apparently, he was released from prison today. God help the people of Bolton: he has been inflicted on them for some reason. I am led to understand that the Government provided him with free transport out of the Province. I read at the weekend that he does not feel himself to have been banished and that, when he wants to come back to settle old scores, he will do so.
We are talking about two despicable organisations here. They have killed members of the Catholic tradition and have killed each other, and they would be willing to kill members of the Catholic tradition and each other again for monetary benefit. They run the drugs trade and use it to get the finance that enables them to portray themselves as the defenders of a particular tradition. I belong to that tradition—the Protestant or Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland—and I despise every last one of those individuals.
I feel that the Government have made a horrible mistake. The horror of it may not be seen at the moment, but it is a horrible mistake. I want to be wrong when I predict that the horror of it will be seen on the streets of Northern Ireland. We have had disappointments, but Northern Ireland is moving forward. It may be two steps forward and a step back, but at least people are beginning to think of normality. We should not turn the Province into a gangster state.
There is no reason to despecify the two organisations. I am horrified that the Government have made that decision at this time. I just hope that I will not be standing here in a week, a month or a couple of months saying, "I told you so".
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin by saying that I totally appreciate the concerns expressed, especially in the light of the discussion that we have just had, but perhaps I can say two things to noble Lords. The first is that the Government have always made it clear that there is no acceptable level of violence. We have also made it absolutely clear that there is no room for criminality. However, it is also important, particularly at this point, to remember that, while we seek to punish the behaviour that we seek to eradicate, we must also encourage the behaviour that we seek to promote. Noble Lords will know that the decision that my right
212
honourable friend the Secretary of State made about these organisations was made in the round. He took account of all the criteria, and he made a judgment.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked specifically what "ceasefire" meant. That question has been asked on a number of occasions. The requirements for an organisation to be considered on ceasefire and, therefore, eligible for despecification are set out in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. It does not mean that an organisation has ceased all activity. I know that we have discussed that point many times. It is precisely why the UDA remains an illegal organisation and why the police continue to pursue those in it who continue to commit crime. To the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, I say that despecification has no impact on Johnny Adair.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised the issue of timing. Once my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had come to a decision that the UDA met the requirements of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, our legal obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 required us to give effect to that decision and despecify the UDA at the earliest opportunity.
I recognise the degree of scepticism around the Chamber. We all recognise that in such processes the unexpected as well as the expected can happen. At the moment I am hanging on to that, given the disappointment of the Statement that I made earlier this evening. I appreciate what noble Lords have said about not praying against the order. We shall continue to discuss these matters, not only in the Chamber but also outside. I value the way in which noble Lords have conducted the discussion this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock when the Committee stage of the Education Bill will resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.40 to 8 p.m.]

Education Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert ", and
( ) the contribution made by those schools to work ing with the children's services authority and the authority's relevant partners to improve the well-being of children, and relevant young people, within the authority's area"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 10,1 shall speak also to Amendment No. 29, which in the same group. We again pick up the Children Act agenda. We are really asking the Government to spell out more clearly how they see the integration of Ofsted and the CSCI.

213
Under the Children Act 2004, a range of agencies have a duty to co-operate with each other to improve the well-being of children in the area. In the absence of a specific statutory duty on schools to co-operate, it is essential that their contribution to working with other agencies is properly evaluated. I think we all accept that.
The revised Ofsted framework attempts to integrate the outcomes for children under Every Child Matters. But it is very difficult to see how inspectors will be able properly to assess an individual school's positive contribution to a child's health, safety, enjoyment, achievement and well-being, let alone how the school will function within the wider multi-agency context that we are about to see of the children's services authority.
Historically, Ofsted, through its reliance on performance data to inform judgments, concentrates on that which is easily measurable. That is perfectly understandable. But fundamental questions, such as the happiness, the well-being and engagement of individual pupils within a school, are not so easily answered by a snapshot approach and are more likely to be accurately determined by ongoing monitoring and evaluation; in particular, that done by the school's own self-evaluation work.
As many noble Lords said at Second Reading, including those on these Benches, the Bill makes reference to LEAs rather than to the children's services authority. Under the Bill's provisions, LEAs are increasingly sidelined in the view of some noble Lords, and the children's services authority so far does not exist. So it is difficult to see who will be responsible for encouraging individual schools to co-operate with other frontline services, as they must do if the objectives of the Children Act are to be achieved.
It is clear that any attempt to marry the current school inspection schedule with the Every Child Matters indicators is fraught with difficulties as the two have very different starting points, overarching philosophies and purposes. While acknowledging the desire to reflect the Every Child Matters agenda within the Ofsted inspection framework in order to mainstream it, this can only ever be on a superficial level as the much broader and less easily measurable concerns of the former cannot be captured adequately by the snapshot approach of the latter. Noble Lords will see the difficulty.
In isolation, individual teachers and schools will very likely in practice continue to be steered by the national focus on targets and performance tables. The questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer are these. How do the Government see Ofsted and the CSCI working together? How will the relationship between schools and the CSA and other relevant partners be counted? How will the inspectors judge whether the schools are doing their job in this respect? What does "social and economic well-being" mean here? What if unemployment is high in the area, leading to considerable social deprivation? Do the inspectors judge the schools to have failed because they have not produced young people with transferable skills?
214
It is all very well running through a list of the five outcomes, but what we need to know is what this means in practical terms and how should this guide Ofsted and the judgment of the Ofsted inspectors.
Finally, how does all this apply to young people? We do not know where the boundaries are. How far does Ofsted's remit extend? Does it extend to young people up to the age of 19 or beyond? Does the integrated agenda apply to the adult learning inspectorate which covers post-19 college level education and training? What about youth services? There are a lot of questions to answer. The Committee stage is the opportunity for us to probe some of these issues. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us a little.
So, in moving Amendment No. 10 and in speaking to Amendment No. 29,1 really seek to probe some of the Government's intentions in this respect. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: I will not answer every one of the 15 difficult questions before breakfast, but I shall seek to focus on the nub and come back with correspondence on some of them because I think that that will be more helpful.
Let me talk in broad terms because I think that that will be most useful at this stage of our proceedings. We fully recognise the importance of schools, both to improving the well-being of their own pupils and of the children and young people in the wider community. That is why we have recently published Every Child Matters: Change for Children in Schools, which sets out the implications for schools of the Children Act 2004 and the wide programme of change that we are introducing.
As the document says,
"pupils can't learn if they don't feel safe or if health problems are allowed to create barriers. And doing well in education is the most effective route for young people out of poverty and disaffection… Pupil performance and well-being go hand in hand".
Earlier in our proceedings we stated that the well-being objectives are not separate from, in conflict with or irrelevant to the tradition of educational attainment. I think that there is a broad consensus in the Committee on that point. The debate concerns how it is put into practice.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, attempts to include the contribution made by the school to working with the children's services authority and its relevant partners to improve the well-being of children and relevant young people within the authority's areas. That represents a substantial loss of focus away from the school and the work it does for its own pupils. That, we think, has to be the central purpose of the Bill and of the process. How is that school contributing to the well-being of its pupils and seeing that it is important that the well-being should go wider than just the narrow educational attainment, important though that is?

215
We are fully in agreement with the principle that schools must play an active role within the wider community and cannot work in isolation from one another or from agencies providing services for children and young people and their families.
Perhaps I may illustrate that point. In school inspections Ofsted already explores links with the wider community in several ways. It judges, first, the extent to which the curriculum meets the external needs; secondly, the way in which schools work with other services to guide, care for and support their pupils, and, thirdly, how well resources are managed and the effectiveness of any links with other providers of children's services.
We are looking to schools, over time, to provide a core of extended services, either on site or across a cluster of local schools and providers. An extended schools prospectus to set out the extended schools strategy will be launched shortly. In schools with extended services, which have been included in pilot inspections, inspectors report on how the services were selected to meet the needs of the community and what impact they have on the children's development. The new school profile will include a section where schools write about their contribution to the wider community. We are looking at how best the profile can reflect the extended schools agenda to show the breadth of activity that the school undertakes.
Key aspects of our "new relationship with schools" are currently being trialled. They include the allocation to each school of a school improvement partner (SIP), who will act as a critical friend. The school's engagement with the wider community and its effect on educational outcomes will feature in this single conversation between the SIP and the school. It is a crucial engagement between the local authority and the school as regards the contribution that the school makes.
On inspection, we are introducing joint area reviews, which will draw together for the first time a range of inspection findings determined by a common approach, through an overall framework for inspection of children's services. That overall framework will apply to inspections of schools, supported by a more detailed framework relating specifically to schools. Joint area reviews, which will draw on evidence from school inspections, will then assess what it is like to be a child in a local authority area. That is the exact question that the process should address. They will report on how effectively the local partners work together to improve children's well-being. That will include an assessment of how effectively the schools work together as local partners.
The new arrangements will be introduced from September 2005, so the process will go live very soon. Ofsted and the nine other relevant inspectorates and commissions are consulting on a draft of the framework and on arrangements and criteria for joint area reviews. The consultation period began on 6 December and runs until the end of February.
I shall now address specific points, including how Ofsted will judge children's wider well-being. Inspectors will report on the spiritual, moral, cultural and social
216
development of pupils as well as the five outcomes, but they will do so hanging off the self-evaluation process mentioned earlier. We will deal with that process in more detail later, because it is fundamental to the Bill.
Ofsted's remit extends up to age 19 and includes youth services. How Ofsted judges well-being is currently being consulted on in the framework for schools. It might be helpful if I sent a copy of the framework to Front-Benchers so that they can appreciate more of its richness. I shall read it myself with interest.
We have talked previously about burdens on schools. I have sought to signal why I do not believe that this process should be more burdensome. Again, the evidence from the pilot so far is extremely positive. In response to the question about how Ofsted and the CSA would work together, they already do so. They will be brought closer together in the children's services framework. If I can add more detail, I will be pleased to do so subsequently rather than now.
Admissions protocols have been touched on obliquely. The issue of hard-to-place pupils coloured some of the debates on the Children Act 2004. On 18 November, Charles Clarke announced a package of guidance on hard-to-place pupils to support local education authorities in developing protocols for sharing such pupils across schools in the LEA fairly. The guidance was based on what is observed as good practice in some LEAs already. It is drawn up as part of a working group of LEAs, head teacher organisations, Churches, foundation and voluntary-aided schools. In other words, it replicates what the best LEAs and the best schools are doing already. We have distributed it as guidance to local authorities. When he announced the protocols, Charles Clarke said that he would be willing to use legislation to impose them if all LEAs did not have them in place by 1 September 2005.
However, we should start from the premise that, if there is a clear argument for why this is good behaviour, and if the case has been made clearly on the basis of good local education authority practice, we should be cautious about legislating too quickly and imposing further burdens top-down on LEAs and schools in this context. We would therefore be well advised to recognise that there has been a good reception by many LEAs to the advice and to the development of protocols, to allow it time and space to breathe and to work, and to evaluate how it develops. That is perhaps the specific answer that hides behind some of the points.
I have probably spoken at greater length than Members of the Committee wished. I shall check in Hansard to see whether I have missed some points and respond with further correspondence if it would be helpful.
Lord Hanningfield: The Minister referred to both LEAs and CSAs—the latter is not a terribly good acronym. The idea is that there will be just one body, a children's services authority (CSA). My own authority is moving that way. I would rather that local

217
government did everything rather than having a lot of confusing acronyms, which people do not always understand.
Can the Minister comment on the time frame? The Government clearly support the Children Act 2004. It brings together a lot of issues that should have been brought together over the years in order to make certain that agencies work together to support families and children. I have local authority experience and I foresee that there will be a problem in resolving some of the issues in this legislation with the earlier legislation. Will the Minister clarify how the Government envisage the LEAs and CSAs coming together into one body with one policy?
8.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Beresford, has taken me to task with great courtesy for demonstrating my old-fashioned language. I shall expunge the word "LEAs" from my vocabulary henceforth. He is right. We are talking about the children's services authority, which is the relevant local authority—that is, the principal local authority rather than the shire district—giving its leadership through the children's trust, and the children's trust mechanism bringing into place all the other key partners who have a responsibility in contributing towards the children's agenda in that area.
The noble Lord is right: that is what is important and radical about the Children Act. At this time of night, he is besting me at answering exactly how that will work out in practice with all the historical functions. But the core message—and a number of people are clear on this matter—is that this is the biggest offer to local government affirming its local community leadership role that there has been for many a long year.
When I had a meagre sandwich lunch with the chief executive of the LGA recently, there was a sense that that was recognised. This is a major opportunity for local government leadership.
I am wandering off the point. The Children Bill affirmed the policy and this Bill co-ordinates it, partly in the way in which it tries to get out of the detail of telling schools and inspectors how to deliver this and judges them instead on the outcomes. In other words, it is a great agenda for local government, and— through the spirit of self-evaluation—it is a positive agenda for schools as well. I have spoken at length. I will reflect on the challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Beresford, has given and see if I can add further comments later.
Baroness Walmsley: Does the Minister wish to speak?
Lord Filkin: I want to apologise for getting names wrong. When I referred to "the noble Lord, Lord Beresford", I meant to address the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
Baroness Walmsley: I am grateful to the Minister for the additional information that he has just given us.
218
The information from pilot schemes and the extended schools' prospect us that we expect soon will all be enlightening on how this will work.
Before I withdraw the amendment, I would like to pick the Minister up on one point. Early in his response he suggested that my amendment would prevent schools focusing on their own pupils. I was under the impression that under the new obligations the Government expect schools to have some responsibility for all the children in their area, not only those who choose to come to their schools. For example, there may be facilities that should be made available to other children in the area through partnerships between schools. That is happening more and more. Schools should have some responsibility for children who are not pupils on their register. Can the Minister explain what he meant by that?
Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Increasingly, our vision is that schools will recognise that they can add value to what they give to the development of children by working in a co-operative manner with each other. The protocols around admission processes are one specific example, but it goes much wider than that.
As the noble Baroness implied, when considering the concept of extended schools it is implausible that every single school would have all the functions on the school premises that could ideally be placed there. It would not work like that. Therefore a cluster of schools would provide additional facilities that could be shared between them in exactly the way she implied. I apologise if in a sense I have spoken too crudely, but that is precisely the style of behaviour that we believe is necessary. Moreover, the school improvement partner will discuss these issues with the school because such co-operative behaviour best serves the children in the area; a beggar-my-neighbour approach would not.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: Perhaps I may chip in to point out that there is so much going on in this area that is exciting and even somewhat bewildering. Does the Minister intend that the partnerships should cover not only local authority schools, but also independent schools? I do not think that that has been addressed so far. Given the various articles and other publicity that I have read, a great deal is going on almost via the back door—indeed, in some areas it is being described as the back-door nationalisation of schools. Quite honestly, I think I welcome that. The more partnership we have to improve standards throughout the education system, the better. It would be interesting to hear a little more from the Minister.
Lord Filkin: I am unbriefed on this so I shall make a few observations in principle. As noble Lords would expect, the central thrust of our policy focuses on schools that are effectively either directly part of the state system by being maintained or are at one remove in the form of academies and foundation partnerships. They are the primary focus of this process of change. However, while for most children it is crucial that state-supported education fulfils their needs, it should

219
be recognised that there are private and other forms of schooling. I do not think that we should not look to co-operative relationships between them where they meet the interests of children on both sides. I do not believe that we would wish to be doctrinal. However, this is the reverse of ex cathedra; it is the Minister giving some personal reflections which no doubt will be contradicted by letters later on.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for his clarification of my earlier question and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert ", and
"( ) the degree to which schools are developing rigorous internal procedures of self evaluation"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. It may be useful to refresh our memories. We are still talking about the first subsection of Clause 2 and considering only the functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England. So far among those functions we have debated the issue of well-being, how it can be measured and how it ties in with the new agenda set out in the Children Act 2004. I turn now to a slightly different theme, one that has been flagged up in the new relationship for schools outlined in the White Paper that underpins this Bill, and set out in the Government's Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners published last July.
The whole concept of schools being able to move from lengthy inspections to short, sharp ones is being introduced because it is felt that the experience of some 12 years of schools inspection means that, in a sense, schools can move on. Part of that is the notion that they can move on because they now know, or should know, how they are measured. They need to learn, if they have not already done so, how to measure their own performance. Self-evaluation is therefore a vital part of the new agenda.
I am very sympathetic to this development and I think that all noble Lords would say that this is the right way forward. Moving away from the heavy interventionist bureaucracy of Ofsted to lighter touch procedures means that schools will monitor internally their performance and keep themselves up to scratch. All that Ofsted will have to do is ensure that each school has in place proper internal evaluation procedures.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that schools develop along this route. It would be useful, therefore, to add to the role of inspectors the requirement to look explicitly at the development of self-evaluation procedures. We know that many of our best schools are doing this already, do not need to be told to do it and in fact did not need to be told to do it, which is one of the reasons that we want the light touch.
220
However, with the best will in the world, there are always those who do not do something unless they are told to do it—those with whom I got very annoyed when I was a university lecturer who always said to me, "Is there something that we need to study for the examination?" In other words, "If we are not examined in it, we are not going to bother to do it". Therefore, if it is not on the list of matters that the inspector is to inspect, will the schools do it? Although the answer ought perhaps to be that we should not have to measure it, it is nevertheless a useful fallback position to have.
That is the reason behind the tabling of this amendment. If this is part of the agenda as we know it, and to which I believe all sides of the Chamber are very sympathetic, arguably it is something that we need to measure as a fallback. Therefore, we suggest that it is added to the issues that the inspector has to consider. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My name is down to support Amendment No. 32. If I had been better organised, it would also have been down to support Amendment No. 11.
I support very strongly the thrust of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It is absolutely crystal clear that if inspections of only one and two days are to work, the schools themselves must have the right kind of self-evaluation procedures, and a large pan. of the inspector's job is to check that those procedures are actually working. I emphasise the words "actually working" because my own experience, not only in my inspectorate days but also in my many years of chairing the Charter Mark Judges' Panel (where very similar kinds of procedures were necessary), is that such self-evaluative procedures can look very impressive without producing any real results at all. It is all too easy, as I have seen in schools and colleges time and again, to generate vast amounts of paper—huge self-evaluation sheets for different departments, individual teachers and even pupils in positions of responsibility, such as prefects, and so on—all of which finally come together in one vast heap on someone's shelf to collect dust without anything else ever being done.
If the inspectors are to check that the procedure is actually working, it is desperately important that they should look for schools that are genuinely self-reflecting, reflecting on their own practices and listening to their clients, whether they be students, parents or local businesses with whom they are working, and making adjustments to their performance and to the way in which they carry out the processes in the light of those matters. At the end of the day there has to be a real output other than piles of self-evaluation forms. I therefore approve absolutely of the wording of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, in which she refers to,
"the degree to which schools are developing rigorous internal procedures".

221
Those procedures have to result in action, and I support very strongly what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I want very briefly to support this amendment, for two reasons. The first is that the philosophy of the inspection system that this Bill encapsulates requires a confidence in the capacity of schools to evaluate themselves. The system will not work unless that is present.
Secondly, the beginning of Clause 2(1) says:
"The Chief Inspector has the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about",
certain school functions.
The Secretary of State needs to know that self-evaluation is working; otherwise, he will have to change the inspection system.
Lord Lucas: It is not difficult for an inspector on a short visit to ascertain whether it is working. If it is going well, everyone will be bubbling about it because it will produce the kind of results that teachers and pupils really appreciate. I can remember that the first time I came across this kind of measure working extremely well was in Greenhead College, Huddersfield, which had a very inspiring principal, now sadly retired. The English department spent hours telling me about the system of numbers that it was using to evaluate the performance of teachers. You do not expect that kind of thing, but because it worked well and because it supported the teachers, a teacher would know if he was doing wrong and could call on the support of his colleagues. They would gather together with him, sort out the problem and he would receive the extra training required to bring him up to scratch. They felt it was enormously supportive.
The pupils knew that they were getting the absolute best from their teachers. You could spot a child going wrong very quickly, you could spot a teacher who was off-beam very quickly, and everything was done to support the child and support the teacher and the whole college was absolutely delighted about it.
Teachers mostly go into teaching for the joy of seeing children succeed. When one of these systems is working well, you can see it and be confident about it. It is not simply a question of waiting for the A-level results and then feeling rather sad about 15 or so pupils who have not done as well as you thought; you can see halfway through a term whether they are going wrong. You catch them, you pick them up, and come the A-levels they are where you want them to be.
It is so fulfilling when these systems are working that you cannot go into a school without knowing that it is happening. It is terribly easy, too, to see when it is not happening. You simply ask the head what systems they have in place for evaluating teachers and what systems they have in place for training. If there is not real enthusiasm there, if there are not the stories of success and the new ideas that have been brought in pouring out of a head teacher, then he is not doing it right.
222
Often, even in some of the old and great schools, it is not being done at all. There is a feeling that you do not need to know these thingsx2014;that a good teacher is a good teacher, that people go their own way, that the results produce themselves at the end of the day, that it is rather demeaning to be watched by colleagues and that the idea of being judged by colleagues can be difficult for experienced teachers. There are all kinds of reasons why the system jams up, but when it works well it enthuses the whole school.
It is not something that will be difficult to put into a short inspection, but it is absolutely crucial, as other noble Lords have said, to whether the system will work.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Before he replies, perhaps the Minister will deal with the criticism that has come to us from the General Teaching Council for England. It states that it approves of the Government's new relationship with schools—the NRWS—and welcomes the way in which the role of school self-evaluation is upgraded by that model. In particular, the council commends the reference in the original Ofsted consultation document, Ofsted: The Future of Inspection, to the need for inspection to complement schools' development of planning and self-evaluation and to Ofsted's wish,
"explicitly to share the responsibility for improving all educational settings in a way we have not done up to now".
Those statements undoubtedly represent a significant policy shift, if carried through, as Ofsted has often been criticised by schools for not supporting them sufficiently in addressing the improvements that inspection has identified as necessary. That is the GTC's criticism and the Minister would be well advised at least to comment on it, if not to reply to it.
Lord Filkin: Although I agree with much of what has been said, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary—as the Committee would almost expect me to say. It has, however, been an important debate because, as we have said a number of times, the self-evaluation process is in a sense central to the Bill. One of the questions that I asked in preparation was how we can ensure that self-evaluation is done well.
It starts, of course, from the principle that self-evaluation is not a burden. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated, it should be a fundamental part of a school's processes, almost irrespective of whether this Bill had been invented. That is what good leadership is about. You are clear about what you are trying to achieve and you have rigorous and, you hope, not too bureaucratic processes for challenging yourself and seeing where you need to improve.
Therefore, the thrust of the Bill, through aligning inspection with what ought to be good management and leadership practice, is an attempt to have a virtuous circle rather than the imposition of another burden. The self-evaluation ought to be done every year. It is not something that is done when the inspector cometh, but it is part of good management and leadership.

223
Self-evaluation is central not only to the inspection process but is an important part of the wider policy for a new relationship with schools. Both self-evaluation and outside evaluation are vital to that new relationship. Our interest is in promoting quality outcomes, not policing in detail every activity that might contribute to how they are achieved.
Clearly, schools are at different stages of development, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, indicated, in terms of the effectiveness and quality of self-evaluation. We are currently developing guidance jointly with Ofsted to include some good practice examples and guidance on completing the self-evaluation form, which is part of the inspection process. The guidance will be strategic rather than prescriptive, in line with the ethos of the new relationship with the school. It will not be a matter of, "Here is the form that you have to fill in.". That does not mean to say that there will be no check on the effectiveness of the self-evaluation.
The strict answer to the probing amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, and the reason why it is not necessary, is that the assessment of the school's self-evaluation will take place partly through the inspection itself, which will test the school's judgment made through self-evaluation against the evidence that inspectors have gathered—either as part of other processes or as part of what the school offers.
We shall come to this issue later, but there is an important message. If one thinks of schools that are at the lowest level of performance, as will be recognised from the different structure of categorisation, the school that is clearly not performing well, but which owns up to it and accepts it—in other words, it has an honest and realistic self-evaluation of where it sits and the commitment to do something about it—could find that it is in a different category from a school that is in denial. That is fundamental to motivating the right sort of behaviour that the system is trying to stimulate.
It is not just an external inspection through the Ofsted process but a conversation with the school improvement partner. Part of the SIP's function is to challenge the processes used by the school in carrying out self-evaluation and the outcomes that result. The SIP can pose questions, suggest sources of evidence and challenge interpretations of the evidence that the school itself has not seen, but which someone external with a wider perspective of what is possible and what is happening can see. That is what good external challenge is about. The SIP can advise managers on identifying improvement priorities and read the summary provided on the self-evaluation form critically, checking that it is based on evidence, not assertion, and that it identifies significant issues.
We have all seen the process that produces glossy documents, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, which are modestly self-congratulatory. Much more impressive are the people who have achieved, but who are critical about how to go further. That is what impresses the experienced inspector and external stimulus.
Lord Hanningfield: I hesitate to speak from personal experience of a local authority, but in Essex we have
224
110 secondary schools, 50 of which are already carrying out self-evaluation. They are at different levels, so perhaps 25 can skip through the process; and 25 may need real help because of where they are and the problems that they have. Help cannot happen overnight, so will the Minister say how that process can be started? It is no use Ofsted going in. It will say that the school is not doing it properly now, so someone must help it start the process. I am sure that it is common throughout the country that 75 per cent are probably able and moving towards their goal, while 25 per cent of schools need initial help in the process. Will the Minister comment on that?
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, is right. That is a description of reality. From the centre, we are seeking to avoid thinking that the way to do this is to develop a thick manual and a set of forms. In essence, this has to be the stimulus for more creativity, rather than people thinking that they are going through a compliance process. The more specific answer to his question is that—apart from the high-level guidance that we are going to give, and I shall speak a bit more about the evidence of that in a few minutes—this is where the school improvement partners will have a particular function. They will be identifying those schools almost from the authority's own knowledge. Good local authorities know where schools are not performing well or do not have the capacity to self-evaluate well, as the noble Lord's local authority does, and they will focus their attention there and support those schools at the earlier stages of the process. It is crucial and the SIPs will do that.
We have taken a conscious decision not to have a model of self-evaluation for schools and not to tell them how to do it. They are free to use any model that gives them the best insights into their improvement priorities. The guidance suggests key questions or acid tests that the school ought to pose to itself as part of the process. I shall touch on one or two of those very briefly.
One acid test of the effectiveness of self-evaluation is whether the school's evaluation is based on a good range of telling evidence. Clearly, after a while, a school improvement partner or Ofsted will know the range of evidence that one would expect the school to be looking at and the comparators with which it was comparing itself in terms of its achievements.
A second test is whether the self-evaluation identifies the most important questions about how well a school services learners. The question of what is most important is crucial. A self-evaluation process that describes 700 things is useless. A process must identify the things that are most critical to achieve and where the improvement is most critical. Unless there is focus, one can do nothing.
The next question is how the school compares with the best comparable schools. That is about ambition. Another question is whether the self-evaluation planning involves key people in the school and seeks the views of key groups such as parents, learners and others; in other

225
words, the process points on which they communicate. The last acid test is whether the self-evaluation process is integral to the key management systems. That relates to the points we talked about earlier. In other words, is the self-evaluation process the core business, rather than something that has been stuck on? It ought to be the core business of management. That is an outline of some of the key guidance developed in discussion with some of the leadership figures on the issue, and we think that it will help.
Inspection will be based on the self-evaluation form which schools will be expected to update at least once a year. The inspector will compare the outcomes of the school's own self-evaluation with the outcomes of the inspection. How successful the school has been at identifying its own strengths and weaknesses will be an important test in the inspection and will be reflected in the reports. That is the direct answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. This is an important distinction. The inspection will test the outcomes of self-evaluation but not the processes that the school has been through to identify them.
Finally, we envisage that Ofsted will be able to assess processes involving self-evaluation through future thematic surveys that give a wider view of the quality of self-evaluation taking place in the school. In other words, that is a clear signal that there has to be a thematic study at some point in order to research the developed experience and reflect upon what more needs to be done to take it further.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the more specific points. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked about the GTC briefing. Self-evaluation is part of the improvement but we must keep clear boundaries in inspection. I am also advised that we do not think that we received a copy of the GTC briefing. We are therefore slightly handicapped in our answer on that. We shall do better in the follow up.
We have already said that the new self-evaluation is designed to be integral to the school's planning and improvement cycle. So, I do not think that I can add more on that.
I have gone on at length, but I think that this is an essential debate in terms of the architecture of the Bill. I hope that I have gone some way towards making the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, feel that the processes will answer questions while the legislation does not need to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is not too satisfied. I found the Minister's answer limited. I do not think he appreciates the position that we believe this aspect of inspection should have in terms of being brought to the Minister's attention. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel inclined to pursue the matter at a later stage. It is up to her; I shall not try to gazump her on it.
226
I was reminded that my noble friend Lord Hanningfield carries the good name of my family in his hands and that all he can do to improve the performance of the Sir Charles Lucas School will be much appreciated.
Lord Hanningfield: For noble Lords' benefit, we have a Sir Charles Lucas School in Colchester which is named after my noble friend's family.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not fully satisfied. The more the Minister identified the detailed guidance which has to be given the more I considered how useful it would be to have a small general clause. The Government will clearly be issuing guidance to schools. The issue will absorb resources. Training will be needed with regard to leadership and teaching staff. It will take time and effort to develop these self-evaluation procedures. Schools need the resources to develop them and a learning curve of how to do so.
Knowing that it is one of the issues the inspectors will be considering will be a stimulus. They will be looking at how far their self-evaluation procedures produce the same answers as those of the inspectors. It is an important part. Nevertheless, they have to have those self-evaluation procedures in hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, may be interested to know why I tabled the amendment. Having gone through the GTC briefing for the Second Reading, I thought that this was a good point that we should raise and we tabled the amendment.
I hear what the Minister says about school improvement partners. However, school improvement partners seems a fashionable idea that will come and go. We have had quite a lot of such ideas through the ages. I would not mind betting that ten years down the line there will not be school improvement partners. Nevertheless, if we put a provision into legislation now it will be there 10 years down the line.
Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I have some difficulty with her amendment. I said in short that the process of appraisal by Ofsted would explicitly make a judgment, as part of that process, on whether the school was developing rigorous internal processes of self-evaluation. That is what I stated at length. That is the truth in short of what the process will do. Therefore I am at a loss to understand why putting a provision into legislation will make any difference.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: It is not so dissimilar from saying,
"the quality of the leadership in and management of those schools, including whether the financial resources made available to those schools are managed efficiently".
"Are they developing rigorous internal self-evaluation procedures?" relates to much the same issue. If we put the one into the legislation I do not see why we should not put in the other.

227
I shall withdraw the amendment. However, it is an issue to which we shall return.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Morris of Boltonmoved Amendment
No. 12:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert ", and
( ) the behaviour of pupils and levels of discipline in those schools"
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 12 and 31 relating to England and Amendments Nos. 79 and 83 relating to Wales would introduce a new category to the inspection regime that the chief inspector would report upon and would be expected to keep the Secretary of State informed about; namely, the behaviour of pupils and levels of discipline in each school.
The rationale behind the amendments is evident and relatively straightforward. In recent years we have seen a very real and genuine concern about the growing levels of indiscipline and classroom violence in our schools. Such behaviour is simply unacceptable. Pupils have the right to expect to be taught in an environment free from intimidation and fear while our hard-working teachers deserve the right to get on with their crucial jobs without a similar threat. Indeed, it is one of the key worries consistently identified by teachers, and one of the main reasons—alongside red tape—why they leave the profession.
The Times Educational Supplement reported last year that there were over 17,000 expulsions in just one term in 2003. That figure, which might not even reveal the true extent of the problem, is both shocking and disturbing. Furthermore, we know that school standards and behaviour in the classroom are closely linked. Children learn best in a safe, secure and structured environment. They cannot learn in classrooms where loutish behaviour and disrespect for others is the norm.
Establishing such a category would make it possible for parents to identify which of their local schools had concerns relating to problems of discipline. It would additionally allow the relevant education authorities to identify those schools particularly affected and target resources accordingly. At present, there is no category within the inspection regime that deals specifically with concerns over school discipline. As concerns and problems evolve, so must the inspection regime.
The vast majority of parents would support the amendments, and I hope that the Minister will lend his weight to them. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My name is down in support of Amendment No. 32 and I support Amendment No. 12 as well.
It seems to me that there is a double layer with regard to what we mean by discipline in schools. It concerns what happens in the general areas of the school—the corridors, the playground, the cloakrooms—and what happens inside the classrooms. Although one issue very much overlaps with the other and affects it, they are different as far as inspection is concerned.
228
The general areas of the school, where people of all age groups and very often both genders mix and mingle, reflect the school's level of expectation towards pupils' behaviour. It is perfectly true that in recent years there has been a degeneration of behaviour in the parts of the school outside the classroom which has begun increasingly to affect what is able to happen in terms of teaching and learning inside the classroom. That is very largely a failure of the expectations at school management level, and it knocks on to the inspection requirements.
I have seen many schools in very deprived and difficult areas whose neighbours have huge discipline problems which nevertheless have well behaved, well ordered children who are simply meeting the expectations implicit in the way that the school is run. They are treated with respect and they are expected to treat each other and their teachers with equal respect.
I do not think that discipline has anything to do with the old-fashioned cane, nor with the use of sarcasm or punitive measures. It has much more to do with the level of expectation of the way in which people behave towards each other.
Inside the classroom there are different issues. The reason that discipline breaks down in some classrooms and very little learning takes place—because if children are not disciplined, quiet or engaged, not much learning will take place—has much more to do with the quality of the teaching. I have seen schools in which the behaviour outside the classroom was pretty bad—although, as I said, it knocks on eventually into the clasrooms—but where individual teachers still had perfectly "well disciplined" children and well ordered learning. That was because their teaching was interesting and exciting; it engaged pupils and made them want to learn. Consequently, they were not bored and finding other things to do besides pay attention, if I can put it in old-fashioned terms.
I believe that we are losing sight of what discipline is about, either because we are frightened of the word because it sounds like "bring back the cane" or something like that—I hope it is apparent that I am not saying so—or because we are losing the central core of what disciplined learning is about, which is the quality of the teaching. If it is exciting and engages the young people; if it makes them want to continue learning so that they do not even notice that they are behaving well because they are concentrating on what they are doing, then that is the ideal to which good teaching strives. Thank goodness there are thousands of classrooms in this country where that kind of teaching and learning still goes on. I strongly support this as an element in the package of inspection.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: Many good reasons have already been given for this amendment. Perhaps I may underline one which has been alluded to. In the matter of parental choice, which the Government properly hold dear, one of the key criteria operated by most parents is the quality of discipline in the school for all the reasons that we have just heard. I reckon that it rates virtually as highly as academic: standards

229
when parents sit down wondering where there children will go. I believe that that is an important reason for supporting this amendment.
Lord Dearing: I am glad that this issue has arisen in the debate. I referred to the great importance of behaviour at Second Reading. I thought about tabling amendments because it is such an important issue. I did not do so for two reasons. The first is that I was satisfied that the Government are taking it seriously in spending £470 million over the past three years, as I recall the figure. Secondly, I went through the Ofsted reports to see if it was taking this seriously. I noticed that there have been three special reports on behaviour in schools since 1999. I went through the last general Ofsted report for the latest year and saw that there were specific paragraphs on behaviour in primary and secondary schools. I thought that people are caring about the issue, looking at it and reporting on it.
Having said that, and having decided not to table amendments, despite the findings of Ofsted, I am not satisfied that there is not a problem. If I recall Ofsted's findings, it said that in almost all primary schools there is not a problem. I believe it said that in nine out of 10 schools it was good. As regards secondary schools, it found that behaviour was satisfactory and that in approaching three-quarters it was good.
However, I recall from the Government's recent five-year strategy that they themselves say that there is low-level disruption in all schools. It states at page 62 that,
"low-level disruption is a problem affecting all schools to some extent".
The five-year strategy also stated on the same page that,
"good behaviour is essential to good learning".
But if Ofsted is saying that it is only good in approaching three-quarters of the secondary schools, there is a big problem. The problem of violence is known. I also saw the quote from the TES of 17,000 pupils being suspended. I was so shocked that I could not believe it, but I am now reassured that it must be true for the noble Baroness to quote it.
In the Commons debate reference was made to an article in the Guardian which stated that 31 per cent of teachers leaving the profession quoted behaviour as the reason. I am clear that the Government are taking the matter seriously and that Ofsted is looking into it, but I have a sneaking little worry that the standards that Ofsted regards as satisfactory, or good, may not be sufficiently demanding for the good of education in our children's schools.
I leave the Minister with a question. In judging what is good in behaviour, to what extent has Ofsted looked at what is considered good in other countries?
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support this amendment. Whether it needs to be included on the face of the Bill is neither here nor there. But the issue we are all addressing is vitally important. If we know, according to Ofsted, that 90 per cent of schools have
230
satisfactory standards of behaviour, how many are represented by the 10 per cent which is not covered? How appalling is the likely effect of that on their career prospects as they develop into full adult life?
I regard this matter from the point of view of what the Government are trying to achieve—and I think they are trying to achieve a school where there is the kind of respect for one another that delivers what we are talking about. But can the Minister tell us where in this group of subsections that area is covered, because I honestly cannot see it? It is one reason why something more specific should be included. There is little doubt that matters such as violence and bullying can completely take over the ethos of a school. It is in those areas that we need to ensure that any inspection will take a very firm view in reporting on the changes that need to take place.
9 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I support this important group of amendments. My name is attached to Amendments Nos. 79 and 83, which apply the same principle and requirement to the chief inspector in Wales, namely that he should have this function. There is no doubt about the importance of the behaviour of pupils and levels of discipline in schools, for the two reasons that have already been advanced; namely, the importance of these two elements for the learning process itself, as my noble friend Lady Perry said, because if there is discipline and good behaviour, that contributes naturally to an enjoyable learning process. Secondly, I support the amendments because those elements are all-important to parents. I am sure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, indicated, they are among the first requirements with which parents are concerned.
It is important that the inspectorate has broad investigative powers, particularly the function relating to behaviour and discipline, because the inspectorate alone has powers in the educational field. I was looking recently at the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill which will shortly enter Committee in this House. It was an enjoyable Christmas Recess experience, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate. Powerful as that ombudsman will be in Wales, covering almost the entire span of public services, he is nevertheless debarred—at length, I might say—from examining much of the education field. Among the matters excluded from his investigative remit are:
"Action relating to—(a) the giving of instruction, or (b) conduct, curriculum, internal organisation, management or discipline, in a school or other educational establishment maintained by a local authority in Wales".
There is a further subsection which looks too complex to examine at this stage. But that gives the Committee an idea of the scope of exclusion. Therefore, if the Public Services Ombudsman in Wales cannot touch this sphere, surely it is all important that the inspectorate should be able to look into the issues of conduct—I draw particular attention to tha—the curriculum, internal organisation, management and discipline. Two of the elements referred to in this

231
amendment are actually and specifically excluded from the remit of the Public Services Ombudsman. I think that that is a very telling point in favour of ensuring that the inspectorate in Wales, as in England, has a responsibility in this area.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: At this late hour, and given that the Minister is anxious to proceed more smartly in this debate than we have thus far, I do not want to say very much but I wish to make two points.
First, the inspectorate already looks at discipline within schools. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, being a governor of a school that has just gone through the inspection process, I can tell the Committee that the inspectorate does indeed report on behaviour and discipline within a school. Given that that is already covered and that we know that inspectors have that remit, I, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, am uncertain. I feel that this is a very important issue; nevertheless, I am not convinced that we need to add this extra provision to the Bill.
Secondly, I want to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. It is important to get the two equations right. You can achieve satisfactory educational standards only if, at the same time, you get the behavioural equation right. You cannot teach a class if it is misbehaving. With regard to the concept of the two simultaneous equations, when I was a parent-governor at a large girls' comprehensive school in London, I used to emphasise that we needed to ensure that we got the simultaneous equation right if we were to achieve the required standards. It seems to me that these are the two issues that one has to look at, and they must be seen as simultaneous equations: you need to get both right if you are to achieve.
The Earl of Listowel: I want to make two points. First, I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, when she spoke about the key being to engage the interests of children. That tallies very much with my own limited experience several years ago working in a small primary school with two boys who were not engaging with their class. I was watching the class and worked with the two boys. I set them a task of having to write a certain amount against the clock. They had been wasting time but they got down to the job and enjoyed it. It was a competition and they were very focused. It seems to me that engaging children's interest is key.
It is to be hoped that part of the Bill's impact will be to free teachers more so that they can think about the needs of the children. It is hoped that they will have fewer worries about bureaucracy and inspections so that they can be more focused on what children need and in what children are interested.
Secondly, I want to mention, tentatively, the importance of communication between teachers and parents. Parents can provide a key for teachers in understanding why children are difficult in class and they may be able to give them ideas about how better to manage children's behaviour. Certainly it is very important to know about the background of children in care. More and more nowadays, teachers can call
232
upon a teaching assistant to work individually with a child. Some children need individual attention as they cannot work well in groups. I think that that also needs to be borne in mind.
Lord Lucas: I, too, think it is extremely important that this is a matter on which the inspectors specifically report. As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said, it is an issue on which parents focus. That is absolutely right. It is one of the key points of interest for parents because it is such a good diagnostic of other things that are going on in the school. It is a diagnostic of how good the SEN provision is. If it is falling apart, there will be bad behaviour. It is diagnostic of how good the pastoral care is. As my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark said, it is a diagnostic of how good the teaching is. Above all, it is a diagnostic of the sort of life that your child is likely to lead at the school.
At the same time, it is terribly hard to establish the level of discipline in a school. When an inspector comes in, everything is perfect. It is the natural reaction of pupils as well as teachers to be on good behaviour when there is an inspector around, whatever things are like on other days. It is one of the reasons—I imagine that we will come back to this with other amendments—why it is important for inspectors to talk to pupils and parents, not just through stilted interviews but by giving them time to talk on their own terms and taking time to listen to them. That is how you get a feeling for what is going on and start to pick up the histories and feelings that are indicative of the problems in behaviour and discipline in a school.
The other thing that the inspectors must get right is understanding that discipline comes in all forms. The inspectors had a problem with Summerhill a few years back. I think that they have now learnt that you can have something close to anarchy that is, none the less, disciplined. Schools come in all styles and sizes, and it is important to understand whether, in the context of the spirit of the school, the school is disciplined, rather than expecting some sort of model with everyone sitting at desks in a regimented way, as happens with pupils at lots of schools—usually under threat of expulsion. Good discipline means an environment in which pupils are happy and can fulfil themselves and learn well.
Lord Filkin: We have had an important debate on a crucial issue. At the North of England conference on 6 January, my new Secretary of State made discipline and behaviour in schools one of the central elements of what was effectively her maiden speech. She said that universal high standards required universal good behaviour in our schools. She went on to talk about the contract between the parents and the schools and what it implied and about how badly behaved pupils damaged their own education and that of their classmates. So, we know how crucial the matter is and how crucial it is to find ways of making things better in schools where they are not good enough.
We agree that the inspection should report on behaviour and discipline in schools. The framework for the inspection of schools that is being developed to

233
support the new arrangements will capture the position on pupil behaviour and discipline in all schools. We are already committed to ensuring that behaviour and discipline will be covered fully by school inspection.
The inspection of behaviour already plays an important part in Ofsted's remit, as it is possible through the current statutory purposes. It will be strengthened through our proposed extension of the remit of the chief inspector in reporting on the school's contribution to the well-being of pupils. The inclusion of a reference to well-being in the purposes of inspection will, therefore, serve the intention of placing behaviour and discipline firmly within the inspection remit.
Under the current inspection framework, the inspector must report on attitudes and behaviour, including attendance at school; the extent to which pupils show interest in school life; the extent to which pupils behave well in lessons and around the school; the extent to which pupils are willing to take responsibility; the extent to which pupils are free from bullying, racism and other forms of harassment; and the extent to which pupils form constructive relationships with others. There is a clear, prescriptive template for evaluation. Similarly, the new inspection framework will require specific, explicit judgments about behaviour on each school that is inspected.
We recognise the importance of such matters. The Government's Behaviour and Attendance programme includes action and support—some specifically targeted—aimed at helping schools, LEAs and parents. Ofsted will support that programme through ongoing thematic studies and advice on best practice.
I have already spoken about the inclusion of the reference to well-being and how it strengthens the chief inspector's remit. Behaviour and attendance are fundamental to the raising of school standards and attainment and cannot be seen in isolation. We are committed to giving every child the opportunity to achieve his or her goals. By inspecting behaviour and discipline as part of a school's overall contribution to well-being, Ofsted helps every school to identify its strengths and areas for improvement.
9.15 p.m.
The amendments tabled for Wales by the noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Roberts of Conwy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton—that is, Amendments Nos. 79 and 83—would, under Clause 19, introduce a duty on the chief inspector to inform the Assembly about the behaviour of pupils and levels of discipline and a duty on an inspector conducting an inspection under Clause 27 to report on the behaviour of pupils and levels of discipline at a school.
The Assembly recognises the difficulties faced by head teachers and other staff when dealing with disruptive pupils and is firmly committed to promoting discipline and order in schools. All children should have the chance to study free from disruption and teachers need the tools to help them to minimise it when it occurs. LEAs must
234
have in place behaviour support plans that should give details of training, consultation, guidance and other services available to schools to help them effectively manage pupil behaviour. All must have effective, clear behaviour policies.
For those reasons, under Clause 19, dealing with the functions of chief inspectors, a chief inspector is required to inform the Assembly about the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. To reflect and to discharge that duty the new common inspection framework introduced in Wales from September 2004 makes explicit reference to behaviour and discipline. Under the new framework, inspectors will be required in every instance to assess how a school contributes to the development by pupils of personal, social and learning skills. That will include judgments on the extent to which pupils behave responsibly and show respect for others, achieve high levels of attendance and punctuality, show motivation, and work productively and make effective use of time.
There is no difference between us on the importance of those points and the importance of making improvement. I hope that I have been able to illustrate how Ofsted, now and in the future, will have very clear and explicit duties to inspect on behaviour and discipline in schools and to report on them, which has clearly been the thrust of the debate.
Recognising that all that will happen, a number of noble Lords asked how we can make the system work even better. It is not a simple matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is right: in part, it is a function of good teaching. There is a relationship.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, is right that that is a dimension that interests parents passionately. Common sense tells them that an orderly school is one in which a child is more likely to learn and one that will provide a more comfortable environment—rather than a semi-anarchic one—in which a child can live.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, signalled the extent of what we are doing, but I shall not weary the House with that now. He also asked questions about how we can ensure that Ofsted's standards are sufficiently high. I do not mean that as a rude remark about Ofsted, but it is a good question. How do we ensure that our ambitions are high enough by comparison with those of other countries?
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, touched on the fact that regardless of the length or shortness of an inspection, it is not a simple matter to get a fix on exactly what is happening on discipline in a school. He is also right to say that there is a linkage with SEN performance. If a school is performing poorly on SEN, that will lead fairly rapidly to behavioural problems, and not solely in primary schools.
I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on the fact that that issue is vital. Regardless of whether such provision is put in the Bill—and clearly we do not believe that its inclusion would make an improvement—the issue of how to improve is still before us. I shall not signal that I expect to return with a magic answer, but the quality of the debate requires us all to reflect further on

235
what can be done to make the objectives we share work more powerfully through this part of the process. It is a central part.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that the new Welsh ombudsman will be able to investigate complaints relating to Estyn in the future. Therefore, movement is taking place there. He also asked what the Assembly is doing about pupil attendance and discipline. Rather than go into detail now, as that will take more time, perhaps I can write to him with an answer and copy it to other Members. I hope that that has been helpful.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his very helpful comments. Quite clearly we share the same desires on discipline in schools. I shall read what he has said with interest, but I shall probably return to the matter. When two former chief inspectors would like to see the provision on the face of the Bill I think that we should take the matter seriously. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 34, after "teachers" insert "and other staff involved in providing support for teaching and learning"
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 14 and speak to Amendment No. 15, which is grouped with it. Both refer to subsection (5), which deals with other functions that could be given to the chief inspector, including responsibility for training.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to probe whether Ofsted will now have a role in inspecting the quality of training and professional development for the school workforce other than just for teachers. The issue is important, given the extended remit of the Teacher Training Agency under Part 3 and the additional training responsibilities under Clause 92.
The inclusion in the new school inspection framework of the requirement for inspectors to evaluate the commitment of the school's leadership to induction and continuing professional development is very welcome. But currently that appears to be just about teachers. Will there be any evaluation of how schools and local authorities are managing in relation to providing genuine professional development opportunities for all members of school staff and not just teachers? How will the extended remit of the Teacher Training Agency be reflected in the inspections of higher education institutes and further education colleges?
I think that we would all agree that the effective development of staff through induction and professional development must be inspected. However, that must have due regard for the practical constraints facing schools, in particular due to lack of funding following the removal of dedicated funding for induction through the Standards Fund and the discontinuation of funding for a number of national continuous professional development initiatives. We need to take those
236
constraints into account. Will inspectors record instances where staff are denied CPDs that they would have liked to undertake because the funding is not available?
Amendment No. 15 probes whether the chief inspector's role in training is in relation just to initial teacher training—that is. the training of teachers before they become teachers—or in relation to in-service training and professional development; in other words, teachers in schools. We have tabled the amendment to leave out the word "for" and insert "in" to probe whether that is the Government's intention. Clause 2(5) states:
"The Chief Inspector is to have such other functions … with respect to the training of teachers for such schools, as may be assigned to him by the Secretary of State".
That simply re-enacts existing legislation and relates to the inspection of initial teacher training. It is vital for the quality of ITT provision to be assessed in schools and colleges, but there is the important question why there appears to be no explicit role for the chief inspector in relation to teachers' continuous professional development because of the word "for" rather than the word "is" that we might have expected. So the amendment seeks to raise this question by putting in the word "in" instead.
I hope the Minister can clarify both those points for us. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: Amendment No. 14 proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, raises an important point. Increasingly the education that children receive is not only a product of the work of teachers, although they are key players, but of a whole team of teachers and other types of specialist staff. This has been a revolution in recent years, which we believe is going well. It is already recognised in Ofsted's normal school inspection regime as one of the factors that influences the standards of teaching and learning in school.
The noble Baroness proposes that Ofsted should now be given a power not only to examine the work of support staff in schools, but also the training that they receive and for which Part 3 of the present Bill provides.
That would parallel exactly the powers that the chief inspector already has in respect of teachers. On the face of it, it seems a sensible suggestion. Although this will shock the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, with noble Lords' permission the Government would like to reflect further on it. I expect to be in a position to present the conclusions of that consideration on Report. It is almost a hit, but we should hold our breath until we actually get there.
The amendment would replace provision for the inspection of teacher training "for" schools with a provision for inspecting teacher training "in" schools. I am not certain that my remarks will necessarily connect directly with the points that the noble Baroness amplified, but I shall have a go.
Ofsted is responsible for inspecting the quality of all routes to qualified teacher status (QTS) in England and ensuring their compliance with the legal

237
requirement for initial teacher training and the award of QTS. It is partly on the basis of those inspections that the Teacher Training Agency takes funding and accreditation decisions in respect of this provision. Part 3 of the Bill envisages that it will be able to continue to do so.
I suspect that the effect of the amendment may not be what the noble Baroness envisages. By limiting the chief inspector's role to inspecting the training of teachers "in" schools rather than "for" schools, Ofsted would be prohibited from reporting on any parts of initial teacher training that take place in university education departments rather than in schools. The noble Baroness said clearly that that was not her intention, even though that would be the effect of the amendment.
To labour the point, Ofsted could continue to inspect employment-based training, such as the graduate teacher programme, and school-centred initial teacher training programmes, but it could not look at substantial parts of BEd and PGCE courses that take place on university premises. The noble Baroness's question was not about that; it related to the genuine development opportunities offered for members of the school workforce. I shall have to exercise a paucity of imagination and write to the noble Baroness, as I have not yet been enlightened on the matter.
Baroness Walmsley: This is a very welcome surprise with which to start the new Session. I thank the Minister for volunteering to consider further Amendment No. 14. I shall not push the matter any further. I do not wish to count my chickens before they have hatched. The response is very welcome.
I hope that the Minister will look again at my remarks on Amendment No. 15. Perhaps we can discuss it before Report. Although we would not want the inspection of work in universities to be made impossible, it is important that schools' leadership in ensuring that continuous professional development can take place in schools is also inspected. So far as I can see, the word "for" would not allow that. I should be most grateful if the Minister would consider the matter further. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.] Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Annual and other reports to Secretary of State]:
Baroness Morris of Boltonmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 41, after "it" insert "for affirmative resolution"
The noble Baroness said: I warmly welcome the fact that at half-past nine we have reached Clause 3. This is a simple, straightforward amendment; it builds on Amendment No. 5. Its intent is to ensure that the annual report of the chief inspector is laid before the
238
House for affirmative resolution. We believe that it would give Parliament a vital, clear opportunity to discuss the work of the chief inspector and Ofsted annually.
Given the ever-increasing role that Ofsted plays in our education system—for example, its recent move into early years and nursery provision—it is important that Parliament has a chance to discuss its work, how effectively it is performing, its functions and how much value it adds to our education system. This is a simple step designed to improve parliamentary accountability, openness and transparency. I hope that it will be supported from all corners of the Committee. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: Clause 3 re-enacts the current requirement that the chief inspector must make an annual report to the Secretary of State, who must in turn lay that report before Parliament. The purpose of this provision is to ensure the accountability of the chief inspector to Parliament. We touched on this earlier in our discussions.
The requirement to lay annual reports before each House of Parliament ensures appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and the annual report sets out the professional judgements of the chief inspector informed by the evidence of inspection on the health of education and care provision within his remit. However, the affirmative resolution procedure provides that Parliament must expressly approve what is before it. It is a procedure used to approve delegated legislation such as certain regulations or orders.
The implication of tabling an amendment which includes the term "affirmative resolution" is to imply that the report should not stand if Members of the House do not like what it has to say. The implication of that is that the independence of the chief inspector's judgment is subject to whether Parliament approves what the chief inspector says. I am certain that that is not the intent of the amendment but its implication would be in danger of weakening the chief inspector's independence.
If the intention of the amendment is to seek assurance that there is a proper parliamentary scrutiny of the issues raised in the chief inspector's annual report—amen to that. I can categorically offer that assurance.
One of the most well-established routes for this is through the Education and Skills Select Committee, which holds an annual session on the chief inspector's annual report. The chief inspector and his senior management team are called to give evidence and account for the report and its contents. In recent years there has also been a regular parliamentary debate on such matters relating to the end report and the work of Ofsted, including at or soon after the laying of the report. In addition, there is also ministerial accountability to Parliament for the operation of Ofsted. It is right that Parliament has the opportunity to discuss issues raised by the annual report and other matters relating to the quality of education. The current arrangements provide for that. They are within the control of Parliament—they are not in the control of the Executive or the Government in any respect whatever.

239
It is up to Members of this House and another place how they seek to engage with the inspector in the future. I hope that the noble Baroness is reassured that the crucial accountability of the chief inspector to Parliament without that independence being compromised will be there strongly in the future, in a form that will be decided by Parliament, not by Ministers from this Dispatch Box.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for his reply. We so enjoy our debates on Ofsted that it might be nice to make them an annual event. I will reflect on what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.: Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 41. at end insert—
"( ) must make an annual report, concerning the results of studies funded under section (Evaluation of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools for England ), to the Secretary of State who must lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament,"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 18 I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 50.
Just as schools will benefit from evaluation by Ofsted, so would Ofsted benefit from outside evaluation. No group of people—however wonderful and worthy—can do everything on their own. It is always helpful to have some outside view of what is going on, some new influx of fresh ideas, some critical thinking—which is a difficult thing to produce from within an organisation—some way of challenging what is going on to enable an institution to improve itself and move forward. Ofsted is becoming such a crucial part of our education structure that we really ought to have that in place for it.
What I have suggested here is a structure where the research into Ofsted's methods and into the results it is producing would be commissioned independently of Ofsted and the DfES and not wedded to any particular research council. It would be carried out by researchers who are in turn subject to their own evaluation and monitoring procedures as part of the higher educational research establishment, so that the monitoring of the monitors is already catered for.
Their results would be reported back to us through the medium of Ofsted, so that it did not appear as something which was criticism out of the blue to be confronted and rebutted by Ofsted, but as part of Ofsted's own self-evaluation. Doubtless it would disagree with some of the criticisms, but others it would take on board. Overall it would be seen as a constructive process. Whatever structure we adopt, it is essential that it should be done. We will all be better off, in particular Ofsted, if we do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to speak briefly in support of these two amendments. It is important for us to be concerned with Quis custodiat custodies here. We have in Ofsted what is now a very powerful agency which at the moment is not subject to any regular evaluation procedures, although reviews are
240
carried out from time to time. It would be quite helpful if such a procedure were written into its remit and therefore I strongly support the amendments.
Lord Filkin: I agree with the central thrust of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, without—as he indicated—necessarily agreeing with the detail. Ofsted has to evaluate its work, and it is one of the Government's principles of inspection, published in July 2003 by the Office of Public Service Reform, against which Ofsted and other inspectorates are judged.
It may be helpful to differentiate between the evaluation of two distinct elements. The first involves the evaluation of the impact of Ofsted and its work, while the second relates to the evaluation of the processes involved in inspection. In part, obviously, it is the efficiency between the two that is relevant. The processes should lead to the most effective impact in the most economical way.
The first element might lead to questions about the extent to which Ofsted inspections have contributed to school improvement or accountability, while the second would lead to questions about methods and criteria for reaching judgments, and whether they are accurate and sound.
With regard to the first element—evaluating the impact of inspection—Ofsted has undertaken a comprehensive self-evaluation of its work, seeking independent validation of this through the Institute of Education. The results of that work were made public in a report published in July 2004. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to other noble Lords on the Front Benches with the appropriate reference. The study draws on extensive survey evidence from service providers and stakeholders, including parents. It analyses, for example, the impact of Ofsted on the improvement of schools and its impact on other sectors such as teacher training institutions and local authorities, as well as its impact on the improvement of inspection itself.
Turning to the second element, the evaluation of processes, Ofsted takes very seriously its responsibilities to ensure the quality of inspections and to keep its methodologies up to date. It has undertaken several international studies, particularly with the Dutch inspectorate, which have shown that the criteria and instruments of each inspectorate are capable of being used consistently by inspectors in both countries and of both nationalities. Ofsted meets regularly with inspectorates across Europe to compare methodologies and to learn from best practice elsewhere.
The methodology of the new inspection arrangements has been tried, evaluated and revised through the pilot phase. Each term, schools and LEAs have worked with inspectors to evaluate the approaches used and to recommend improvements. It is an active process that embraces the involvement of participants in the development of the model of inspection itself. Focus groups of parents and pupils have also been consulted on the approaches used to gather their views.

241
Further work is being planned to evaluate the new inspection arrangements as a whole. This will be completed in part through reviews conducted by the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit. It will also include all of the evaluations carried out throughout the pilot inspection. This is just the start of a move towards regular and systematic evaluation.
Ofsted also intends to commission an external evaluation of the project to implement the new arrangements proposed in this Bill, as well as theyshould—this meets the point about external evaluation. It will review the new inspection methodology and the impact of inspections on school effectiveness, which is the acid test. This will take account of the inspections carried out in the first year of the pilot, which demonstrates Ofsted's commitment to ongoing external evaluation of its work.
I agree that both the aspects of evaluation I have mentioned require proper scrutiny and frequent review. I hope that the examples I have given illustrate that Ofsted shares this commitment, which is underpinned by the Government's commitment to their principles of inspection published in 2003. You must have external processes for validating inspection procedures; they cannot be left in the hands of the inspectors themselves.
Lord Lucas: I am encouraged by what the noble Lord has said. Nonetheless, he has described a process of internal self-evaluation on the lines that Ofsted requires of schools, and quite right too. I am delighted that Ofsted is doing that as well as taking a critical look at itself by commissioning research into what it does and how well it does it. That is the ordinary process of a healthy organisation, but there also needs to be an element of critical, external—uncommissioned by Ofsted—evaluation. Commissioning an evaluation of yourself always tends to produce positive results, because people who operate in that kind of business want to be commissioned by other people. If you get a reputation for telling people in public that they are useless, you tend not to be commissioned by other people to do similar work.
It is rather like the old, independent schools inspection system before it became slightly sharper. Everything used to be wonderful, rosy and beautiful because they were all doing it to themselves and it was a boost to the whole system. We need to get away from that. There needs to be a clear level of external evaluation by Ofsted of what is going on.
I will read what the Minister has said together with the references. If I still want to raise any matter, I will come back to him on Report. However, I would like some help from him in respect of three matters. First, has Ofsted ever done a reconciliation of its evaluation of schools with the evaluations produced by the value added measures used by the Government, or indeed by the University of Durham? Secondly, can the Minister obtain for me the specification for the data that Ofsted collected under the old regime on each school and the data that it proposes to collect under the new regime? That would be immensely helpful in assisting me to get
242
a feeling for the data that will actually be in place to support judgments under both the new and old regimes. Given that—I am grateful for the nod of the head—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Morris of Boltonmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 1. leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 19 in respect of England and Amendment No. 80 in respect of Wales are designed to ensure that the chief inspector in each respective country does indeed publish either the annual report or any other report that he sends to the Secretary of State, or in the case of Wales to the Assembly.
As the Bill currently stands, there appears to be a degree of uncertainty around the word "may". That gives the impression that the relevant chief inspector can choose whether or not to publish the document— a situation that is open to possible misinterpretation.
These amendments would remove any element of doubt and would ensure that all documents are published and are available for public consumption, thus once again bringing greater transparency and openness to the work of the chief inspector. I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: Amendment No. 19 would require the chief inspector to publish annual and other reports that he makes to the Secretary of State. The amendment would remove the current discretion that the chief inspector has, and has had since the beginning, to decide whether to publish reports to the Secretary of State.
It is important to recognise that the chief inspector already publishes the vast majority of reports. However, to require him to publish in all cases risks making public information that is sensitive, including that which identifies individuals. We think that it is appropriate that the chief inspector should retain this discretion whether to publish the reports that he makes to the Secretary of State. It is important that, in exercising his functions, the chief inspector should be able to give the Secretary of State frank advice and report to him without having to publish all the reports that he makes.
In addition, it is important to emphasise that in Clauses 13 and 15 the Bill makes detailed provision forth distribution of reports of school inspections to ensure that the appropriate persons, and importantly parents, receive a copy of inspection reports. Furthermore, Clause 10 provides that the chief inspector may publish such inspection reports.
The current arrangements ensure that there is public access to a wide range of inspection evidence, including electronic information. Ofsted's is one of the most frequently visited websites, attracting 150 million hits per year. The current arrangements give the chief inspector suitable flexibility while ensuring that a wealth of information is made available to the public.

243
In Wales, Amendment No. 80 would have a similar effect on Clause 20, requiring the chief inspector to make an annual report to the Assembly and requiring the Assembly to publish such reports. It also provides powers for the chief inspector to make and publish other reports on any matter within her remit. It therefore seems that, as with Amendment No. 19, the amendment to Clause 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is to require the chief inspector to publish all reports made under the provisions of Clause 20.
The ability to inspect and report freely on any matter within the remit of the chief inspector is central to the drive to improve the quality of education and standards achieved by learners. The publication of reports ensures that findings are made widely available to both support school improvement and add to the evidence base that informs the development of policy.
It is right, therefore, that in principle inspection reports should be published and made widely available, and this is the case with respect to the vast majority, including school inspections and advice provided by the chief inspector to the Assembly. However, there are instances where it is the responsibility of others to publish reports made by the chief inspector. For example, it is the Assembly's statutory responsibility to publish the chief inspector's annual report, as required by the School Inspections Act.
While accepting the principle that inspection reports should be published, there has to be a degree of flexibility to acknowledge the responsibilities for publication that in some instances fall to others. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to require the chief inspector to publish all reports as proposed. However, the expectation is that the vast majority should be, except for the qualifications I have given. I hope that is helpful.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall reflect on what he said. I shall talk to people about this and may come back to it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Morris of Boltonmoved Amendment No.20:
Page 3, line 2, leave out "in such a manner as he considers appropriate" and insert "both electronically and by other means"
The noble Baroness said: As with the previous amendments, Amendment No. 20 in relation to England and Amendment No. 81 in relation to Wales would have a similar effect on either side of the border. They would remove the seemingly discretionary powers, yet again, of the respective chief inspector to publish—if, as we have seen in my previous set of amendments, he publishes the reports at all—in a fashion and manner of his choosing.
Instead, the intent of the amendments would be to compel the chief inspector to publish all documents sent either to the Secretary of State or the Assembly both electronically and in hard copy, once again aiding the process of transparency and openness.
244
Now that we live in the age of the Freedom of Information Act, such information that would be passed from chief inspector to Secretary of State is liable to be requested by any individual. Therefore, by opening up this process, not only are we saving the staff of the relevant departments a significant amount of time as the requests start to arrive but. most important of all, we are saving the taxpayer a considerable amount of money.
Furthermore, what could the chief inspector possibly have to hide that could not be displayed either on the Ofsted website or in hard copy in an Ofsted office? I beg to move.
Lord Filkin: I shall seek to be brief in replying to Amendments Nos. 20 and 81 respectively. The Bill states that the relevant chief inspector may arrange for the publication of annual and other reports in such a manner as they consider appropriate. The amendments would have the effect that such publications should be made available both by electronic and other means.
Clause 10(2) in relation to England and Clause 28(2) in relation to Wales also provide that the publication of annual and other reports to the Secretary of State may be by electronic means.
The current arrangements ensure that there is public access to a wide range of inspection evidence, including electronic information. Ofsted's website is one of the most frequently visited government websites, attracting some 150 million hits a year, as I have signalled. If the noble Baroness intends that hard copy should be provided on every occasion, this would significantly add to the cost to the taxpayer. It would be difficult to predict how many copies of each would be published, and publishing large numbers could lead to waste.
There is no evidence that the public wants the chief inspectors to make more reports available in hard copy. However, there is evidence that the website is working. It is a very effective vehicle and must continue to be promoted. The current arrangements give the chief inspector suitable flexibility while ensuring that a wealth of information is made available to the public.
Similar arguments apply to Wales. The system that has been used in Wales for some time has worked well. It provides a good use of resources and there would be little added value in removing the chief inspector's current discretion by requiring the publication of all reports both electronically and by other means.
It is important that both inspectors recognise that these are public reports; they are reports to which the public have a right of access. In many situations a website is clearly the best way. There will be times when, for a variety of reasons, the public will not have access unless there is a hard copy. That discretion must be used intelligently and flexibly, which goes to the heart of what the inspector is there for.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: I thank the noble Lord for his comments and accept what he says. We were concerned that although we tend to think that everyone has access to computers, not everyone does. We did not want anybody to be left out. I hear what he says about flexibility. We do not want it to be too prescriptive if it can be at the discretion of the chief inspector. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at nine minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  International Organisations Bill [H.L.]
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of two points of procedure. Noble Lords will speak standing. The House has agreed that there shall be Division in a Grand Committee. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
  If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
  Title postponed.
  Clause 1 [Commonwealth Secretariat]:
  Lord Craig of Radleymoved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble and gallant Lord said: Amendment No. 1 is a probing amendment, as I shall seek to explain. In 1995, Commonwealth member governments, including the UK, agreed that the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal (CSAT) would be the final adjudicator for any grievance against the Commonwealth Secretariat's management. However, in 2002, a former member of the Commonwealth Secretariat staff appealed against a CSAT judgment to the UK court.
  The UK court accepted jurisdiction, there being no legal basis for not doing so. Although the Commonwealth Secretariat, I understand, won that case on the substantive issue, this clause as drafted does not seem to close the door to further possible litigation in UK courts, following on from CSAT judgments both before and conceivably even after the arrangements in this Bill come into force.
  I assume that as a matter of principle HMG accept that international organisations should have sole recourse to their own arbitration mechanisms as agreed by the member states—always accepting that these are consistent with human rights law—and are not to be subject to the jurisdictions of national courts of member countries. I would welcome the Minister's assurance on that point.
  Against that background, I propose that Clause 1(3) be deleted, which as drafted fails to ensure that only CSAT judgments will be applied to any case that might still be in train or started before the Secretary of State by statutory instrument makes that clause operative. It would seem to be anomalous to attempt to close the door on appeal to UK courts while leaving open a loophole for such appeals to be made.
  GC 2
  I am not clear where the costs of such appeals would fall. Certainly, the Commonwealth Secretariat would initially have to find those costs, which could well mount up. But the other 52 Commonwealth governments, which recognise CSAT as the final court of appeal for Commonwealth Secretariat staff, presumably might expect HMG to shut this door fully and as quickly as possible.
  Anyway, it would be reasonable of them to expect that all the Commonwealth Secretariat's financial liability resulting from litigation in the UK courts before this loophole has been closed should be met by the UK itself.
  Am I right to assume that HMG accept that they would have to meet such costs? If so, it seems to me that it is in HMG's interest to avoid this potential difficulty or at least to consider as an alternative a rewording of the clause to restrict liability to any contract or situation where litigation has already been started before the Bill has become law and the commencement date approved. I invite the Government to reconsider their approach to this point. I beg to move.
  Baroness Rawlings: We do not support this amendment. I wonder whether the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is aware of any particular agreement that might pose a problem to the Commonwealth Secretariat, and that that is why he is suggesting such a change. This amendment, as we understand it, would provide indefinite carte blanche to members of an organisation who should have acted in a responsible and accountable way, in the knowledge of the limits of any immunities and privileges at the time. As such, I do not see why their behaviour should need the retrospective protection suggested by the amendment.
  Baroness Falkner of Margravine: We support the amendment and agree with the broad outline of the argument.
  Baroness Crawley: I wish all noble Lords a happy New Year, if I have not seen them this year, and look forward to a productive afternoon.
  After very careful consideration, the Government's firm view is that as a matter of legal policy it would not be appropriate for the new extended immunity to apply retrospectively, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has suggested, to disputes in relation to contracts agreed before this new legislation comes into force. Why have we come to that conclusion? Because individuals or entities entering into contracts with the secretariat—for example, into employment or commercial contracts—may be taken to have done so on the basis that their consent to be bound by that contract is predicated on the assumption that their contractual relations will be governed by the law regulating the legal position of the secretariat at the time on the contract. Therefore, the secretariat should not have complete immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts in the UK in relation to claims under such contracts.
  In those circumstances, I believe that it would be unfair to change the legal position in respect of existing contracts by taking away the right to challenge certain decisions of CSAT through the UK courts. As the noble

  GC 3
  and gallant Lord will know, the general presumption of governments historically is that legislation should not make retrospective provision. There are exceptions to that—for example, when a retrospective provision can be justified on the basis that it would be of overriding public benefit. But conferring immunity from jurisdiction on the secretariat so that it applies to contracts agreed before this legislation comes into force cannot be justified, in the Government's legal view. It would not be fair to those who entered into those contracts on an understanding that they would have recourse to the UK courts if necessary.
  The noble and gallant Lord raised the issue of costs. The costs of the secretariat defending a case in the UK courts would fall to the secretariat.
  For those reasons, I cannot accept his amendment.
  Lord Craig of Radley: I understand the basis of the Government's argument on retrospection. However, it seems to me that the legal basis for the concept of retrospection in this particular case is a bit week, with regard to something agreed at Commonwealth level in 1995, when there has been delay on the part of Her Majesty's Government in introducing legislation in a timely manner. As for the costs, when one bears in mind the delay on the part of Her Majesty's Government—I mean also the government of the time, not necessarily only this Government—in introducing the legislation, it seems that the secretariat could potentially be exposed to high legal costs if a case arose which needed a lot of defending. The blame, or at least the reason why the secretariat would have to shoulder these costs—which is what the Government would wish—is because again the Government have not acted in a timely manner. It seems to me that there should be some give on the part of the Government on those two counts, if not in the whole case as far as the legal aspect is concerned, but certainly as far as any cost is concerned. It is not just the Government; the secretariat is responsible to the other 52 Commonwealth countries, which I think would also take a somewhat less than satisfied view if Her Majesty's Government, having failed to bring in the legislation in a timely manner, are now maintaining the position that they are not prepared to foot a bill in the event, perhaps the unlikely event, that it did arise.
  Baroness Crawley: I will come back on one point. The noble and gallant Lord criticised the Government for waiting so long to bring this Bill forward. It has not been possible to find a legislative slot until now for this Bill. He will agree that this Bill is in many ways actually welcomed by the Commonwealth Secretariat as being a great step forward, one that he might say is long overdue. In that sense, the inconvenience that he talks about in terms of cost and other bureaucratic terms
  GC 4
  would still not impress on Government legal policy that this was of overriding public benefit to create an exemption in this case.
  Lord Craig of Radley: I thank the Minister for her response, I thank other noble Lords who have spoken, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal]:
  Baroness Falkner of MargravinemovedAmendment No. 2:
  Page 2, line 3, at end insert—
  "(3A) When considering disputes that effect officers and servants of the Commonwealth Secretariat arising from the provisions of this Act, the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal shall have regard to—

  (a) section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (c. 23), and

  (b) the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)."

  The noble Baroness said: I start by declaring an interest. I worked for the Commonwealth Secretariat for several years, I was vice president of the staff association and in my capacity as vice president I was involved in an arbitral tribunal proceeding of the secretariat.
  I have several concerns about this Bill, particularly in relation to this clause. I will give a little background about the changes that will take place here. The Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal is appointed by the Secretary-General. It is remunerated by the Secretary-General, and there does not appear to be any basis on which any other party can have any say in the appointment of the panel. It makes its own decisions as to whether it wishes to take oral evidence, and in the past has chosen not to take oral evidence nor cross examine witnesses.
  I will refer here to why these changes are taking place. The background to the case is that a member of staff sought to address contractual disputes within the existing framework of the secretariat. She was dissatisfied with the resolution, and she took her case to English courts in the case Selina Mohsin v Commonwealth Secretariat. In that case, English courts ruled under Lord Justice Steel that in certain very narrow circumstances of contractual disputes that UK courts did have jurisdiction, and they therefore exercised the jurisdiction to hear the case.
  This Bill will take away those rights of people who have contracts with the secretariat, which principally affects, in the case that I am talking about, some 300 employees of the secretariat. It will take away their rights in last recourse to take their grievances and disputes to United Kingdom courts.
  3.45 p.m.
  On Second Reading the Minister said that internal grievance procedures existed and therefore the last resort in terms of natural justice—which was what I was calling for—was not necessarily needed. It was implied that the picture we were painting was too grave

  GC 5
  or too negative. However, people go to a tribunal or court only in last resort. Internal grievance procedures of themselves cannot be enough to effect rights to justice. When all senior and middle-level staff are appointed by the Secretary-General alone, serve on three-year contracts and their contracts are therefore renewed by the Secretary-General alone, it becomes extremely difficult for staff to have complete confidence in internal grievance procedures because the people who sit as judge and jury on their case—senior management—are themselves beholden to the senior manager, the Secretary-General. As regards natural justice, it is important for staff to have access to financial aid. In most cases that I am aware of no financial aid is available. People pay to go to a tribunal, and may undergo extreme financial hardship. It is not as if pools of money are available that they can access. Staff go to a tribunal under extreme circumstances. The effect of the Bill for secretariat staff as regards creating complete immunity from suit is grave.
  Several differences arise compared with the position that existed under the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966. Staff had no right of access to UK courts save to make a challenge under the 1966 Act if they had grounds to show that the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal (CSAT) was not independent or was biased or to enforce an award made in their favour by CSAT. Under the Bill staff will have no right of access to the UK courts, or to any court in the world. They will have no right to challenge a CSAT ruling if it is lacking in independence or is biased. I emphasise that that is where the amendment is coming from. Staff will also have no right to go to court to enforce an award should the CSAT ruling not be complied with.
  There have been instances where CSAT rulings have not been complied with either in spirit or within the full terms of the ruling. Such precedents are already evident. Therefore, it is difficult to see what possible justification there could be for removing these very limited but fundamentally important rights, or to see how the removal of these rights by widening the immunity and making it a blanket immunity can be justified under the Human Rights Act 1998. This is particularly the case in circumstances where staff play no role in appointing the members of CSAT. The members of CSAT are not appointed independently; that is, they are not appointed by member governments acting together. The power of member governments in that regard is given to the Secretary-General who acts alone in appointing the members of CSAT. The members of CSAT are paid by the Commonwealth Secretariat; that is, the Secretary-General, who I understand sets their terms of remuneration.
  As I say, staff do not have a right to a hearing or to give witness if the CSAT decides that is not necessary, and have no right of appeal against a decision, be it to another international such as the ILO, the International Criminal Court or to any other court.
  I turn to European law in this regard, having mentioned the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. At our debate on 16 December, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings,
  GC 6
  sought to ensure that, if blanket immunity were provided it would conform to these instruments. We argue that it would not.
  I refer to a recent case in the European Court of Human Rights on contractual disputes of a similar nature where the court found that a material factor in determining whether immunity should be granted from the jurisdiction of that country was whether applicants had available to them reasonable alternative means to protect effectively their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In that particular case, the court found that the applicant did, but ruled that it was a material factor in determining the judgment. The Bill as currently devised does not afford available alternative means of dispute resolution. Therefore, we argue that new subsection (3A) should be inserted. I beg to move.
  Baroness Rawlings: I stand to speak to my Amendment No. 3 and the other amendments in this group. With regard to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, I was concerned about points raised in the noble Baroness's speech at Second Reading. Her amendment could address those concerns.
  The amendment in my name, like the majority of those I tabled today, is a probing amendment. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, many questions during Second Reading and would like to take the opportunity in Committee to explore those questions further. The amendment as it stands would remove subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 2 of the Bill, which would effectively remove the ability of the Secretary of State to transfer the immunities and privileges that the Bill awards to the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal to a successor organisation using a statutory instrument to alter the original 1966 Act.
  As the noble Baroness highlighted at Second Reading:
  "All these organisations are different; all of them are unique in their own way".—[Official Report, 16/12/04; col. 1475.]
  My concern is that any successor would be created due to the need for changes to the current one. These changes could result in a very different successor, unique in its own way, with a different emphasis on what it is to do, albeit that it may include arbitral tribunal duties.
  With that possibility in mind, I question whether the Committee should find it satisfactory for this legislation to give a government power to amend the existing law by order in whatever way the Minister of the day "considers appropriate". Although the affirmative order currently in subsection (5) would give us the opportunity to discuss the proposed changes, it would deny Parliament the opportunity to amend any provisions for the new body unless we threw out the order altogether, something Committee Members will know happens only rarely.
  Will the Minister inform the Committee whether her department is expecting the Commonwealth Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal to be altered in any way, hence the inclusion of the powers that I have just discussed? If it is to be altered, will the Minister give us more information

  GC 7
  about when and why these changes will be made? Also if, as I suspect, there is nothing to prevent a successor organisation being significantly different, will she not agree that it is our parliamentary duty to be able to scrutinise and if necessary amend any provisions for a new body through primary rather than secondary legislation?
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: It may help if I say a little about the broader approach that we have to the issues behind the Bill, which cut across several amendments. We have some hesitations about the expansion of diplomatic privileges and immunities to new organisations and agencies as they are created. When we come to the European Union, we will want to talk specifically about European agencies; after all, the EU is at the moment creating a very large number of additional agencies.
  I have done a certain amount of devilling over the Christmas period on the question of diplomatic privileges and immunities. I am struck that the international law is created for relations among states and was originally developed in the 18th and 19th centuries for relations among hostile states, when diplomats expected to be in difficult territory and had to be protected from abuses of their rights. International organisations' privileges have been assimilated to the existing law. In many cases, it seems that international organisations are not the same as states. Indeed, paragraph 1830 of the third edition of Schermers and Blokker's International Institutional Law states: "Although such missions"—those of international organisations—
  "may share some features with diplomatic missions of states, the similarity is limited".
  That therefore requires us to question, in the context of the Bill and for future reference, how far diplomatic immunities should be extended to international organisations. It seems sensible to accept that global international organisations, which have to operate across the world in democratic and non-democratic states, need extensive privileges. When we talk about the OSCE, I will therefore suggest that it needs some diplomatic protection. I was in Georgia and South Ossetia this summer and met some OSCE personnel there. I felt pretty insecure, and I am sure that they do in doing their work.
  The Commonwealth Secretariat, however, serves a group of democratic states. Those that cease to be democratic stand at risk of being expelled from the Commonwealth, as has happened to Pakistan and Zimbabwe on various occasions. The Commonwealth Secretariat seems to operate in a world in which traditional diplomatic immunities do not have to be extended. Therefore, the question of how far it needs and deserves all the protection is one that we wish to probe. Add to that that the Commonwealth Secretariat has operated in London without the need for the extension of the additional privileges given in the Bill,
  GC 8
  and that 65 per cent of its staff are British citizens. The changes proposed in the Bill seem to require very substantial justification.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I regret that this is my first contribution to the passage of this unfortunate Bill. Perhaps it would help if I started by confessing that I and, I think, other Euro-sceptic Members of your Lordships' House were caught napping by the Bill's Second Reading on 16 December. I admit that the Bill had been on the forthcoming business for the some time, but submit that its innocuous title—the International Organisations Bill—is unlikely to have alerted us to its contents. One suspects that that was why such a boring and unhelpful title was chosen.
  Be that as it may, my confession stands that we Euro-sceptics were asleep at the switch at Second Reading on 16 December, so did not speak. I suppose that our only excuse is that we have to run our opposition to our membership of the European Union with very little assistance, and it is really not physically possible for us to examine every item that appears on our ever more voluminous Order Paper, or the vast mass of EU laws. Some 80 per cent of all our laws—well over 1,000 per annum—are now visited on us from Brussels.
  That said, I still contend that it was sneaky—to put it as kindly as I can—to include the Bill on the Order Paper in a list of other business that looked run-of-the-mill, and to start its Second Reading during the lunch hour at 1.32 p.m. on a Thursday, when the House was not sitting on the Friday and we were rising for the Christmas holiday the following Tuesday. In other words, I congratulate the Government on their subtle handling of the Bill.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: You are slipping.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My noble friend objects to that congratulation, but I trust that it may stand.
  I also submit that it is naughty to hold this Committee today, so soon after Second Reading, when I doubt whether the questions raised at Second Reading have yet been answered in correspondence. I may be wrong and the Government may have answered those questions, in which case no doubt the Minister will inform us of that. However, it is certainly true that the two Written Questions that I tabled on 21 December—as soon as possible after I had read with dismay Hansard for 16 December—have not yet been answered. I shall return to those Questions later on the appropriate amendment.
  Of course, I admit that the Government are technically in order to hold the Committee today, because 14 days have passed since 16 December, but only three sitting days have passed. As I said, my Written Questions have not been answered, which by the same token they should have been. I have not tabled amendments for today because I was waiting for the Answers before doing so. I have to confess, too, that I was not aware that the Committee had been scheduled for today. Again, I suppose that that

  GC 9
  ignorance is my fault, because the Minute for 21 December did not reach me till yesterday; in it, this Committee was included as new business.
  What is clear is that we are granting immunity and tax privileges to a large number of people in the employ of the European Union and other undeserving bodies. It is also pretty clear that the Government—again, they will correct me if I am wrong—have already committed us to this Bill by treaty, so this Parliament has once again become a rubber stamp. If the Minister disagrees, can she tell us what will happen if your Lordships' House were to refuse to pass the Bill?
  I shall return to more specific matters on the European Union later, but I look forward to the noble Baroness's answer.
  Baroness Crawley: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for a very interesting and reflective set of contributions. I shall start with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I am sorry if he thinks that the Government are naughty; I try very hard not to be naughty. I worry that he devalues Thursday lunchtime, which is a particularly happy time in this House. Business that goes through on Thursday lunchtime is just as valuable as business on any other day of the week. I understand that the Answers to the Questions that he tabled before Christmas are now with his office. I am told by my officials that they were sent there this morning. I apologise for their lateness.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. My office has not been able to inform me of that happy event. As I said, I shall give her the chance to answer the Questions again when we come to the appropriate amendment.
  Baroness Crawley: I thank the noble Lord for that.
  I will go through the amendments that we have covered in our debate and will speak first to Amendment No. 2 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I cannot accept this amendment on behalf of the Government because we cannot agree to any limitation to the extended immunity conferred on the secretariat under the Act. The Bill simply brings the immunity conferred on the secretariat into line with that conferred on many other international organisations based in the United Kingdom.
  Neither can we accept the amendment if its intention is to ensure the fairness of the CSAT dispute settlement procedure by requiring the tribunal to refer to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Arbitration Act 1996. That was the point made very strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. The important point is that the statute of the tribunal already takes into account the need for it to provide a fair and independent procedure. For example, Article 6, paragraph 2, of the statute reads,
  "The rules of the Tribunal shall ensure that applications are dealt with in a manner that is independent and impartial and consistent with the Commonwealth Harare Principles relating to fundamental human rights and the independence of the judiciary".
  GC 10
  I hope that that goes some of the way to meeting the points made by the noble Baroness about independence.
  The noble Baroness also asked about the independence of CSAT in relation to other governments. Although she is correct to say that the Secretary General formally appoints the members of the tribunal under Article 4 of the CSAT statute, those members must first have been selected by the Commonwealth governments on a regionally representative basis. The members, as she will know from her intimate knowledge of this matter, are appointed for four-year terms, which also assists in ensuring their independence. All members of the tribunal are required by the statute to be of high moral character and to have appropriate experience.
  The United Kingdom confers immunity from jurisdiction on many international organisations based in the UK and abroad. We are not aware that in those cases any such provision referring to the Human Rights Act and the Arbitration Act is in place and has been included in the relevant legislation. The amendment would therefore undermine that aim of bringing the treatment accorded to the secretariat by the UK into line with that accorded to many international organisations. We want to treat the secretariat as we treat other international organisations—no more, no less.
  The amendment appears to concern the applicability of certain legislation to the secretariat, which is a different and separate issue to that of immunity from jurisdiction of the courts. In referring to two particular Acts of Parliament, the amendment seems to suggest that CSAT need not have any regard to UK legislation—which it ought to have. Also, the fact that it refers only to disputes that affect the secretariat staff suggests that the two Acts referred to would have no relevance to the context of disputes with, for example, external contractors, such as companies supplying goods to the secretariat. The amendment refers only to staff. Those points are additional to the reasons that I have already given Committee members about why the amendment is not appropriate.
  On Amendment No. 3, let me say from the outset that the Commonwealth Secretariat has not indicated that it is considering setting up any successor bodies to CSAT. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, because she raised concerns about that point not only in this debate, but at Second Reading. If the secretariat did so, we would need a very strong say through Parliament in the structure and form of that organisation.
  The Government are of the view that it is important to include the possibility of conferring privileges and immunities on the president and members of any successor body, however. That is because the memorandum establishing the Commonwealth Secretariat—it was agreed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 1965 and, as the noble Baroness will know, was amended in 2002—specifically contemplates the possibility of a successor body at some time. It is important that the UK has the power speedily to confer privileges and immunities on any successor body, should one ever be established. Failure to make

  GC 11
  provision for that might one day result in the UK acting in a manner contrary to its commitments under the agreed memorandum.
  The most practical way to avoid that is to provide for immunities and privileges to be conferred on any successor body via secondary legislation. The Bill therefore includes an enabling provision for an affirmative order to be made by the Secretary of State amending the Commonwealth Secretariat Act 1966 in that way. As all noble Lords will know, such an order would have to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before it was made, so there will be a great opportunity for Parliament to consider and debate any such change proposed in future.
  If the amendment were agreed there would also be the possibility that, in order to prevent the risk of the UK having to act in a manner contrary to its commitments in the memorandum, the UK might have to ask all the Commonwealth governments to change the agreed memorandum. There is no guarantee that such agreement would be forthcoming. For there to be a successor organisation, Parliament would have to agree to it. In the process of that agreement, a great deal of scrutiny would be on the form that the organisation would take. For those reasons, we are not minded to accept that amendment.
  Finally, in response to the opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill, I want to say that the Bill, in according immunity on the presidents and members of CSAT in respect of acts in the course of their official functions for the tribunal and providing an enabling provision to confer the same immunity on members of any successor body, implements a commitment in the agreed memorandum of the Commonwealth Secretariat, revised in 2002. We therefore cannot agree to the proposal.
  We do not consider that the immunity to be conferred, which relates to only the official functions of the members of the arbitral tribunal, is out of line with the immunity conferred by the UK on other international organisations and individuals connected with them, based in the UK or abroad. It assists in enabling the members of the tribunal to carry out their official functions independently—which comes to the heart of why we want to bring about these immunities and privileges—without fear of legal action against them as individuals as a result of their work for the tribunal.
  4.15 p.m.
  While I take very much the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the Commonwealth and democracy and the Commonwealth not wishing to take any governments that prove themselves undemocratic into the fold or to keep them in the fold, there is an enormous number of unofficial problems regarding democracy with many governments. In the run up to eventually expelling a government, such as
  GC 12
  that of Zimbabwe as suggested by the noble Lord, there will be a great deal of undemocratic action perhaps taking place in that country before the final decision is made by the Commonwealth to expel that Government from its counsels.
  While the noble Lord has made an interesting point about European organisations versus international and global organisations and democratic governments versus undemocratic governments, I still think that unless we start rewriting the whole of international law in that regard, we have to, today, look to implementing the commitments that we have already made.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in his remarks. It is very difficult for people who are of a sceptical view, not only about Europe but also about everything else, to deal with Bills that currently are flowing towards us at quite a heavy rate and to ensure that no Bill eludes our scrutiny. Unfortunately, like the noble Lord, this Bill eluded my scrutinising eye. It was not until I read the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that I realised that here was something of which we should have taken notice, but had not.
  When I read the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and saw that there was a reference to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I knew that there must be more in the Bill than I originally thought. Of course, I was right; and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was right. He did an excellent job at Second Reading querying not only points about the Commonwealth Secretariat but also querying in general whether we need all those immunities for other people as well as for the Commonwealth and, by extending those immunities, whether we are not, as in the Soviet Union, creating a new elite. The noble Lord was right to be worried about that.
  So he and I, coming from, perhaps I may say, different spectra of the European argument, have reached the same conclusion. If we are not careful, we will create an elite that eventually will annoy the people of this country. They may ask what exactly is going on. Why is it that not only certain diplomats but also other members of international organisations should have privileges, which they might understand, but why are those privileges being extended to their wives, their children and even their servants?
  The people who recognised that there was more in this Bill than the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and I thought, because we did not notice it, have done a great service in bringing it to the attention of the House of Lords, to the people of the country and in waking the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and myself up.
  As regards the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, I should like to ask whether the staff of the Commonwealth Secretariat were made aware of the proposed changes to their rights and were they consulted? If they were not, they should have been. If they were, I would like to know exactly their response. If there was a response, what notice did the Government take of it? Nowadays, people working for an organisation ought to be consulted. Perhaps the noble Baroness could answer that question.

  GC 13
  As regards Amendment No. 3, the noble Baroness said that of course we will have some affirmative orders. That is all very well. It sounds very good. The problem is that affirmative orders cannot be amended: they can only be rejected. If an affirmative order is rejected, the Government say, "Well, you really must not do that. It is not done". The House of Commons never does it: the House of Lords, seldom, if ever, does it. Therefore, we are presented with a fait accompli. It sounds very good, but our power over affirmative orders is very limited, although perhaps it is less limited in this House than in the House of Commons.
  That is not a good argument for giving government, once again, Henry VIII powers. There is a continual extension of Henry VIII powers being given to governments who simply cannot be trusted to use such powers properly. I said to my noble friend Lord Pearson that he was slipping when he praised the Government. I said that because you should never praise governments, because praise only encourages them to bring forward more laws and worse laws. Never praise the Government: praise the Opposition if you like, but do not praise the Government. That simply is not done in decent democratic circles.
  I have one final question, asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, which I think was not answered. It is an important question because this is a House of Lords Bill; it is not a House of Commons Bill. Let us suppose that the House of Lords rejects the Bill and it goes to the Commons who cannot amend it. It will then come back and we shall insist on our amendments. Because it is a House of Lords Bill, the Parliament Act cannot be used. Under those circumstances, since the Government say that we have these international obligations to which we must agree, what will be the position if Parliament, through the House of Lords, says, "No, you are not going to have them"?
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I should just wish to mark that this is the first occasion that I can recall where I have stood shoulder to shoulder with the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I trust that it will not be entirely the last.
  I would also wish to mark that I, too, am sceptical of a number of things, but I am sceptical of the principle of sovereignty and the whole idea of the nation state. Therefore, I share a certain amount of scepticism of a system of diplomatic law that has grown up for a system of sovereign states as created in the 18th and 19th centuries. As it happens, I have taught a course on international institutions at the London School of Economics in recent years.
  I am deeply conscious of the proliferation of international organisations and agencies. We will come to the proliferation of the European agencies later. I therefore want to question the extent to which we should assimilate additional international organisations into the arrangements made for—perhaps I may quote the Minister—"many other international organisations based in the United Kingdom".
  GC 14
  I had hoped that we might use this Committee stage to press the Government to consider more broadly the issue of what diplomatic privileges should be extended to international and European agencies. Of course, we accept that that is not something which the United Kingdom can change unilaterally. But it is an issue—I have spoken to people in the Commission and elsewhere—that the European Union might change, which we might want to raise in the whole context of UN reform because it is an important issue and will become more of an important issue as the proliferation of global and regional organisations continues.
  I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, about the dangers of the proliferation of a privileged class. The European Commission is in some ways already a privileged class in Europe, which is one of the reasons why the EC attracts a degree of criticism. I think you are all aware that I have to declare an interest as the dependent spouse of someone employed by an intergovernmental organisation. I am conscious in that respect that I benefit from this, but we have to raise some very large issues from it. I hope that on Report or at Third Reading, the Government may be able to tell us how far they are willing to start a process of reconsideration of what British policies should be in the future regarding European and international agencies and the diplomatic immunities that they attract.
  Looking very rapidly through the international conventions on that, it seems that they are fitted for a pre-globalisation age. Now that we are in a world in which interdependence is far closer than before, we ought to question how far this goes. My noble friend Lord Roper has drawn attention to a Written Answer on 10 January to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, which, if I understand correctly, tells us that there are some 3,000 officials of intergovernmental organisations currently based in the United Kingdom, plus roughly the same number of dependants—that is, some 6,000 people living in this privileged position—of whom 500 of the 3,000 are estimated to be British citizens. I guess that that figure is also likely to grow.
  The intergovernmental organisation of which my wife is a part is based in Italy. It has a substantial number of Italians working for it, some of whom, if I understand correctly, are still receiving allowances for having been transferred from Brussels to a foreign posting. That is the sort of issues that we get into: I have no doubt that that applies to most international agencies. Again, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the view that we should question that. One has therefore necessarily to question the general principle because we know that we cannot change the law unilaterally.
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Falkner of Margravine: I shall pick up on many of the points that have been made in the debate. The Minister drew our attention to the fact that the Government seek to extend the arrangements for the Commonwealth Secretariat to those existing for other international organisations based in London. I refer her to col. 1469 of the Official Report of 16 December,

  GC 15
  when we asked the Government to tell us of other examples that existed in which access to justice was similarly restricted. On that occasion, I said:
  "It would also be illuminating to hear whether, in such cases that might exist, immunities have been further extended to restrict rights since the Human Rights Act came into force".—[Official Report, 16/12/04; col. 1469.]
  We still look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that.
  The issue was raised of the role of statute 6.2 of the tribunal, asking for conformity with Harare principles. As one who in my time at the secretariat was called to the unenviable task of clarifying for Ministers what the Harare principles stood for, in terms of what we can do in relation to member governments, I remind the Committee that those are political principles. They are to do with human rights, good governance and democracy, while what we are discussing today are legal employment rights, which is rather a different kettle of fish.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, at Second Reading at col. 1474, asked whether the Joint Committee on Human Rights could be asked to report on the issue while the Bill was passing through the House. Will the Minister reassure us that advice will be taken from the Joint Committee, as it is a duty of that body to advise on Bills? We would be grateful to hear what its views were on the matter.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has raised various apposite points on staff consultation. The genesis of the changes, as I explained, were the court case Selina Mohsin v Commonwealth Secretariat. Subsequent to the ruling in that case, there were attempts to change the agreed memorandum. The intention to change the agreed memorandum was set out in a new annexe C, and thus was shared with member governments but never disclosed to Commonwealth Secretariat staff. I understand that it has never yet been made available to those staff. As I understand it, annexe C was not even agreed at a meeting of Commonwealth heads of government, but appeared in the form of a document circulated to governments on an individual basis. A document being sent to member governments is substantively different from a consensus-based decision being taken in a committee of member governments.
  It is perhaps understandable that Commonwealth member governments agreed to the blanket immunity, as the message given to them was that staff, due to the Selina Mohsin judgment, were subject to English employment law, and that that exposed the secretariat to the risk of expensive court proceedings in the United Kingdom. The communication with staff on the issue was set forth in a circular sent by the Secretary-General to the staff on 5 April 2004, in which he sought to justify the need for a full immunity in reference to the Mohsin case. He felt that, while the court ruled against the Commonwealth Secretariat on the jurisdictional issue, on the facts the judge found in favour of the secretariat. However, as he explained, governments needed to be convinced that the UK court did not have jurisdiction, and that one country's employment law did not prevail
  GC 16
  over that of 53 others. Therefore, the problem had to be resolved. Hence, he argued for the management's support for the legislative change that the UK Government was undertaking.
  As we know, there has been no attempt at all on the part of member governments, in the light of their agreement to annexe C, to find out the views of secretariat staff. In my own case, representing the staff association, we sought several times to have sight of the annexe, but were unable to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made the important point that in this day and age staff should be seen as a party to these sorts of changes in employment contracts. In this case, we understand that they were not seen as a party.
  Overall, it seems to me with regard to this clause that the Government are changing legislation that has worked well over many years. The 1966 Act was a careful and considered piece of legislation, aimed at preserving the international nature of the organisation and giving CSAT primacy in disputes to the exclusion of English courts. The 1966 Act achieves those aims; the sole effect of the Bill will be to remove from staff and third parties in commercial disputes the protection of rules of natural justice in the event, however unlikely it is, that members of CSAT are found to be lacking in independence or are biased.
  The Minister mentioned her conviction that CSAT would be independent. However, there is also the issue that if members chose, on occasions, possibly because of time constraints, or because of the judgment that has come from the tribunal, not to take witness statements or evidence, the ability to make a case on the part of the person going before a tribunal is lost. That is why it has been important to have the safeguard. On our side, we feel that while governments are meant to approach legislation to give effect to the Human Rights Act, by promoting this Bill, the UK Government appears to be willing to deprive what is, I admit, a very small number of staff, of that protection.
  Incidentally, I wish slightly to correct the statement made by my noble friend Lord Wallace. He said that 65 per cent of staff were British citizens, but in fact 65 per cent are either British citizens or they are residents of the United Kingdom. That is a point of clarification. However, in the light of the Human Rights Act, it would be a very sad day if even a small number of staff were treated less favourably than other citizens of the UK.
  The final point relates to the Ministers comment that she believed that the tribunal would take UK law into consideration. However, in terms of UK employment rights, on the whole, UK secretariat employment rights are significantly lesser than those accorded by the UK in general to its employees.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wish to press the Minister on a question that I put to her earlier in my remarks. We have clarified what happened to my Written Questions, but I am not sure that she answered my query as to what happened to the questions posed by my noble friend—if I may refer to her as such—Lady Rawlings, in her intervention at Second Reading, and whether they have been answered in correspondence. I ask that because at

  GC 17
  the end of the reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, at Second Reading, she said:
  "The noble Baroness raised a number of other questions. I shall go through them very carefully and I hope to give her satisfaction in the answer I provide".—[Official Report, 16/12/04; col. 1478.]
  It would be helpful to know whether those answers have been given.
  Baroness Crawley: I thank Members of the Committee for that debate. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, answers to the remaining questions that were not dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in our Second Reading in December, will be sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, very shortly. I hope that through the process of today's Committee stage we can answer some of them anyway. But there will be some outstanding written replies for the noble Baroness.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I trust that the Government then agree that it is a pity that those replies are not already with us to inform our proceedings today.
  Baroness Crawley: We certainly did not want to be discourteous to the noble Baroness. I hope that she will accept that we shall certainly send her the replies very shortly.
  I shall add another few numbers to the figures on the percentage of British citizens in the Commonwealth Secretariat. That point was originally raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and taken forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. My note tells me that at the last count, 79 of approximately 270 Commonwealth Secretariat staff were British. That is less than 30 per cent.
  Baroness Falkner of Margravine: And residents?
  Baroness Crawley: Well, those are the numbers that I have. I am sure that we can come back to that matter if more clarity is needed.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, raised the issue of the compatibility of the immunity provision with the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also raised that matter at Second Reading. The issue of the compatibility of the conferral of immunity on international organisations with the European Convention on Human Rights has been considered in the past by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The court has held, in a number of cases, that the right of access to a court under Article 6 of the convention is not absolute and may be subject to limitations, providing that they pursue a legitimate aim and are proportionate.
  The Court in Strasbourg has accepted that conferring immunity from jurisdiction on international organisations is a legitimate aim, as it is an important means of ensuring that the proper functioning of such organisations continues free from unilateral interference by individual governments. It is also relevant to consider whether there is a reasonable alternative means by which individuals may pursue claims against the organisation. Although the noble Baroness and myself have a different opinion on the matter, I would say that with the
  GC 18
  Commonwealth Secretariat, as is the case with many international organisations, there is an internal dispute resolution mechanism in place to hear such claims.
  Since the creation of CSAT in 1995, a number of changes have been made to its statute. It is proposed that the revised version of the CSAT statute will be attached to the revised agreed memorandum of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Any further changes to the statute in future will be subject to the agreement of Commonwealth governments.
  At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, raised the issue of the Joint Committee of Human Rights reporting on the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, also raised the issue in this debate. The JCHR is aware of the Bill and has informed us that it will report on it at the end of this month.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, raised issues about whether the staff of the Commonwealth Secretariat were consulted on the Bill. It is my understanding that consultation between the Government and the management of the secretariat has been going on for a number of years. The management welcome this Bill, and it is up to the management to ensure that consultation is then made between themselves and their staff. It is a matter for the Government to consult with management and then for management to consult with their staff.
  4.45 p.m.
  Finally, why do we need to confer privileges and immunities on any of these organisations and bodies, which is the underlying thrust of some of the arguments, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his unholy alliance with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire? Privileges and immunities are conferred on organisations and bodies to ensure that they are able to carry out their functions without being impeded. That is the simple basis of this Bill. The general policy of Her Majesty's Government, which goes back to the 1980s, is that privileges and immunities should be granted primarily on the basis of functional need.
  The scope of the privileges and immunities conferred and the organisations and bodies on which they are conferred are determined by the UK's international obligations, as we have discussed. As regards the organisations and bodies covered by the Bill, as I have said already we have signed international agreements committing us to confer privileges and immunities on them. A number of those agreements are long-standing, for example, those relating to the OSCE, ECHR and ICLOS were signed in 1993, 1996 and 1997 respectively. Further delay in fully implementing those agreements could be interpreted as a lack of commitment by the UK to those organisations. We would certainly not want that impression to go abroad.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The Minister stated that she did not know whether the staff had been consulted, and that the Government's duty was to consult with the management. The management board is of course

  GC 19
  appointed by the Secretary-General, so there is a difficulty there. Surely the Government have a duty to find out whether management have taken proper consultation with the people involved? That is modern industrial relations practice. If the management did not consult with employees who would be affected, they are guilty of bad management. It simply is not good enough. I worked in the electricity supply industry, and I know a little about negotiating with management and how difficult it is to get management to listen to what people who work on the ground have to say. We had a modern system in which management were obliged to consult with workers. It seems to me that if the Government went willy-nilly along with the decision of management and did not ask whether this was acceptable to the staff involved, they were failing in their duty.
  The noble Lord shakes his head, but he is a member of the Labour party. I would have thought that he would understand what I am saying about the need to consult with employees who are having their conditions of service changed. In industry there would be strikes and industrial action if you attempted to change, without consultation and negotiation, a privilege or a term of service that had been enjoyed for a long period of time, certainly since 1966. You cannot and should not do so. So this really is an important point. Clearly, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, secretariat staff are offended by the way in which they have been treated. I would have hoped that the Government would take some cognizance of that.
  I do not know whether I missed it, but did the Minister answer the question about what would happen if Parliament, through the House of Lords—because this is a House of Lords Bill—refused to pass this Bill?
  Baroness Crawley: I apologise that I did not answer before. If this Bill failed to go through both Houses there would be status quo; that would be the position. I simply repeat what I have said before about our years of consulting with management at the Commonwealth Secretariat on this Bill. We could talk for hours about this, but I do not believe that it is the role of the Government to go through staff trade unions in that consultation; that is the role of management. We would quite rightly get short shrift from trade unions if we started interfering.
  Baroness Falkner of Margravine: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Baroness Rawling: moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 2, leave out lines 20 and 21.
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 4 is grouped with the clause stand part debate. The aim of this amendment is to probe some of the details of the
  GC 20
  Commonwealth Secretariat tax system in light of the proposed exemption from income tax in Clause 3. Albeit that the Explanatory Notes and the regulatory impact assessment suggest that the changes in this Bill would result in little expense to the taxpayer, little expense is still a cost. I have heard this before from the Government. All costs, including minor ones, still add up.
  The amendment would remove lines 20 and 21, the reference to "salaries and emoluments" from the proposed new Clause 5A(1) in Clause 3; this was designed as a peg on which to hang this debate. I understand this is by no means technically desirable, as it probably widens the immunity to income tax across everything. The Minister informed the House at Second Reading that the Commonwealth Secretariat, the only organisation covered by this Bill, which is based in the UK, employs up to 280 staff. Will she please clarify how many of those staff are UK citizens? How many of those 280 may be covered by those extended immunities and privileges? They must have some rough idea as to the numbers needed.
  I would also be interested to know the current rates of taxation for the Commonwealth Secretariat staff, and whether the Minister can enlighten the Committee as to any proposed changes to these rates, unless this Bill is put in place. For comparison, would the Minister be so kind as to let us know how this measures up to the staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who work in High Commissions? Will UK citizens who work for the Commonwealth Secretariat end up being treated more preferentially than Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, or vice versa?
  I presume that the Commonwealth Secretariat staff will be paying tax on savings and investments in this country that are not defined as "salaries and emoluments" in Section 5A(1). I look to the Minister for assurances on this. In doing so, it would be helpful if she could clarify what the rate of tax will be on such holdings and if that will be at the highest marginal rate. I beg to move.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: It may help if I speak briefly to this, although I am conscious that we do not wish to take too much time on the next amendment or two if we are to complete Committee stage by 7.30 p.m., which I hope that we can. I press the Government again to expand on the principles that lie behind the degrees of immunity from domestic taxation that are available for international organisations. We are dealing here with income tax; I am also conscious that excise and VAT are issues from which for some purposes some members of international organisations are also exempt.
  I stress again that we are in a situation in which—while accepting the Minister's remarks that some of these are relatively long-standing, five to 10 years in the past—the speed at which we might expect new international organisations and agencies to arise, to which Britain will rightly become a member, is not likely to slow. We thoroughly support British membership in these organisations; they are a necessary part of how we manage an interdependent global and regional order, but one must look at the growth of special exemptions for

  GC 21
  privileged classes. That goes along entirely with our scepticism about offshore financial centres and some of the queries that we make about multinational corporations and their ability to evade paying domestic taxation.
  We are asking the Government for a definite commitment, by the time we reach Report stage, to a Government review of this situation as it moves on, not only looking at the issues at which we are looking now, but at how the Government wish to approach this in general terms as new proposals come up.
  Baroness Crawley: I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am mindful of the time; I hope that the noble Lords who have spoken will find the answers to their several questions in my speaking notes on the amendment and on clause stand part. Separately, I will come to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about the position regarding income tax payments by Commonwealth Secretariat staff.
  Clause 3 as it stands confers exemption from UK income tax on all staff of the secretariat in respect of salaries and emoluments that they receive from the secretariat. The effect of the amendment is to extend the exemption from income tax to all income sources. For example, where a staff member of the secretariat receives payment for employment outside the secretariat, that staff member would also be exempt from income tax on that income, which had nothing to do with their work for the secretariat. That surely cannot be the intention of the noble Baroness.
  Other examples of sources from which staff may derive income include interest from investments, building society accounts, share dividends. It is important that the exemption from income tax is not widened unnecessarily to cover these other sources, which we believe would be the effect of the amendment.
  5 p.m
  We cannot accept Amendment No. 4. To do so would be to accord staff of the secretariat relief from income tax greater than that accorded to staff of all other international organisations and diplomatic missions based in the United Kingdom. It would therefore be without precedent and could not be justified and would of course result in a loss to the UK Exchequer. The Commonwealth Secretariat has not requested such relief from us and for those reasons we cannot accept the amendment to the Bill.
  I turn to the Motion on Clause 3 stand part. In response to the issues raised, the Bill will bring the tax arrangements at the Commonwealth Secretariat in line with the situation in most other international organisations, and especially commonwealth organisations such as the Commonwealth Foundation, the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation and the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International.
  In practice, the Commonwealth Secretariat already operates an internal tax system but via a complicated, inefficient and time-consuming money-go-round. The UK is required to repay to the secretariat the income tax
  GC 22
  paid by staff on their salaries in accordance with the memorandum of the Commonwealth Secretariat agreed by heads of Commonwealth Governments in 1965. In order to meet their commitments under the memorandum, the Government agreed a special and unique set of arrangements with the secretariat. All secretariat staff are liable to UK income tax on their salaries. PAYE is operated by the secretariat for all staff, apart from overseas senior officers. In the case of overseas senior officers, the secretariat provides the Inland Revenue with an annual statement of the salaries paid. The Inland Revenue raises assessments based on the grossed-up amounts and notifies the secretariat of the tax due.
  Money flows in a circle. PAYE deductions are paid monthly by the secretariat to the Inland Revenue; assessments in relation to overseas senior officers should be paid annually; the Inland Revenue passes the money to Her Majesty's Treasury; the FCO then reimburses the Commonwealth Secretariat from a ring-fenced fund provided by Her Majesty's Treasury specifically for refunding income tax. That is the money-go-round.
  Ending this inefficient money-go-round should provide efficiency gains for the secretariat; for the Inland Revenue; for Her Majesty's Treasury; and for the FCO. That is why we want Clause 3 to stand part of the Bill.
  In answer to the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, all staff of the Secretariat are liable to UK tax on their salaries. PAYE is operated by the secretariat for all staff, apart from overseas officers. The reimbursement has been made in the way I suggested. I hope that Members of the Committee will have patience with me if I write to them on other specific tax questions.
  Baroness Falkner of Margravine: On a point of clarification, the noble Baroness told us that all staff are subject to UK income tax and PAYE but with the exception of senior staff. Will she confirm our understanding that all staff of a certain grade, which includes all senior diplomatic staff, are subject to it? If that is correct, what number is affected?
  Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I may provide the noble Baroness with that information in writing. I would rather be accurate than quick.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Surely all those people who live in this country enjoy all the services which this country provides. Why should they be let off tax?
  Baroness Crawley: They are not.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The senior ones are. Many of us thought that the noble Baroness said that the senior ones are. Can she clarify that?
  Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I may clarify that. There are 36 senior officers in our definition. All the staff of the secretariat are liable to UK income tax on their salaries. PAYE is operated by the secretariat for all staff, apart from overseas senior officers. The FCO

  GC 23
  reimburses the secretariat for all PAYE deductions paid to the Inland Revenue. In the case of the overseas senior officers, the secretariat should provide the Inland Revenue with an annual statement of the salaries paid. The Inland Revenue raises assessments on the grossed-up amounts and notifies the secretariat of the tax that is due. The secretariat arranges the payment which is refunded by the FCO.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Do these foreign dignitaries pay the tax in that case, or is it paid for them?
  Baroness Crawley: Yes, they do.
  Lord Roper: I am grateful to have learnt about this money-go-round, but on the whole I am glad it is to be done away with. Has the Revenue estimated the savings in Revenue staff which will result?
  Baroness Crawley: I do not believe so, but I shall come back to the noble Lord if I am wrong.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before leaving the subject, would it be incredibly naive to suggest that this entire money-go-round of foreign bodies all over the world should be abolished? Speaking as the chairman of an international company based in London, with at least 12 foreign branches, I can say that we move people around the world a great deal. If someone living in London is invited to go and run my office in Singapore, he knows that he will have to pay tax and meet all the conditions of living in Singapore, with its standard of living and the value of its money. If he does not want to go, he does not go. Why are these international bodies given the privileges which do not apply to the rest of us who, I remind the Government, actually make the money to pay the tax which pays for the whole merry-go-round?
  Baroness Rawlings: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her detailed reply. I look forward to receiving further written details. We shall decide whether to return to this point at a later stage. I thank the Minister for her answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Rawlings: This was one clause which gave me particular concern. As I noted on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, also expressed real doubts surrounding the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Agreement to the Motion would leave out Clause 4 from the Bill.
  I reiterate the point I made on Second Reading that we believe closer co-operation and mutual recognition can only help the countries and organisations involved to tackle the problems we face not only today but in the
  GC 24
  future. I also take heart from the Minister's comments that despite recent difficulties the OSCE remains a vibrant and important organisation; one with which we do not want to see the weakening of our relationship.
  However, I question whether, if providing privileges and immunities to some of the OSCE's members' diplomats—for example, Belarus, whose record on human rights, together with some central Asian republics is well below par—does not undermine some of the basic standards and freedoms of our democracy—indeed, the beliefs of the British for which we fight.
  Could that itself not weaken our country's standing and position on the world stage? It could also cause tension with groups fighting for democracy within these very countries. I ask myself and Members of the Committee what signal this sends to anti-democratic regimes. We must look carefully at the balance between supporting international organisations and the unintentional consequences of supporting these regimes through such organisations—regimes which allow the very human-rights atrocities we seek to wipe out.
  Can the Minister clarify whether all member countries' diplomats accredited to the OSCE and their families will have full immunities when they are in the UK? Is it not highly questionable to expect the UK taxpayers to pick up the bill of the ruling elite in Belarus?
  Lord Triesman: The Motion proposes the deletion of Clause 4 which is concerned with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation within Europe. Clause 4 will bring the OSCE within the scope of the International Organisations Act 1968 and enable the UK to confer legal capacity and privileges and immunities on the OSCE. The Government have looked carefully at the comments made during the Second Reading debate.
  The intention of the Motion appears to be to prevent the conferral of the privileges and immunities on the OSCE. During Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made reference to the value of the OSCE, but qualified their support for providing the OSCE with legal status in this regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, was concerned to preserve the OSCE's flexibility. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, saw a case for making the OSCE a full inter-governmental organisation, but only if it had the potential to play the role of a full inter-governmental organisation in its own right, despite negative pressures from some countries.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, had concerns about the privileges and immunities being afforded to the ruling elite of countries such as Belarus with anti-democratic regimes and she has rightly returned to that issue today.
  The reality is that this clause is needed to enable the UK to implement its political commitments in the Rome Council decision of 1993 by conferring legal capacity and privileges and immunities on the OSCE.

  GC 25
  Deletion of the clause, as proposed, would make it impossible for the UK to comply with that undertaking.
  The OSCE is an important instrument for the attainment of the Government's foreign policy priorities in international security. The Government do not want to see any weakening of our relationship with the OSCE. A failure to take this opportunity to implement the political commitments in the Rome Council decision must call into question our commitment to the OSCE altogether, whereas to include the OSCE in the Bill would be of little practical cost. It is unlikely that the OSCE will open a mission or an office in any part of the UK. The privileges and immunities conferred by the Bill would have an effect only on the occasional visits of OSCE officials—we believe that there are about 10 overnight stays by those officials per year—such as the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner on National Minorities.
  The impact of the Motion would be political in that it would send a plain political message everywhere, but not operational in that we expect hardly any people from that organisation to be here and not to be based here as an organisation.
  Apart from wanting to fulfil our international obligations properly, the UK remains committed to the OSCE's comprehensive and co-operative approach to security and our reasons are strong. The OSCE is the only security organisation in Europe considered a regional arrangement under Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. That is itself a distinction. In its region, it is the primary instrument for early warning and conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation. Its membership, which brings together the Euro-Atlantic and Euro-Asian communities, provides a unique forum for development and implementation of common values and democratic standards which we regard as essential to our security in the UK. A large number of activities have given practical expression to those objectives. The OSCE sent election observation missions to Georgia last year. The statement on the elections helped promote democracy in Georgia.
  5.15 p.m.
  The OSCE sent an election support team to Afghanistan to provide recommendations for future elections. It has observed elections in Belarus, Ukraine, Macedonia, Serbia, Kazakhstan and in the United States this year. It has been involved in arms reduction and the limiting of the sale of the Man-portable air defence system in its area. It is working to destroy stockpiles of ammunition and weapons in Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus to ensure not just the safety of that area but all our safety given the nature of the stockpiles of weapons that were held in those countries.
  I emphasise what has been done in the Ukraine because it shows the overall value of the organisation, notwithstanding the questions which will unquestionably arise about some of the regimes in the organisation. In the Ukraine we have recently seen how the OSCE can help empower the population of the country to participate
  GC 26
  actively in the democratisation process through upholding standards for fairness and free and fair elections. The Government value the unique contribution that it makes in all of those areas, in support of conflict prevention and nation building, including in the Balkans, the Caucasus and Central Asia.
  The OCSE is also addressing new and emerging threats to security and stability in Europe, including terrorism, human trafficking and all forms of intolerance and hate crimes that threaten our societies. To exclude the OSCE from the provisions of the Bill must send in all of those circumstances entirely the wrong signals. Is it a perfect organisation? Of course not—points have been made very well and persuasively in that regard. However, are its benefits relating to any of those problems overwhelming in regard to the UK's interests? I submit that they are. In that light I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Lord Roper: The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, made it clear that this measure in no way provides any exemption to the members of the governments of any of the OSCE member states. The only people to whom it applies would be members of the OSCE staff coming to this country. Therefore, I feel that part of the argument that was made probably falls.
  However, I want to pursue two different points. First, at the recent meeting of the OSCE in Sofia there was a great deal of discussion of the inter-relationship that now exists regarding the OSCE and the adapted CFE treaty. Therefore, I wonder whether, when people come to this country to carry out inspections under the CFE treaty, they are treated as covered by the OSCE. I had an idea that some time ago Parliament passed an exemption which already gave them diplomatic status. Therefore, I wonder whether, in considering this matter, we are not giving them diplomatic status when they come to this country.
  Secondly, the Minister, in outlining the important work of the OSCE, referred to its work regarding election observation. Interestingly, one of the places in which the OSCE carried out election observation last year was the United States. That shows that it is not only in former countries of the Soviet Union that the OSCE carries out observations when there are concerns about the way in which elections are being conducted.
  If the Government were to pursue their interest in having all-postal votes in elections of one kind or another, as we have seen introduced, there might be controversy about the validity of that as a system. In those circumstances the OSCE might choose to send election observers to the United Kingdom to see how far an all-postal voting system corresponded with the objectives of democracy favoured by the OSCE. If a mission of electoral observers were to be sent to the United Kingdom, I wonder whether our adoption of this clause would give them appropriate immunity during their visit.
  Lord Triesman: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, was right in his comment about the nature of immunity. If I am wrong about that, I shall certainly write to him to correct the point.

  GC 27
  As regards the second point that he made regarding the electoral observations that have taken place, he is entirely correct to say that a delegation went to the United States. I suppose that in the context of the history of "hanging chads" and other things there was always a possibility that that would occur. I would like to think that if the organisation considered it right to send observers to observe any aspect of an election in the United Kingdom, we would consider that our system was robust and capable of being looked at by others, and that we would have no fear of anyone inspecting it. I believe that the people concerned would be bound to be covered by the relevant immunities. I have heard a whisper in the ether from the officials behind me that will not find its way into Hansard unless I say it. In case the Committee did not hear that comment, the organisation did send an election team. I shall be very inquisitive to find out what it had to say.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, had to say. What he said really reduced the whole thing to absurdity because he said that the relevant people hardly ever come and that there have been about 10 overnight stays in the past 12 months. I think that was the sort of thing he was saying. If that is so, why on earth do we want this clause in the Bill? If it is so unimportant, why are we making special provision? I refer to the other question I should like to ask and to which I should like to know the answer, although the noble Lord may not be able to give it at the moment. When the OSCE was recently present in the Ukraine supervising the elections there, did its members have diplomatic immunity in that country? I wonder whether the noble Lord knows the answer to that. If they did not have diplomatic immunity, how did that obstruct in any way—or did it obstruct in any way?—the job they had to do there? If it did not obstruct in any way the job they had to do in the Ukraine, why on earth would they need immunity in this country, which, of course, is a democratic country and freer than the Ukraine, to do the same sort of job?
  Lord Triesman: I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, thinks that the argument is absurd. A theme may have run through our debate so far that needs a tiny bit of elaboration, but I would hope not a lot. When we enter into international treaties and international bodies are set up under those treaties, all those who sign up to the treaties become, if you like, members of a club obligated by the terms of the relevant treaty. They are obligated to ensure that the organisations set up under the terms of that treaty are dealt with in an even-handed way in every country that is a party to that treaty.
  Some of the organisations that are set up will take residence in the United Kingdom. In fact, we have been extremely successful as a nation—I am proud of the fact—in that we have attracted a number of those organisations which believe that it is beneficial to be based in the United Kingdom and to conduct their international work from here. Others, by definition, will be set up elsewhere. However, they will all be
  GC 28
  treated the same way by the nature of the international obligation which all signatories to the treaty, in joining the club that that treaty represents, have given their undertakings toward. I suspect that was not a sentence with proper syntax but I hope that all Members of the Committee will none the less follow it. That is why, even if the relevant people do not come here other than for occasional visits, I should have thought that our obligations are wholly and manifestly clear.
  On the point about whether there was diplomatic immunity for the relevant people in the Ukraine, the answer is yes.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: That is all very well for the members of this cosy club who clearly do very well out of it. As the noble Lord explained, these treaties and agreements are reached by governments, by the executives. However, what the Government are now asking us to do as Parliament is to ratify these arrangements. It is in this process that Parliament has the chance to disagree with what the executive has done on its behalf.
  Baroness Falkner of Margravine: On a point of clarification, as regards the noble Lord's question about the OSCE mission monitoring the elections in the Ukraine having diplomatic immunity, as we understand it, monitoring missions do not get diplomatic immunity as expressed in the general meaning of that word. Will the Minister clarify that point? It would be surprising if members of that mission had had diplomatic immunity.
  Lord Triesman: I am advised that immunity covered by international arrangements was provided. I shall check the precise origin of the basis for that, but that is what I am advised. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness to clarify that basis.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Bodies established under Treaty on European Union]:
  Baroness Rawlings: moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 3, line 11, leave out "as amended from time to time"
  The noble Baroness said: I stand to speak to Amendment No. 5 in my name. I must say that I was tempted too to put down a Motion that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
  I would first of all like to reiterate a request I made at Second Reading. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, kindly provided us with some examples of the bodies that will be covered by this clause in relation to bodies set up under Title V and Title VI of the Maastricht Treaty. I feel I speak for the Committee when I say that a full list—as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch earlier this afternoon—of all the organisations that will be covered in this way would be most useful. Will it, for example, cover Europol investigators? Will the Minister put a copy in the Library before the next stage of the Bill? I rather agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the European Union has great influence in our daily lives, so we should consider carefully how far the privileges and immunities reach within its

  GC 29
  bodies, also, how accountable these bodies are themselves in adhering to the remit of regulations that European Union member countries are subject to.
  The amendment itself removes the ability of the section to apply to the Maastricht Treaty,
  "as amended from time to time".
  This, I understand, would allow it to apply only to bodies already covered by the treaty as it stood in 1992. The aim once again is to ask the Government in more detail about issues raised the last time we debated this Bill. I welcomed the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that,
  "this Bill has got nothing to do with the … constitutional".—[Official Report, 16/12/04; col. 1478.]
  treaty. I would like to ask for a more exacting assurance that the words,
  "as amended from time to time",
  will not allow the Government to act in anticipation of the decision of Parliament on the European Union Constitutional Treaty, and particularly any new bodies that may flow from that. If this text would enable privileges and immunities to be awarded to bodies not yet formally agreed to until a constitution is agreed and ratified, does the Minister promise that the Government will not use this power until such a situation has been reached?
  At Second Reading the Minister explained the principle that privileges and immunities should be granted only on the basis of functional need, and that each time a new European Union body is proposed the Government take a view on whether that body needs legal capacity and/or privileges and immunities. Will the Minister explain the process by which that view is made? Is there a set of criteria that must be met? Do the Government consult on these decisions, and, if so, with whom?
  5.30 p.m.
  I would also like to discuss further the issue of legal personality and the points that I previously raised. As I said, I wish to seek further clarification about the legal basis for conferring the privileges and immunities of the European Communities on the European Union bodies when the European Union itself does not have a legal personality—something that I hasten to add that we on these Benches would not support. The noble Baroness was unable to tell me at Second Reading whether the Government had responded to questions put to them along those lines by the committee dealing with European security. If they have, will the Minister make copies available to Members of this Committee for the future? If they have not, when might they respond, especially in the light of the orders that were agreed on 9 December 2004?
  The issue of legal basis is one that we should consider with great care. Indeed, it is one that should have been addressed when we originally signed up to these bodies. I beg to move.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I will speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. For these purposes, I will take a different
  GC 30
  direction from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, I will add to the discussion that we are having across these amendments. It becomes increasingly important to have some clarification from the Government about the different degrees and dimensions of diplomatic status and immunities. There was some confusion in the previous discussion about the sort of diplomatic status and immunities held by some recent ex-students of mine when they were in the Ukraine as election observers, which were different from the status and immunities of people stationed in London. That is one reason why we are asking for a review and preferably a publication from the Government about where we are going with all of this.
  On these Benches, we welcome the proliferation of agencies within the European Union, but we question how far they need the sort of status, immunities and protections that have traditionally been granted to international organisations. I hope we can all agree—even the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Pearson of Rannoch—that the European Union is a little more than an intergovernmental organisation. It may be a little less than a federation, but we are not in the traditional world of international organisations operating in difficult foreign territory. We therefore wish to raise again the question of where we are going beyond where we are now.
  Amendment No. 6 lists three illustrative recent organisations. My noble friend Lord Roper may wish to say a little about the Institute for Security Studies, on which he has a degree of expertise having been the director of its predecessor organisation. I have been struggling to discover how far ATHENA is a serious organisation, but my noble friend Lord Garden and I were listening to the director general of the European Defence Agency yesterday morning. I gather that the European Defence Agency has a staff that has grown from 20 to 80 in the past six months and is due to expand further. I am conscious that the European Police College (CEPOL) is just getting underway and established in this country in Bramshill, and someone brought to my attention yesterday that the European School Culham has some elements of special status and immunities because it operates in this country—indeed, there was an order to that effect. There are also Eurojust and Europol. Things are moving very rapidly under Titles V and VI which relate to justice and home affairs and the security and defence dimensions of the European Union. We tabled these amendments to mark that, as a member state of the European Union, Her Majesty's Government ought to be asking on our behalf how far these agencies, as they expand, need to have these traditional diplomatic privileges.
  I also asked some American colleagues whether federal district courts or representatives of the FBI operating in Oklahoma have any special status or privileges because, in a sense, they are foreigners operating in Oklahoma. Of course, they do not. They are subject to state tax and state law as well as federal law.
  We recognise that the European Union is an intermediate body, not a federation, but there are questions that need to be asked as the European Union

  GC 31
  slips from the traditional world into another and as a large number of new agencies are created and are likely to go on being created in the future.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I hesitate to break the new-found harmony that has been established with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, by saying that the privileges and immunities that we are conferring on the European Union in this Bill—if we do so—take us one more step along the road to the mega-state that we all fear. It is a step in that direction.
  This is the time to repeat the Written Question the Answer to which has winged its way post haste, at the very last moment, to my office in my absence. I feel sure that the Government have the Answer ready to give us now. The Written Questions that concern these amendments simply ask the Government which European Union institutions are already eligible for immunities and tax privileges—if there are any institutions in that category. What are those immunities and privileges? To which European Union institutions do the Government propose to grant similar status under the Bill? I hope that the answer will not be bodies established under Titles V and VI of the TEU, because that would not be very helpful. I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell me in detail what we are dealing with at the moment.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I would like to say a couple of words because people are very concerned about many European Union organisations. Many people believe, for example, that the servants of Europol have immunities in this country that ought not to be granted to them, because they involve police work. In this country, where police work is involved, we have the police complaints commission—or whatever it is now called—to which people who are aggrieved can appeal. However, I understand that, in the case of officers operating under Europol, there can be no redress.
  People are concerned about the immunities that have been granted to Europol and will presumably be granted under the area of foreign policy and security, which would be a huge extension of the foreign policy and defence regimes. There will be movement of all sorts of people between countries and presumably those people will be granted immunities. That is a very big extension of the whole business.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that he believed that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and myself would agree with him that the EU was more than an intergovernmental organisation. Of course, that is what we have been saying for a very long period of time, and it is that which concerns us; that far from being an intergovernmental organisation it is developing not into a federation, but into a unitary state. Government sources say that is not so; it is still a collection of independent states. Although there is agreement between the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and myself, he is obviously not in agreement with the Government, because the Government say that we are not on the
  GC 32
  way to federation, we are not on the way to a single European state, and we remain a collection of independent states.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Let me try to get to the logic of this. If he is right, and if we are on the road to a unitary or a federal state, why do they need immunities? Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, because they are part of the United Kingdom, do not have special immunities. Why on earth would they want these immunities, if we are on the road to this single state, or federal state? Because they will be operating in what is, even now, virtually a unitary state.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has introduced an important point. In answering my question, it may well be that we will get the Government's point of view as to what exactly the European Union is. Perhaps they could reassert that it is a collection of independent, sovereign states, and that is how they intend it to remain. Or do they agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we are on the way, or perhaps we are virtually there, to a unitary or federal state?
  Lord Roper: I want to raise one question with the Minister that follows up something that my noble friend Lord Wallace said on an earlier amendment. I should declare a historic interest; I was the founding director of a body which was then not part of the European Union, but was a subsidiary of another international organisation, Western European Union, but which has now become an agency of the European Union, and would therefore perhaps in some way benefit from these things. To my surprise, it is mentioned in Amendment No. 6.
  I want to make a distinction. Do we necessarily need to have the same sorts of immunities for all the sorts of agencies that might be created under the European Union? There seems to me to be a possible division into three categories. There are obviously agencies and institutions that are based in this country, which would need to have a set of immunities and diplomatic status for some of their staff. There is a second category of those based outside the United Kingdom, but who may have substantial operations in this country, and therefore are here on a regular basis, although not physically based and paid within the United Kingdom. There is a third category of organisations that are based outside this country, and whose staff either make no visits, or very occasional ones.
  It may be that as a matter of habit and in terms of diplomatic practice, it is appropriate to provide the same sets of immunities for each of these three categories of agencies. In the light of what my noble friend Lord Wallace said earlier about looking at this again and trying to see whether one does not need to have a rather more discriminating approach, I raise with the Minister the question of whether we need to provide exactly the same sorts of diplomatic immunities for all these different categories of agencies that might be created under the European Union.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Triesman: The amendment would limit the EU bodies on which privileges and immunities could be conferred under the clause to those bodies established pursuant to the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. The words,
  "as amended from time to time",
  are intended to cover the amendments made to the Maastricht Treaty by the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice.
  I shall give an example. One EU body on which we wish to confer privileges and immunities under the clause is the EU Satellite Centre, which provides valuable satellite imagery analysis, helping the EU to monitor crises across the world. The Satellite Centre was established by a Council joint action in July 2001 pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union. The joint action establishing the Satellite Centre is based not on the provisions of the original Title V in the Maastricht Treaty, but Title V as amended by the Amsterdam Treaty. To delete,
  "as amended from time to time",
  could therefore render the clause meaningless. To ensure that we have good and clear legislation, we need to ensure that both the Amsterdam Treaty and the Treaty of Nice, as well as the Maastricht Treaty, are covered by the clause. The Government therefore consider it essential to retain,
  "as amended from time to time",
  and cannot for that reason accept the amendment.
  I appreciate the important questions raised by noble Lords in this short debate that bear on how we understand the whole of the matter, and I would like to try to deal with them. I shall start with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and perhaps the most fundamental question of the debate. It was on the fact that the constitutional treaty might, if carried by Parliament, in due course replace the Maastricht Treaty rather than amend it. I confirm that,
  "as amended from time to time",
  will not cover the constitutional treaty, if it ever enters into force. The process is separate and distinct, and Parliament will be where the Treaty on European Union will be discussed, freestanding of anything that the Bill attempts to do. I want to deal with that as clearly as I can.
  We have rightly been asked further questions by the noble Baroness on the legal personality of the bodies set up under the EU, bodies set up by an entity that itself does not have a legal personality—that point was well made. The bodies need legal capacity, privileges and immunities to operate. Once we have agreed to Council decisions or other measures to establish the bodies, the UK is under an obligation to confer the powers under international law. The fact that the EU does not have a legal personality, except to the extent that it concludes agreements pursuant to Articles 24 or 38 of the Treaty on European Union, is immaterial to that fact. The agreements made, and only those agreements, are the bases on which we proceed.
  GC 34
  At the moment, six bodies have been established by the EU under the Treaty on European Union. They are: Europol; Eurojust; the Satellite Centre, which I mentioned; the Institute of Security Studies; ATHENA, the financing mechanism; and the European Defence Agency. Only three of those bodies are relevant to the Bill, where existing legislation does not allow us to meet in full the commitments that we have made on the necessary privileges and immunities. Those are the Satellite Centre, the Institute of Security Studies and ATHENA.
  There are 19 agencies of the European Community. Granting privileges and immunities to those agencies is covered by the European Communities Act 1972. Community agencies are distinct from the Community institutions, such as Council, Parliament, Commission and so on, due to their own legal personalities. That constitutes the distinction; one set has their own legal personalities, and the others are set up by secondary legislation to accomplish a wide range of specific technical, scientific and managerial tasks specified in relevant Community Acts. That is why the two sets are different.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asks where we are going with all this. I do not want to paraphrase his point unfairly—if I do, no doubt he will correct me in any event—but, broadly speaking, we in Europe live in democratic states. Although it is not the case that there are no other democratic states elsewhere, a great many of the treaties, obligations, privileges and immunities that flow from them were constructed when there were many conflicts between states. Many of the states in conflict were not democratic or modern in the way that we understand the terms.
  It may not be appropriate in Committee to enter into the broader, philosophical argument, but I want to make an observation, and I hope that it might become part of our debate in due course. We would not serve ourselves well if we began to treat our international obligations as essentially two-tier, those tiers being obligations with states that we regard as very like us, and those with states that we think poor or inferior compared with us. I am not making a distinction between Europe and everywhere else, but one between one might be a rather Euro-centric view and a view about what is happening in the rest of the world.
  As the Bill shows—it can be seen elsewhere—we have tried to treat our international obligations in a way that expresses a relatively level view of our expectations about the nature of mutual obligations between states, rather than some of them having the imprint of being okay with us, and others the imprint of being second-rate or inferior. I make that general point because several of the arguments that have flowed about how we might distinguish between different arrangements could lead to a two-tier or multi-tier system of dealing with international obligations.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also asked more specifically whether the Bill conferred diplomatic immunity on organisations or individuals concerned.

  GC 35
  It does not, but it enables the conferral of privileges and immunities by an Order in Council. Those are necessary for us to fulfil our international obligations. The privileges and immunities that we confer on international organisations is much less in extent and scope than the privileges and immunities enjoyed by diplomats. In that, the noble Lord himself pointed out that there were differences in application; I simply confirm that his proposition is accurate.
  I shall turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He made them in a question, and I shall deal with only the question that he specifically asked, although I know that there were two Questions, to which replies have been given by the Government.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The second Question will come up on the next amendment.
  Lord Triesman: I am delighted to hear that. The 1965 protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Community conferred on the European communities a range of privileges and immunities considered necessary for the performance by the communities of their tasks and functions. Those privileges and immunities are similar to those conferred on other international organisations, and include immunity from jurisdiction, exemption from taxation, exemption from customs duties, and prohibitions and restrictions on importation and exportation of articles for official use.
  The provisions of the 1965 protocol apply to the communities, their institutions—the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors, the European Central Bank, the European Monetary Institute and the European Investment Bank—and, in accordance with the protocol, to certain representatives of member states and certain officials and servants of the communities. The provisions of the protocol have also been applied to bodies created under the Community and for certain officials and staff engaged in the work of such bodies. The 1965 protocol and the privileges and immunities flowing from it are given effect in UK law by the European Communities Act 1972, as I said a few moments ago, and the International Organisations Bill will not alter that situation.
  The International Organisations Bill will, however, enable the UK to confer legal capacity and privileges and immunities on bodies established under powers conferred under Title V—provisions on a common foreign and security policy—and Title VI—provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters—of the Treaty on European Union and on certain categories of individuals connected with those bodies. At present three bodies exist on which the privileges and immunities will be conferred pursuant to Clause 5 of the International Organisations Bill, if it becomes an Act. I mentioned them a moment ago: ATHENA, the EU Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies.
  GC 36
  The 1965 protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities applies only to European institutions. The main institutions include the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Investment Bank. Examples of privileges and immunities under the 1965 protocol include immunity from jurisdiction, exemption from taxation and customs duties and prohibitions and restrictions on importation and exportation of articles for official use.
  The International Organisations Bill will enable the UK to confer legal capacity and privileges and communities on bodies established under Title V and Title VI—which I mentioned a few moments ago—of the Treaty on European Union and certain categories of individuals connected with those entities. These bodies are not European Union institutions. The 1965 protocol does not apply to EU bodies unless an EU regulation expressly provides that the protocol will apply to a specific body. No provision is made by any EU regulations for the protocol to apply to the EU bodies in question. They are set up by decisions of the Council of Ministers. Member states reach unanimous agreements to establish these bodies and to agree privileges and immunities in order to allow the bodies to function properly. Where such an agreement is reached, the UK and all other member states are under a clear obligation to implement the agreement by conferring legal capacity and privileges and immunities on these bodies. As I say, three bodies currently exist on which these provisions have been conferred. I shall not discuss the nature of the three bodies as I believe we have covered that well enough. However, I hope that constitutes a full answer to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and that it will satisfy him.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked about Europol. Under an order made by the Privy Council last December, so far as the officers of Europol are participating in investigations in this country, they do not enjoy privileges and immunities as Europol officers. That should alleviate the anxieties people who are concerned about that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Roper, asked whether there should be different levels of diplomatic privileges and immunities for all EU bodies and whether we should grade them according to a set of criteria that he mentioned. I believe that there could be other such criteria. Some privileges and immunities are not given to all EU bodies—a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. The privileges and immunities conferred on EU bodies will be dependent only on their functional need; that is, those privileges and immunities will be conferred that are necessary for them to function effectively and not otherwise. We certainly do not confer diplomatic levels of privileges and immunities on EU bodies and we do not intend to do so.
  The powers to confer those immunities and other responsibilities have been looked at and are detailed, as several Members of the Committee have mentioned, in the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Members of the Committee have listened to a rather long response, which I hope has

  GC 37
  covered properly the very serious points that have been made. The report shows that there is no reason for anxiety about the way in which this Bill deals with those matters. It does not go beyond any international obligation, but it meets proper international obligations. I hope that in that light the noble Baroness will consider it appropriate to withdraw the amendment.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Perhaps, since Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are grouped here, it may be appropriate to say a little about Amendment No. 7 and to turn to some of the general points made by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. Our concern about Clause 5, lines 24 to 30, precisely follows phrases, such as that in Clause 5(2)(b), which reads,
  "provide that the body shall … have such specified privileges and immunities as … it is in the opinion of Her Majesty in Council appropriate for the body to have",
  and in subsection (c), which reads,
  "confer on such specified classes of persons … such specified privileges and immunities as … it is in the opinion of Her Majesty in Council appropriate to confer on them".
  It is entirely justified for us to ask for more information about what privileges and immunities are appropriate and when, rather than to leave it to the Government to put them in. That is precisely why we are asking the Government to conduct a review of where we are.
  It strengthens our case that the Government should rest their argument on a protocol that was agreed and signed by the original six members of a European Community that is now a 25-member European Union in 1965, when I was still in full-time education and my noble friend Lady Falkner was still in school. I shall not speculate on what the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, was up to in that period. It was 40 years ago.
  The European Economic Community was a very small organisation with very limited competencies. It has grown in terms of policies, competencies and so forth enormously over 40 years. I would suggest that this is something that deserves to be looked at again. I understand that the European Commission has now started a review of its policy towards agencies because those agencies, under Titles I to III, are now proliferating. I had a very helpful conversation with one of the officials concerned with that review yesterday.
  We are suggesting that Her Majesty's Government should contribute positively to that review and should look at the overall question of the way in which the European Commission and the various agencies, including those established under Clauses 5 and 6, relate to the national laws under which they operate.
  I recall when I first began to study the European Community, which I regret to say was not quite 40 years ago but is getting on for that, that there was a duty free shop underneath the Berlaymont where Commission officials could go to buy cheap whisky and everything else. I think that I am right in saying that that has now disappeared, and quite rightly so. But there are some other things that again one wants to look at.
  GC 38
  I am always rather doubtful of the extent to which the European Commission, for example, imposes on applicant members of the European Union criteria for employment law and so forth that the Commission itself is not entirely subject to and does not entirely observe. So there are a range of questions that, as loyal members of the European Union, we and other governments and the European institutions should now, appropriately, ask. It is not only a question about the European Union. The Council of Europe and the OECD also seem to be bodies that operate among friendly countries, all of which are democracies, which do not need the same privileges and immunities as traditionally were established to formal international organisations 50 to 100 years ago. That is the case that we are making.
  I understood from my conversation with an official of the Commission that one of the historical reasons for this is that a lot of these European bodies are in Belgium and Luxembourg and that large tax revenues would flow to Belgium and Luxembourg if they were to pay national taxation. There are other ways and means of dealing with that.
  The issue of use of domestic resources and obligations clearly has to deal with. My wife tells me, for example, that one of the conditions of her place of work is that she is not allowed to use Italian national health facilities because she does not pay Italian tax. Those are anomalies that need to be looked at.
  To come back to my personal situation, I do my best to persuade my friends and colleagues that, since I have to make the sacrifice, as I shall next weekend, of going to Florence every other weekend, my wife needs to be paid an allowance for her dependent spouse to do so. But the idea that going to Florence every other weekend is a sacrifice is a little different from my wife being a member of an organisation based in Tbilisi, for example, or somewhere else.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Can I make a sacrifice for you?
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: We are not dealing with the same sorts of international organisations as 60 or 70 years ago. That is the whole thrust of arguments from these Benches.
  Lord Roper: I was most grateful for the explanation from the Minister, in particular the reason why the 1965 protocol cannot apply to those bodies that have been created under Titles V and VI and why one has therefore to make specific provision in this Bill for the Orders in Council to be made. This is therefore an enabling Bill.
  Just to go back to the point that I made, it would be very valuable if, before we get to the final stages of consideration of the Bill in this House, at least it were possible to see in draft the orders that would be likely to be made for the various bodies to which the Minister referred; namely, ATHENA, the Torrejón European Union Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies in Paris. In a sense, that would take up the point that I tried to make. We might want to have

  GC 39
  different sorts of privileges for different sorts of institutions. We are not issuing all of them with exactly the same. In each case, it would be relevant to the degree in which a body operated within the United Kingdom. I assume that that would be one of the criteria to be applied.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may press the Minister on what he said about Europol. I think that he said that Europol did not enjoy immunity and that its officers did not enjoy immunity. I ask that particularly because there is a very disturbing story going around the City of London that recently a number of leading City institutions were raided by Europol officers simultaneously by teams of about a dozen officers each. Those officers were on a fishing expedition to see if the institutions concerned might have evidence that would be useful in a commercial case in Europe.
  Those who have told me of this incident say that the officers behaved in a very dictatorial way and even informed the wretched recipients of their attentions that they were not allowed to discuss the visit. They blocked off the reception areas and attempted to freeze the buildings' offices while they carried out a search. I do not want to go further into the detail of the incident because obviously I am looking at it under a separate initiative. It would be very interesting to know from the Minister whether Europol in that action enjoyed any form of immunity. That would be helpful to the institutions concerned.
  More generally, I am very grateful to the Minister for his exposition of the present state of play with immunity in the European Union and how that will progress if this Bill goes through. I do not want to sound ungrateful, but it would be very useful to have from the Government a list of the 19 agencies to which the noble Lord referred as being given immunity under the treaty of accession, and generally to have a list of all the bodies that currently enjoy immunity and those that might enjoy immunity, tax privileges and so on when this Bill has been passed.
  I notice that the Minister referred to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Investment Bank. I do not think that I heard him refer to the Luxembourg Court of so-called Justice, which, as the noble Lord will know, many of us do not regard as a court of law at all but rather as the engine of the treaties. Would I be right in thinking that the Luxembourg Court also enjoys similar immunities?
  I do not wish to detain the Committee now, but it would be helpful to have the detail of all the bodies concerned spelt out on paper; that is, those that already enjoy these immunities and those that might enjoy them in future.
  Baroness Rawlings: I am glad that other noble Lords share my concerns.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Is the noble Baroness winding up?
  Baroness Rawlings: No. I agree that putting a list of the bodies to which privileges and immunities will
  GC 40
  apply is one way of making it clear to all exactly who is covered and who is not. It would also ensure that the list is amended and updated over time as new bodies would have to be added to the list, unlike my suggested list that is to be placed in the Library.
  While I support the measure, I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks. Would he undertake to keep an up-to-date list on the department's website, if not on the face of the Bill? I am unsure but I think that we might also need to have another amendment in conjunction with this enabling the Secretary of State the power by order to amend the list.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My point arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, told the Committee about a raid on premises in the City. I accepted the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, gave to me about the immunity of Europol. He has obviously received advice that it has no immunities. But, from what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, it appears that Europol has some immunities and, indeed, is acting improperly if it is threatening people with sanctions if they as much as dare to give out facts in public. I do not know whether the Minister has anything further to say on that.
  Lord Triesman: I shall try to sweep up the points as briefly as possible, but, again, a number of very substantive points have been made. I will certainly ensure that a list of the 19 agencies is placed in the Library of the House immediately. I am more than happy to discuss with officials the best way of ensuring that the list as updated—if ever—because of additions is made available. I can see no reason why that should not be the case. I undertake to do that.
  Perhaps I may deal very quickly with a separate issue.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Can the Minister distribute that list to Members of the Committee? It would be helpful if we could all have copies.
  Lord Triesman: By all means, I shall circulate it. There is no problem whatever, in my view, in ensuring that everybody has it. I should be delighted to do that.
  First, I shall deal with some of the issues which are probably not right at the heart of the debate; I hope that Members of the Committee will take no offence when I say that. I have nothing to add to the points that I made about Europol. It was a clear statement, and I would prefer that it stay a clear statement. I am not able, for obvious reasons, to go through what might have happened in any particular police action in any particular location, about which I do not know and of which I have seen no proper or full account. I do not know what steps are taken by policemen from Europol or elsewhere to ensure that they go about their business in an unimpeded way in conducting whatever investigations which they feel are appropriate. I do not want to speculate about that matter, and I hope that Members of the Committee will not feel that that is a dismissive response. I simply feel that the original, fundamental statement is the most helpful way in which to get a clear position on the record.

  GC 41
  I turn to the whole issue about which organisations have immunities and what level of immunities. Those points have been raised by most Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate. First, I should say that the Court of Justice was mentioned in my response, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, should find it in the Official Report, when he has an opportunity to read it. The general issues are, I think, as follows.
  I turn first to Orders in Council and what they can and cannot do, as that goes to the heart of so much of what we are talking about. Any Order in Council made under the clauses with which we are concerned shall be framed so as to secure that the privileges and immunities conferred by the order are not greater in extent than those which at the time when the order takes effect are required to be conferred in accordance with any agreement to which the United Kingdom, or Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, is then a party. The agreement should specify the boundaries within which the whole of the system of privileges and immunities should operate, and it should not operate beyond that. That would be the only way in which any system of international treaty-making could possibly operate in any case.
  The noble Lord, Lord Roper, particularly asked about, or probed the question of, the 1965 protocols. The protocols, privileges and immunities of the European Community apply only to European institutions. It is worth repeating for the sake of clarity that bodies set up under Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union are not European institutions. Examples of such institutions are the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. The protocol does not apply to EU bodies unless an EU regulation expressly provides that a protocol will apply to a specific body. That comes back to the point that I made about the legal basis for proceeding with the whole provision in the first place. No provision is made in any EU regulation for the protocol to apply to the EU bodies in question. I hope that those comments clarify that point.
  The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised several related points. There are organisations, such as the OSCE, with which we dealt in the last clause, which do not need privileges and immunities. The effect of doing so would be to create a situation in which one group, mainly of western states, are formally categorised as democratically superior to others. That comes under the point that I made about a potential danger. That would not be acceptable or helpful to multilateral relations. The issues that we may have with such states are no doubt important to pursue—I do not deny that for one second—but they will not be best pursued by writing into the formality of international agreements that we regard some of them as second rate. I believe that I made that point earlier in the discussion.
  Some have asked whether there is too much discretion allowed by the clauses proposed in the Bill as regards privileges and immunities conferred. I hope that I have expressed the basis on which those privileges and immunities can be constructed, and beyond which they may not go. If that is felt to be a
  GC 42
  sufficient basis in current law—and of course I am citing current law rather than proposed law—I hope that the critical issues that have been raised in the debate have been expressed in Committee today, as far as I have been able to do so.
  I add the following final points. Listing a limited number of organisations in the Bill rather than describing the category is probably not the best way in which to proceed, but I can understand that in probing the question we have drawn out the fundamentals of the issue. I believe that we have probably dealt with the critical definition of "legal capacity", which is set up in the same way. That is another matter covered by the amendments. Finally, there are matters which will probably be dealt with separately—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in his Written Questions, has queries about the rights of families and others, going beyond the most obvious categories of diplomats and the staff of bodies with which we have dealt up to now.
  I hope that those comments answer appropriately the questions that have been raised. It is in that light that I invite Members of the Committee who have amendments in this group either to withdraw them or, in due course, not to move them.
  Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister for his detailed and interesting answer and for his assurance regarding the constitutional treaty. I look forward to receiving answers to some of the unanswered questions in writing. Therefore, we may return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 3, line 19, at end insert—
  "(1A) The bodies to which subsection (1) above applies include, but are not limited to—

  (a) ATHENA,

  (b) the European Union Satellite Centre, and

  (c) the Institute for Security Studies."

  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. We look forward to hearing more detail from the Government. We would certainly wish to reintroduce Amendment No. 7 on Report unless we have some more detailed information from the Government by then.
  I note the vigour with which the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, defended British sovereignty against incursions against it. I hope that when some of my noble friends raise questions about the UK/USA agreement and the astonishing autonomy of US personnel on British territory, on Menwith Hill and elsewhere, we may attract the same degree of support from them. I beg to move.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I would very much agree with the noble Lord. As a matter of fact, when we discussed the then Extradition Bill, it was I who first raised the matter in this House.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I thank the noble Lord for thsat reassurance.

  GC 43
  I note, too—and I am encouraged by a nod from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall—that there have, quite correctly, been a number of changes in how the rights and privileges given to the European Commission have operated over the past 40 years. The process of reform of the Commission and the EU agencies, which many of us support very strongly and which Commissioner Kinnock pushed through, should take the process further. That is something that we want to encourage Her Majesty's Government to do. It is a very important part of accustoming us to the fact that the European Union is in many ways part of our daily lives and ought not to be treated as if it were simply another international organisation, in the same way as the United Nations is an international organisation. Again, in that regard, I find myself disagreeing with some of the tenor of the Government's remarks.
  These are all points to which we shall return, but we look forward very much to hearing further on them from the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 3, leave out line 37.
  The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to family members of people who work for inter-governmental organisations. With these three amendments, we are raising the question why one needs to extend to family members privileges under European agencies. I quote from J. Craig Barker's book, The Abuse of Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities —A Necessary Evil? He says:
  "Arguably the most controversial provision in the 1961 Convention is one which is fundamental to the whole question of the abuse of diplomatic privileges and immunities, that is the question of who, apart from the diplomatic agent, is entitled to the privileges and immunities laid down in Articles 29 to 36 of the Convention?"
  He goes on to give the example of the grandson of the Brazilian ambassador to the United States who murdered someone in a club one night.
  That is some distance from where we are, in the European Union, but we should know why members of families who form part of households should be included within the rather limited diplomatic privileges and immunities which are given to staff and officials of European agencies, and of the European Court of Human Rights, although different criteria may well apply to the International Criminal Court. I beg to move.
  Baroness Rawlings: We agree with Amendment No. 8. However, what other persons does Her Majesty's Government envisage will need such immunities and privileges awarded to the officers and staff of the body in question? Apart from the Brazilian grandson, would it cover the cleaners, or are they covered by the word "staff" in subsection (3)(a)?
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: This is perhaps the point at which I should put my second Written Question on
  GC 44
  to the record in these Committee proceedings. My original question was double-barrelled, the first part asking how the Government defined the,
  "other persons connected with the body, and members of their families who form part of their households".
  To whom do the Government propose to grant immunity under subsection (3)(b)? Secondly, to how many United Kingdom residents do the Government expect such immunity to apply? I refer to people both here and living abroad.
  I appreciate that quite a lot of these organisations, though not all of them, are based abroad—if the European Union still counts as abroad. I begin to have my doubts, but let us assume that it does. How many people affected by the provision live here, and how many UK residents living abroad will benefit from it? The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was good enough to tell us, both at Second Reading and this evening, that his wife might be covered by the provisions.
  What does the Bill mean when it refers to members of a household? I am not joking, but does it actually include their dogs? Supposing a dog belonging to one of these people was to bite someone in the street, would that be covered? I am sure that my wife, who is very keen on our dogs, would insist that they formed part of our household. There could be a serious point here to which it is worth having an answer.
  Baroness Crawley: I suppose that the noble Lord's dogs are Euro-sceptics too.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am delighted to inform the noble Baroness that all my dogs are German.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: What about mistresses?
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My noble friend, if I may refer to him as that, asks about mistresses. Of course, that is something about which I know very little. However, it should seriously be included in the question. What do we mean by these provisions?
  Lord Triesman: The amendment proposes the deletion of the last line of subsection (3), which provides that the persons on whom privileges and immunities may be conferred under subsection (2)(c) include family members of officers and staff and other persons connected with EU bodies. I will go into further detail in specific response to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
  6.30 p.m.
  If the amendment were agreed, it would not be possible to confer privileges and immunities on family members and persons connected with EU bodies. I say immediately that I will not venture into answering any questions about household pets. I know from bitter experience that the moment one starts talking about people's household pets—few of whom can be brought to trial or claim any immunities or privileges in that sense—one gets into trouble because of the other sorts of household pets one fails to mention which apparently one fails to hold in such high esteem.

  GC 45
  Conferral of privileges and immunities on family members of officials and staff of EU bodies will in some cases be necessary to ensure that the work of the officials is not undermined. If we make the amendment proposed, the UK will not be able to confer privileges and immunities on family members, as noble Lords have pointed out. That could result in the UK not being able to fulfil its EU obligations. It is therefore important that legislative provision is made for the possibility—which I stress—of conferring such privileges and immunities.
  Furthermore, any secondary legislation conferring privileges and immunities on family members under this clause will be subject to affirmative resolution and will therefore be debated in both Houses. That would give noble Lords a further opportunity to criticise or at least scrutinise the privileges and immunities being conferred.
  I understand the point made about affirmative resolution, because it faces everyone with the prospect of turning down the whole of the proposal rather than distinct parts of it, but it is a serious opportunity taken in the House, as many noble Lords will have observed for themselves, to deal with issues that are regarded as highly problematic and to deal harshly with the whole of a piece of secondary legislation should it be manifestly absurd.
  The answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, covers the sorts of people in general who will come under the umbrella of this provision, if it is decided to extend privileges and immunities to them. Clause 5(3)(b) will cover, among others, persons employed by or serving under the body as experts or as persons engaged on missions for the body, representatives to the body, representatives on or members of any subordinate body or sub-committee, family members of those persons, and family members of officers or staff of the body.
  As ATHENA, the European Union Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies are all based outside the United Kingdom, it is expected that few if any UK residents connected with those bodies would enjoy the immunities. However, I will not go through the point that I made earlier about why bodies are covered even if they are not anticipated to work in the United Kingdom in the near future. The International Organisations Bill is a small technical Bill in that respect. It enables the Government to meet outstanding international commitments to confer legal capability and privileges and immunities on a number of international organisations and bodies and on certain categories of individuals connected with them. The Bill is clear about that.
  Clause 5 deals with the bodies established under the Treaty on European Union. It is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of all the categories of persons that will fall within Clause 5(3)(b). The purpose of the clause is to ensure that we can confer privileges and immunities on all categories of persons that we need to, pursuant to EU Council decisions or other measures. The question about whether it was likely that the measure could be extended within the
  GC 46
  terms of the definitions that I have provided in Grand Committee today was fairly put. For example, could the cleaners or personal staff working for people in those bodies be included? The answer is no—there could be no functional justification for that. I go back to my original point on the root law on the matter, which was about the functions having to be specifically related to the outcomes that we are discussing.
  I do not believe that the privileges and immunities could be extended in a way that everyone would find not only undesirable, but thoroughly risible. That is a belief on which I am advised, rather than simply being a personal belief. In that light, I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have answered the fundamental questions put to me today and that the amendment can be withdrawn.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am not sure that I heard the noble Lord answer the second part of my question, which was about how many United Kingdom residents the Government expect the immunity to apply to. That includes those living both here and abroad. Can the Government hazard a guess at that?
  Lord Triesman: I apologise; I did not answer that. I will and must answer it, but I shall do so in writing. Rather than hazarding a guess, I should like to be precise about it.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: We might wish to reintroduce Amendment No. 8 on Report, because I am not entirely convinced by the argument. I again stress that we are not where we were in 1965. In 1965, going to France from Britain was an expedition, and one spent a good deal of time going through customs on both sides of the English Channel and showing one's passport to people who quite regularly wished to inspect all its pages. I regret that the United Kingdom has not yet become a full member of Schengen but I wave my passport at someone who, even under current circumstances, rarely looks at the inside as I come through on a regular basis, and I do not feel that I am going to a foreign country in quite the same way.
  Much has changed. Household pets travel rather more easily across Europe now than they did a few years ago; that is also something in which the world is becoming a little different. I was one of those who campaigned hard to have the European Police College come to Britain, and I am very glad that it has done. Now that it is here and will train lots of people over the next few years, however, I am not sure that it quite needs exceptional status. Again, the issue is one of developing complexity.
  I am not entirely clear what privileges need to go to the European school in Culham, or elsewhere. I am certainly not persuaded that family members need particular privileges. Family members of foreign banks operating in London do not need particular privileges. Why do people who work for European agencies operating in Britain need them? Again, we recognise entirely that Britain alone cannot change regulations on the matter. I was extremely happy to hear that the European Commission was itself beginning to conduct a review of it. We therefore want

  GC 47
  to encourage Her Majesty's Government to put it in the context of Commission reform and the developing policy of the European Union, and to encourage other governments to take on board that we should not automatically apply old, established rules—most of which were negotiated before we were born, and quite a lot of them before we started our careers—into the foreseeable future. My party regards that matter as a necessary response to the increasing interdependence within which we live.
  Lord Triesman: I want to repeat one point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It ought to be said, otherwise misapprehensions about the fundamental nature of the questions in this brief debate will persist. The United Kingdom Government have made a number of undertakings under the current treaties to which we are party. This legislation tries to make good the promises that we have made. There is common ground between us on that. There seems to be a very persuasive argument to suggest further review, and that a good deal would be learnt about the development of international relations and international organisations in such a further review, including within Europe. However, it does not resolve our immediate problem, which the Bill is intended to address. That is a very much more limited problem, and I hope that I have set it out as straightforwardly as I can.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Indeed you have made it clear. I was merely concerned to extract from the Government a commitment that such a review will be conducted, and that Her Majesty's Government will not only conduct a review so far as Britain is concerned, but will commit themselves to taking this issue further multilaterally within the European Union, which is the issue with which we are most directly concerned here.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I could put on record once again what I said earlier. Of course I accept the system as outlined by the Minister, but I remind him that the people of this country elect and dismiss Members of Parliament about once every four or five years, and the Government are formed of a majority of elected MPs. Only 60 per cent of the electorate now bother to vote in general elections, and modern governments are supported by only some 40 per cent of those who do vote, or about 24 per cent of the electorate. The percentage of those who vote is declining, and trust in our system of parliamentary democracy is eroding steadily. When one sees a Bill such as this, which has been agreed in secret in the Council of Ministers—
  Lord Triesman: No.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Yes, at least as far as the European aspect is concerned, the agreements in the Council are reached in secret. When Parliament, for which the people vote, elect and dismiss, is asked to rubber stamp infringements of this kind on our ancient liberties, I am not surprised that trust in our system of parliamentary democracy is eroding so steadily.
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 [International Criminal Court]:
  Baroness Rawlings: moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 3, line 44, leave out paragraph (a).
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment aims to question how far the immunities and privileges provided to the International Criminal Court judges should extend to members of their family who form part of their households, along the same lines as we have been discussing.
  I welcome the assurance given by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, at Second Reading, that the terminology in the Bill would cover civil partners, as recently enacted. I recognise too the need to make sure that judges' work cannot be undermined by threats against close members of their families. This rings true with Article 26 of the founding document of the International Criminal Court, which states that privileges and immunities are,
  "granted in the interests of the good administration of justice and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves".
  Article 15(3) requires immunities for family members in the household only if the judge is residing in the country concerned. Out of interest, how many International Criminal Court judges are currently residing in this country?
  The Explanatory Notes seem to envisage the refunding of VAT and other taxation incurred on visits. Will this happen only if a family member is travelling with the judge, or would they be able to claim it on their own independent travel? For example, would the wife of a judge be able to claim back all the VAT on a Christmas shopping spree in London when her husband is in Brussels? If their children are at boarding school or university here when the family's main residence is abroad, will they be able to claim back all the VAT on all the services used by their children? Will the Minister assure the Committee that the British taxpayer will not be subsidising shopping trips under the veil of making certain that the International Criminal Court judge cannot be undermined by the actions of his family?
  Can the Minister also explain how these family members will be registered as part of the household? If there is, for example, an elderly relation who spends one half of the year with the judge, and the other half of the year with the sibling of the judge, will she be eligible for immunities and privileges?
  I turn to a point on which I would like clarification. It reoccurs in clauses throughout the Bill and not just in this specific clause. If there were a case where an individual consistently abused the immunities and privileges awarded to him, will these privileges be removed? Can they be removed? What process would be used and who would decide whether he has abused the position awarded to him?

  GC 49
  Granted, these suggested changes are in the interests of good administration of justice and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves. However, for people who hold positions of authority in organisations, particularly in the ICC and the ECHR, it is vital that they should set an example and remain accountable for their actions. After all, it is they who are calling others to account. As such, the Minister can see from my questions that I want to clarify exactly how far these privileges are extended to family members. I beg to move.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Crawley: It is important to confer privileges and immunities on family members of officials of international organisations to ensure that the work of officials is not undermined by threats against close family members. That is why we want to cover family members. My noble friend Lord Triesman said much the same on an earlier amendment.
  The proposed amendment would make it impossible for the UK to confer privileges and immunities on family members of senior staff of the International Criminal Court. The consequence would be that the UK would not be able fully to implement its obligations under the agreement on privileges and immunities of the International Criminal Court of 2002, which it signed on 10 September 2002.
  Conferral of immunities and privileges on family members of senior staff of an international organisation is nothing new. Privileges and immunities have been conferred, for example, on family members and officials of the following organisations: the World Trade Organisation; the International Maritime Organisation; the International Seabed Authority; the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation.
  Similarly, family members of diplomats enjoy privileges and immunities by virtue of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Furthermore, by conferring privileges and immunities on family members of senior staff of the ICC, the UK will be doing nothing more than has been agreed by the other 62 states which have signed the ICC agreement, including nearly all of the European member states.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked me a number of questions and I shall do my best to answer as many as possible. I shall reply in writing to any I do not answer. The noble Baroness asked me how many ICC judges reside in this country. There is one; Sir Adrian Fulford.
  The noble Baroness also asked whether, if an elderly relatives resides for half a year with the judge and half a year somewhere else, how the relative would benefit from privileges and immunities. The elderly relative will enjoy privileges and immunities only when residing with the judge. Once she stops residing, she will not enjoy privileges and immunities.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about refunds of VAT to officials of the International Criminal Court. Refunds of VAT will be made only to
  GC 50
  the organisation—to the ICC itself—for official activities and not to individual officials. She asked me several other questions which I shall answer in writing.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before we leave the amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether it is true, as the Bill appears to state, that these immunities and privileges will be extended not only to members of the families who form part of the households of the judges and so forth, but also to,
  "persons attending meetings of the Assembly (including persons attending such meetings as observers and persons invited to such meetings)"?
  That is what the Bill appears to provide, the Assembly being the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC statute, including the subsidiary organs of the Assembly. Is that really what is intended? If so, how is it justifiable?
  Baroness Crawley: Yes, that is to be extended to those people to whom the noble referred for the course of their visit so that their work will not be impeded during their official duties.
  Baroness Rawlings: I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. We have probed the matter quite far and I look forward to receiving a written reply to the unanswered questions.
  I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that many of the agreements are outdated and need to be reviewed. Following the commitment given earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, to look at the matter again, could not the whole issue of immunities and privileges provided in old treaties be raised during our presidency of the European Union? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [European Court of Human Rights]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall be agreed to?
  Baroness Rawlings: During Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, explained that the changes in this clause would enable us to withdraw from our reservation of Article 1 of the Sixth Protocol. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this reservation was included in the instrument of ratification deposited in November 2001 and that it was reaffirmed in 20O3 in respect of the Isle of Man? Can she please explain why, when the Government reaffirmed the reservation not too long ago, they have chosen now to change their position? Have Her Majesty's Government been receiving lobbying on tax immunities for family members of judges of the European Court of Human Rights? If so, can she place copies of the correspondence relating to this in the Library?
  I want also to reiterate a point I made on Second Reading. Can the noble Baroness please inform me whether she has asked the Joint Committee on Human Rights to report on this issue while the Bill is in the amending stages in this House? I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that the Joint

  GC 51
  Committee's report will help inform this section of the debate and it is of little use once the opportunity to discuss it has passed.
  There are similar issues here to those we have discussed in relation to Clause 6 and the ICC judges. I do not want to labour the point, but could the Minister clarify how far these immunities extend to family members? Would a teenage son of an ECHR judge causing affray outside a London nightclub be immune? Will it cover share portfolios? Could a judge or a family member go hunting and reclaim the VAT on the cost of hiring a horse? Who would be considered a member of the household? Would they be covered when travelling individually? Would it cover trips outside the country of residence? How would they remain accountable?
  Could the Minister also explain to the Committee how tax immunities for ECHR judges and their families sit alongside Her Majesty's Government's domestic plans for judicial pensions? How would she counter the claims that there appears to be emerging one law for lawyers and judges and another for ordinary citizens? It would be of interest if she could provide the Committee with the average salary of an ECHR judge, an ICC judge and a domestic judge.
  I continue to recognise the need to support the work of judges vis-à-vis privileges and immunities for their families. However, these judges and their families need to be accountable for their actions. In fact, does the Minister have any evidence that intimidation via the family regarding tax issues has been used in the past to influence a judge of the ICC or the ECHR? What studies have been made which show that it has affected our own domestic judges? Is this setting a precedent that will trickle down the system?
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In the light of the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Rawlings, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether such privileges apply to our own poor old judges in the United Kingdom. They live in this country and judge our own common law. Do they have these privileges? If not, why not? If not, why should these other people have them?
  Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I must delicately remind the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that one of the Members of her Front Bench is a dependent spouse of a judge of the International Court of Justice and has to make spousal visits to the Hague at regular intervals. I have done my best to sympathise with him from time to time.
  I appreciate that these clauses are a matter of Her Majesty's Government fulfilling multilateral obligations, but, as with our earlier interventions, our point relates to how far we should be questioning the extension of such international rights. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said; that threats against close family members of judges are not those
  GC 52
  which face international judges, and there are ways in which they can be dealt with. Incidentally, the case of the International Criminal Court is different from that of the European Court of Human Rights, and it would be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to begin to distinguish between global and European organisations, given the different circumstances within which they operate.
  We look forward to hearing much more positive comments from the Government at the Report stage on how far they are willing to promote a review of diplomatic privileges. They are clearly based on a range of outdated arrangements which no longer apply in the world in which we now live.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. It has been a most amazing afternoon which both sides will long remember. I was impressed when I heard the list of international organisations involved, which is why I have risen. The World Trade Organisation, for example, was mentioned. Why on earth do its officials need the privilege of immunity? I cannot understand why it is extending so far. It seems to me that the whole matter is being treated on an international scale far too lightly.
  I repeat that I support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in his hope that the Government will pay a great deal of attention to the debate and use whatever influence in whatever body they can, in particular during our six-month presidency of the European Union—God help us.
  Lord Triesman: First, I want to express my sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. His reputation probably hangs in tatters this afternoon, having worked on it so carefully over many years. He has a distinguished academic career not only behind him but I hope still ahead of him. He will have his work cut out to recover.
  I want to make one general point on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and then turn to the others. International relations have become hugely more complex. It is not only that there is a propensity across the world communities to invent more organisations—perhaps there is such a propensity but it is not the critical issue—but it is a hugely complex world. We have chosen to develop institutions—on which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is of course one of the great experts in the United Kingdom—to try to mediate those relations, to deal with those complexities and to arrive at civilised agreements, rather than some of the historic ways in which people have tried to resolve difficulties.
  7 p.m.
  The World Trade Organisation is an interesting example. I cannot believe that it has been an accident that it has been a target of eco-terrorism and that some very violent and disruptive events have been held around some of its meetings. I have no doubt that some of those charged with the intricate issues, sorting out what would otherwise be extremely difficult trade relations and imbalances in a highly liberalised world market, have to

  GC 53
  do some with some confidence that they will not be subjected to the kinds of threats and intimidation that would make that work wholly impossible. I make the point that, as we begin to consider these organisations perhaps a little forensically, there is a great deal more for us to think about than immediately meets the eye.
  As we have mentioned in the discussion on Clause 6 during the Second Reading, the importance of conferring privileges and immunities on family members of officials of international organisations should not be underestimated. It is important to ensure that the work of officials cannot be undermined by threats against close family members. The proposed amendment would make it impossible for the UK to confer privileges and immunities on family members of judges of the European Court of Human Rights.
  As a result, the United Kingdom would not be able to withdraw the reservation it made when it ratified the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe of 1949. This reservation provides that,
  "until such time as the necessary legislation is enacted, the UK reserves the right not to apply Article 1 of the Sixth Protocol in respect of the spouses and minor children of judges".
  The reasoning behind the reservation was that at the time of ratification the UK legislation was not in place to enable us to implement Article 1 of the Sixth Protocol. Clause 7 fills the gap historically left there and allows us to give full effect to the Sixth Protocol. Conferring privileges and immunities on family members of senior staff of an international organisation is nothing new, as my noble friend Lady Crawley said. It reflects, under the current conventions of international law, most of the ways in which these matters are conducted.
  In referring to the way in which these matters are currently conducted, it is clear that if there were a review of these matters across the European Union, in the next six months during the course of the presidency, or whenever, I cannot conceive of circumstances in which the United Kingdom would not have a view to put—and probably a robust view. When the occasion for a review arises, I have no doubt that it will be seized upon. For obvious reasons, I do not, without further consultation with ministerial colleagues, want to talk about initiating reviews other than the ones that we might reasonably anticipate. However, I do intend to have that discussion and to see where the lie of the land is, in the light of the interventions made during the course of this Grand Committee.
  Let me turn to the many questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, which were almost as intimidating as some of the examinations that I faced many years ago, at about the same time as many of these international conventions were beginning. I have a fear that I shall again miss some of the questions, but I shall deal with as many as I can and will go through Hansard to ensure that we have covered everything.
  GC 54
  The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked whether the United Kingdom judges would benefit from the privileges and immunities. No, they do not benefit from the same privileges and immunities conferred on judges of the ECHR, but they enjoy some immunities. For example, it is not possible under UK law to seek to prosecute a judge in respect of his work—in other words, the judgments made by him or her in statements of the court and in respect of the official work carried out. In all those respects there are plain immunities.
  Let me turn to all the other ways in which United Kingdom judges may be a very oppressed class among us, certainly when compared with others. On the question of the relationship between the salaries of judges in the ECHR and the ICC and of the United Kingdom's judges, real accuracy in the presentation of the scales would be rather better than a general impression, and we will provide those figures accurately.
  The questions on tax immunities for judges in the European Court related to the domestic plans for judicial pensions, as the noble Baroness said. We see no link between the tax immunities for judges in the European Court and the Government's policy and domestic plans for judicial pensions. The judges at the Court do not actually receive a pension from the Council of Europe. Their salary is fixed at a level that theoretically allows them to make their own pension provision.
  A question was raised about the extent of tax immunities for judges. Judges are exempt in the European Court from income tax in respect of their salaries and emoluments. That exemption does not apply to pensions or annuities paid by the Court and does not extend to any other income source that they may gain as individuals.
  Finally, I turn to the whole question of the UK reservation. It applies to the sixth protocol of the general agreement on privileges and immunities of the Council of Europe in 2001, not to the European Convention on Human Rights. I confirm that our reservation was included in the instrument of ratification in November 2001 and was reaffirmed in 2003 in respect of the Isle of Man, which was the centre of the question. Once the Bill enters into force, should it do so, an Order in Council can be made under the then International Organisations Act conferring privileges and immunities on the family members of judges, thus enabling us to withdraw the reservation to the sixth protocol.
  The Joint Committee on Human Rights is aware of the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Crawley said—it is worth repeating—it has informed us that it will report on the Bill by the end of January. In all the matters on family members, the same fundamental questions have remained in focus. What are our obligations under current law? Can we fulfil them and make good our word? Should we review them? I will not go through those points again; they have been argued with great force and articulate cogency on the part of the noble Lords who have raised all the questions today. I hope

  GC 55
  that we have given at least some comfort in recognising that where we are may very well need to give way to a discussion of where we ought to be in due course.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  The Committee adjourned at nine minutes past seven o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Interview Panels
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether interview panels within the Northern Ireland Civil Service are given details of sick leave records or educational qualifications of any candidates. [HL379]

  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  Sick leave records are not made available to interview panels. Candidates with an unacceptable level of sick absence are not invited to interview.

  Details of educational qualifications are not provided to interview panels for general service promotion competitions. However, for some departmental or trawl competitions to fill vacancies in specialist grades, interview panels are provided with details of candidates' educational qualifications.

  Northern Ireland Assembly: Selection of Executive
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will call a meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly to select an Executive comprising only those parties who are committed to democratic means. [HL458]

  Baroness Amos
  We shall end the suspension of the devolved institutions once there is a political foundation for resumed devolved government. The Northern Ireland Assembly would meet once suspension was lifted. The selection of the Executive would follow according to the arrangements set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998; the Secretary of State has no general power to specify which parties would be involved.

  Waterways Ireland
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What were the terms of the investigation into allegations of bullying, harassment and mismanagement at Waterways Ireland; and what period the investigation covered.[HL461]

  Baroness Amos
  Independent investigators were appointed by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs jointly to carry out a thorough, detailed and impartial investigation into allegations by a member of staff of Waterways Ireland of bullying and harassment and allegations questioning recruitment and promotion practices in the body and WA 28
  to recommend whether further action is required. The investigation covered the period from April 2000 to December 2003.

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What qualifications were specified in the recruitment of the Chief Executive and Director of Waterways Ireland; and how many applications there were for each post. [HL489]

  Baroness Amos
  The number of applications for each post, according to records held by the consultants appointed in the recruiting process, were as follows:

  Chief Executive:

  67 applications received

  Director of Operations:

  24 applications received

  Director of Finance & Personnel:

  14 applications received

  Director of Technical Services:

  14 applications received

  Director of Corporate Services:

  29 applications received

  The above posts were subject to open competition and the specifications for each post have been placed in the Library.

  The post of Director of Marketing and Communications at Waterways Ireland was not filled by open competition and I would refer the noble Lord to the Answer given on 12 October 2004 (WA 49 and WA 50 )

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  On what date the Northern Ireland Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure became aware of allegations of staff bullying, harassment and mismanagement at Waterways Ireland; and on what date an investigation was authorised. [HL490]

  Baroness Amos
  I refer the noble Lord to the Answer given on 12 October 2004 (col.WA 50 )

  The sponsor departments for Waterways Ireland, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in the South compiled the terms of reference for an investigation. This was put to the concerned parties in June 2003. The investigation was authorised when these terms were accepted by them in July 2003

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, in the investigation into harassment and bullying at Waterways Ireland, all the 21 staff who complained (a) had their cases investigated; and (b) were interviewed; and what were the results of the investigation. [HL516]

  Baroness Amos
  The complaint that has been investigated concerns allegations made by one member of staff at Waterways Ireland. He (a) has had
  WA 29
  his case investigated and (b) was interviewed. A report on the investigation has been completed and it is being acted upon by the two sponsor departments and by Waterways Ireland.

  A further 20 members of staff have collectively alleged bullying and harassment at Waterways Ireland. This complaint will be dealt with by the body under internal procedures.

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether all the complainants in the investigation into staff harassment and bullying at Waterways Ireland have been informed in writing of all the findings of the investigation; and, if so, on what date. [HL519]

  Baroness Amos
  The complainant, who alleged harassment and bullying at Waterways Ireland, was informed in writing of the findings of the investigation on 3 December 2004.

  A further 20 staff made a collective allegation of harassment and bullying at Waterways Ireland and this will be dealt with by the body under internal procedures.

  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they intend to take any action against those concerned in the allegations of staff harassment and bullying at Waterways Ireland in advance of their responses to the results of the investigation. [HL520]

  Baroness Amos
  The report into allegations of bullying and harassment at Waterways Ireland which takes account of the responses of the individuals concerned is now complete and it is being acted upon by both sponsor departments and by the body.

  Côte d'lvoire: Arms Shipments
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What reports they have received of arms shipments to the rebels in Côte d'Ivoire. [HL542]

  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  Since the imposition of a United Nations arms embargo on 15 November 2004, Ivorian newspapers have reported arms shipments to the Forces Nouvelles. We have not received any corroboration of these allegations.

  Côte d'lvoire: UN Involvement
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What reports they have received of the call by the Force Commander of the United Nations operations in Côte d'lvoire for that force's mandate to be reassessed. [HL586]
  WA 30
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The Secretary-General's most recent report on the United Nations operation in Côte d'lvoire (UNOCI), published on 9 December, recommends strengthening the ability of UNOCI to implement its mandate. Measures recommended include the deployment of an additional 1,226 military personnel to join the operation.

  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they consider that the United Nations Security Council is responding with sufficient speed to the situation in Côte d'lvoire. [HL587]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  An arms embargo on Côte D'lvoire is in place and the Sanctions Committee of Côte d'lvoire has begun its work and held meetings on 6 and 16 December 2004. The United Nations Security Council supports the African Union (AU) peace initiative led by South African President Mbeki, and will discuss next steps on 15 January, based on his report on the AU Political and Security Committee on 10 January.

  Cyprus: Treaties
  Lord Monson
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the following provisions are still in force, and binding upon the high contracting parties:

  (a) the 1960 Treaty Concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus (Cmnd. 1252); and

  (b)the 1960 Cyprus: Treaty of Guarantee (Cmnd. 1253), and the Basic Articles of the Constitution of Cyprus guaranteed therein;

  and, if not, on what date they ceased to be in force. [HL543]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The 1960 Treaty Concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and the Cyprus Treaty of Guarantee were both signed in Nicosia on 16 August 1960. They remain in force, and are binding upon the high contracting parties.

  Russia: Media Freedom
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have made representations to the Russian Government about the cases of the journalists Paul Klebnikov, Andrei Babitski, Raf Shakirov and Anna Politkovskaya; if so, with what results; and whether international organisations have had any satisfaction as regards the impunity of the journalists' attackers. [HL495]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  We raised our concerns about media freedom in Russia, and specifically attacks and harassment of journalists in Russia, during out bilateral human rights discussions with the Russian Government in September 2004. We will reiterate these concerns and raise these specific
  WA 31
  cases at the next round of human rights discussions with the Russian Government in early 2005. In addition, staff at our Embassy in Moscow continue to raise concerns about media freedoms in Russia at every suitable opportunity.

  Conflict Resolution
  Lord Judd
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What priority they accord conflict resolution across the globe as part of their strategy for global security. [HL512]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The Foreign and Commonwealth's (FCO) strategy, published in 2003, included "an international system based on the rule of law, which is better able to resolve disputes and prevent conflicts", as one of the Government's eight highest strategic international priorities for the UK. In support of this objective, the FCO, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development share the following joint public service agreement target: "By 2007–08, improve effectiveness of UK and international support for conflict prevention, through addressing long-term structural causes of conflict, managing regional and national tension and violence, and supporting post-conflict reconstruction, where the UK can make a significant difference, in particular Africa, Asia, the Balkans and the Middle East".

  Effort to prevent and resolve conflict is fundamental to the Government's multilateral and bilateral security activity. The Government are actively engaged around the world in conflict resolution, for example in Afghanistan, west Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. The Government are also working hard to improve multilateral institutions' willingness and ability to act effectively in preventing and resolving conflicts, including in the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and through the development of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and European Union security and defence capabilities. The Government will use their G8 presidency in 2005 to reinforce efforts to improve security and stability in Africa. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has welcomed the report of the UN Secretary General's High-Level Panel, published on 2 December 2004, which makes a wide range of recommendations aimed at improving the international response to threats to global peace and security. The Government will be giving the UN Secretary General firm support in taking this agenda forward.

  The FCO strategy and strategic priorities are available on the Internet at the following address— http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename = Open Market/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c = Page&cid = 10679679 03739#Prioritiesߞand are available in the Library of the House.

  Israel and Palestine: London Conference
  Lord Dykes
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What are the venue, agenda and prospective participants for the forthcoming high-level London conference to discuss Palestine and Israel. [HL555]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  During his visit to Israel and Palestine on 22 December, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced his intention to hold a meeting in London to support the new Palestinian leadership and help them to prepare the disengagement and to implement the road map. In particular we hope the meeting can help the new Palestinian Authority leadership to build up the Palestinian political, economic and security infrastructure which will help to underpin a future Palestinian state. We plan to invite members of the Quartet (UN, EU, US and Russia), the G8 and those who play a significant role in the ad hoc liaison committee and the International Task Force for Palestinian Reform. Details of venue and precise agenda have not yet been finalised.

  Israel and Palestine: Sovereignty
  Lord Dykes
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they are confident that the new coalition administration in the Knesset will be able to conclude a full agreement with the Palestinian Authority to ensure complete sovereignty in the latter's territories. [HL557]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  It is not for us to comment on Israeli internal politics. However, a coalition able to govern effectively is in everyone's interests. All final status issues must be agreed in negotiations between the two parties.

  European Commissioners: Pensions
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What are the pension arrangements for former European Union Commissioners, including the amounts paid. [HL559]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  Former European Union Commissioners are entitled to a pension from the day they reach 65 of 4.5 per cent of the Commissioner's final basic salary for each whole year of service in the Commission plus one-twelfth of this amount for each additional month's service, subject to a maximum of 70 per cent of the final basic salary. The pension is subject to Community tax and exempt from national taxes. Former Commissioners may start drawing their pensions from the age of 60, subject to the application of a coefficient ranging from 70 per cent at age 60 to 95 per cent at age 64. Since 1 July 2004, the basic salary of a Commissioner has been 18,233 euros a month, for Vice Presidents 20,259 euros a month, and for the President 22,366 euros a month.

  International Organisations Bill
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Which European Union institutions are eligible for immunities and tax privileges; what those immunities and privileges are; and to which European Union institutions they propose to grant similar status under the International Organisations Bill. [HL560]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The 1965 Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities ("the 1965 Protocol") conferred on the European Communities a range of privileges and immunities considered necessary for the performance by the Communities of their tasks and functions. These privileges and immunities are similar to those conferred on other international organisations and include immunity from jurisdiction, exemption from taxation, exemption from customs duties and prohibitions and restrictions on importation and exportation of articles for official use. The provisions of the 1965 protocol apply to the Communities; to their institutions (ie the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors); to the European Central Bank, the European Monetary Institute and the European Investment Bank; and in accordance with the protocol, to certain representatives of member states and certain officials and servants of the Communities. The provisions of the protocol have also been applied to bodies created under the Community and to certain officials and staff engaged in the work of such bodies. The 1965 protocol, and the privileges and immunities flowing from it, are given effect in UK law by the European Communities Act 1972. The International Organisations Bill will not alter that situation.

  The International Organisations Bill will, however, enable the UK to confer legal capacity and privileges and immunities on bodies established under powers conferred under Title V (Provisions on a Common Foreign and Security Policy) or Title VI (Provisions on Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters) of the Treaty on European Union, and on certain categories of individuals connected with those bodies. At present three bodies exist on which privileges and immunities will be conferred pursuant to Clause 5 of the International Organisations Bill. They are: ATHENA, the EU Satellite Centre and the Institute for Security Studies.

  Lord Pearson of Rannoch
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How they define the "other persons connected with the body, and members of their families who form part of their households" to whom they propose to grant immunity under Clause 5(3)(b) of their International Organisations Bill; and to how many United Kingdom residents they expect such immunity to apply. [HL561]
  WA 34
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  Clause 5(3)(b) will cover, among others, persons employed by, or serving under, the body as experts or as persons engaged on missions for it, representatives to the body, representatives on, or members of, any subordinate body or sub-committee, family members of these persons and family members of officers or staff of the body. As ATHENA, the EU Satellite Centre and Institute for Security Studies are all based outside the United Kingdom, it is expected that few, if any, UK residents connected with those bodies will enjoy immunity.

  Service Medals
  Lord Chadlington
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether present or former eligible members of Her Majesty's forces will be entitled to wear the medal recently awarded by the government of Malaysia to all Commonwealth ex-servicemen who served in either the emergency or the confrontation between 1957 and 1966. [HL582]

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  No. HMG's rules on the acceptance and wearing of foreign awards preclude the acceptance of medals for events in the distant past or more than five years previously. In addition, the rules do not allow for a foreign award to be accepted if a British award has been given for the same service. Eligible veterans of the Emergency or Confrontation in Malaya should already have received the Malaya Bar to their General Service Medal.

  All British citizens require permission from HMG to accept and wear foreign state awards. HMG have, to date, received no request from the Malaysian Government for this medal to be presented to British ex-servicemen who are veterans of the Emergency or Confrontation in Malaya.

  Prisons: Foreign Nationals
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 16 March 2003 (WA 76 ), whether they will publish a table to show how may foreign nationals were in prison in England and Wales at the latest convenient date. [HL1]

  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  The population of foreign nationals, as recorded on the Prison Service central IT system, in prison establishments in England and Wales was 8,996 on 31 October 2004.

  Community Sentences: First-Time Offenders
  Lord Dholakia
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What are the number and proportion of first offenders given:

  (a) community service orders or community punishment orders;

  WA 35

  (b)probation or community rehabilitation orders; and

  (c)any community sentence;

  in each year from 1992 to 2003. [HL46]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The figures in the attached table are calculated from data held

  Number and proportion of first time offenders receiving community penalties, by year

  Community service orders/Community Punishment orders

  Probation/Community rehabilitation orders

  All community penalties

  Year

  Number in sample

  Estimated number in year

  %

  Number in sample

  Estimated Number year

  %

  Number in Sample

  Estimated Number year

  %

  1992

  Data not available

  1993

  534

  9,254

  9

  420

  7,279

  7

  1,173

  20,328

  20

  1994

  515

  10,298

  9

  482

  9,638

  9

  1,218

  24,355

  22

  1995

  519

  11,243

  9

  492

  10,658

  9

  1,281

  27,750

  22

  1996

  1,086

  14,118

  8

  1,115

  14,495

  8

  2,797

  36,361

  20

  1997

  1,331

  17,303

  9

  2,456

  31,928

  8

  3,120

  40,560

  21

  1998

  1,256

  16,328

  9

  1,145

  14,885

  9

  3,042

  39,546

  23

  1999

  1,427

  18,551

  10

  1,260

  16,380

  9

  3,444

  44,772

  24

  2000

  1,563

  20,319

  11

  1,403

  18,239

  9

  3,716

  48,308

  25

  2001

  1,623

  21,099

  10

  1,360

  17,680

  9

  4,353

  56,589

  28

  2002

  1,420

  18,460

  11

  860

  11,180

  7

  4,159

  54,067

  32

  2003

  Data not available

  All community penalties include the following: Community rehabilitation orders, supervision orders, community punishment orders, attendance centre orders, community rehabilitation and punishment orders, curfew orders, reparation orders (since June 2000), action plan orders (since June 2000) or drug treatment and testing orders (since October 2000) and referral orders (since April 2002).

  The data are based on a sample taken from the Offenders Index. From 1996 onwards 4-week samples were taken. Before 1996 the size of the sample varied.

  Custodial Sentences: Indictable Offences
  Lord Dholakia
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What are the number and proportion of offenders convicted of indictable offences who were given custodial sentences by:

  Persons sentenced for indictable offences at all courts, those sentenced to immediate custody and the custodial sentence rate, 1992–2003

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  The Crown Court

  Total number sentenced

  81,117

  66,980

  68,462

  71,518

  70,864

  76,509

  77,023

  73,852

  70,921

  68,671

  72,870

  72,571

  Number given custody

  36,057

  33,074

  36,011

  40,181

  43,425

  46,623

  47,085

  46,400

  45,304

  43,599

  45,865

  43,490

  Percentage given custody

  44.5

  49.4

  52.6

  56.2

  61.3

  60.9

  61.1

  62.8

  63.9

  63.5

  62.9

  59.9

  Magistrates' courts

  Total number sentenced

  241,416

  238,241

  243,595

  228,890

  227,983

  241,021

  262,613

  266,452

  253,961

  253,195

  262,653

  259,895

  Number given custody

  11,796

  13,898

  17,339

  20,195

  22,019

  25,237

  30,227

  33,388

  35,480

  36,674

  39,286

  37,304

  Percentage given custody

  4.9

  5.8

  7.1

  8.8

  9.7

  10.5

  11.5

  12.5

  14.0

  14.5

  15 0

  14.4

  All courts

  Total number sentenced

  322,533

  305,221

  312,057

  300,408

  298,847

  317,530

  339,636

  340,304

  324,882

  321.866

  335,523

  332,466

  Number given custody

  47,853

  46,972

  53,350

  60,376

  65,444

  71,860

  77,312

  79,788

  80,784

  80,273

  85,151

  80,794

  Percentage given custody

  14.8

  15.4

  17.1

  20.1

  21.9

  22.6

  22.8

  23.4

  24.9

  24.9

  25.4

  24.3

  WA 36
  on the Offenders Index (OI). The Offenders Index only has data available on those convicted of a standard list offence. Offenders classified as first time offenders on the OI may have previous convictions for non-standard list offences; and several offences were added to the standard list in 1996.

  (a)Crown Courts;

  (b)magistrates' courts; and

  (c)any court;

  in each year from 1992 to 2003. [HL47]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The information requested, relating to England and Wales, is contained in the table.

  Bicester Accommodation Centre
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will place in the Library of the House a drawing of the accommodation for religious activities at the Bicester accommodation centre, showing the amount of space allocated to each religion. [HL59]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  A copy of the drawing has been placed in the Library.

  People Trafficking
  Lord Roberts of Llandudno
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have to publish further guidelines on how to deal with suspected human trafficking. [HL219]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The Government are committed to ensuring guidance is available on how to deal with cases where human trafficking is suspected.

  The Home Office has already published a best practice toolkit on trafficking that acts as a guide for immigration officers, police and other professionals who might potentially deal with the victims of trafficking, whether they are adults or children. In particular, it helps those concerned to treat victims of trafficking fairly and appropriately. This toolkit is available on the Internet, and the paper version was updated and republished at the beginning of this year.

  All immigration officers who work on the immigration vice teams receive specially designed training and a period of one-to-one mentoring. This ensures that they are aware of issues relating to human trafficking. The Immigration Service has also issued a best practice guide that provides guidance on what immigration officers should do if they identify suspected trafficking at ports.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers has produced internal guidance on trafficking called Trafficking of Human Beings for Sexual Exploitation: An Investigators Guide

  In addition, the National Centre for Policing Excellence is publishing a best practice guide on the Use of Immigration Powers Against Crime in the next few weeks. This provides information to the police on trafficking and guidance on the use of immigration legislation including trafficking offences.

  We will keep the need for further guidance under review.

  Lord Roberts of Llandudno
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What are the basic qualifications required for human trafficking caseworkers in the United Kingdom. [HL220]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The minimum qualifications required for caseworkers recruited by external competition who consider asylum claims are WA 38
  two A-levels and five GCSEs including English. All such caseworkers receive comprehensive training, including how to question applicants about their journey to the United Kingdom, which may include trafficking issues, and how to deal with victims of torture and other forms of serious abuse such as trafficking.

  Lord Roberts of Llandudno
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will ensure that female legal representation is made available at the initial interview of victims in cases where human trafficking has been suspected. [HL221]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  While every effort is made to ensure that interviews are conducted in a manner that is appropriate and professional, it would not be possible to guarantee that female legal representation is available. Where individuals are arrested during the course of police or immigration operations, they are taken to the police station to be interviewed. They have the right to speak to an independent solicitor, free of charge, via the Duty Solicitor scheme. This is an independent scheme and the Immigration Service has no control over who is sent to represent the victim. Alternatively, the victim may request that a solicitor of her choice is called to represent her.

  Where a victim of trafficking is supported under the Poppy Project, interviews are conducted at the properties of Eaves Housing. It is open to the individual to have a legal representative present, and this would be organised by the victim, or representatives from the project, and would be of their choosing. In addition the Immigration Service will, wherever possible, provide female interpreters to assist with the interview.

  Lord Roberts of Llandudno
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many times they have withdrawn objections to asylum applicants where it is suspected that the applicant has been the victim of human trafficking. [HL222]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Asylum applications from victims of trafficking are, as with all such applications, considered on their individual merits. Caseworkers will decide whether the applicant has demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution in their country for the reasons set out in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. If the applicant does not qualify for refugee status consideration will be given to whether they qualify for humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. The consideration of both humanitarian protection and discretionary leave will include an assessment of whether the applicant's human rights would be infringed were they to be removed from the UK.
  WA 39
  Throughout the consideration process any information relating to trafficking would be taken into account, alongside all the other factors relating to the application. This includes information submitted before or after an initial decision on the application.

  Some form of limited leave will normally be granted only because of a future risk to an individual. However, there is discretion to grant limited leave to a person in other exceptional circumstances, for example to enable a victim of human trafficking, who is a witness in criminal proceedings, to give evidence in those proceedings.

  Statistics are not published on the reasons for which refugee status, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave are granted.

  Extradition Act 2003
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Which countries are designated under Section 193 of the Extradition Act 2003, which allows extradition to take place where it is provided for under an international treaty, in the absence of formal extradition arrangements. [HL244]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  A designation order to designate countries under Section 193 of the Extradition Act 2003 is about to be laid before Parliament.

  This order will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

  Biometrics
  The Earl of Northesk
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the rationale for the requirement to introduce biometrics in order to comply with international travel and passport regulations. [HL254]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has for some years been working on placing biometrics in passports, stored in an electronic form. This is to facilitate faster and more effective passenger processing while also enhancing the security of the travel document. The United Kingdom is working to comply with this new standard as well as ensure we maintain our US visa waiver status by expediting this programme.

  Central London: Violent Offences
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many stabbings, incidents involving the use or threatened use of firearms, and other offences of violence against the person were reported to the police as occurring in the West End central and Charing Cross police sectors on the night of 20–21 November betwen 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. [HL278]
  WA 40
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  This information is not kept centrally. I have asked the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to write to the noble Lord.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is their policy regarding asylum claimants arriving in the United Kingdom from the Democratic Republic of Congo; and whether it is their practice to return unsuccessful applicants from the whole of that country, or from certain provinces only. [HL286]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  All applications from Congolese nationals are considered on their individual merits and we will grant asylum or other forms of leave where appropriate. Where applicants have their asylum claims refused and have any appeal dismissed they can in our view return safely to the DRC.

  All returns of DRC nationals are made to Kinshasa Airport, which is open to international flights. Returns are not made to any other part of the country due to the poor security situation that exists in large parts of the country and the poor transport infrastructure. The question of whether to return unsuccessful applicants who originate from outside Kinshasa is considered in the light of the individual circumstances in each case.

  Immigration Acts: Persons in Detention
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many men, women and children respectively, in how many detention centres, were in detention under the Immigration Acts at the most convenient recent date; how many of the women were pregnant; and how many in total were held in prisons. [HL287]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Information on persons recorded as being in detention in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at 25 September 2004 is shown in the following table.

  On 25 September 2004, 40 children were detained solely under Immigration Act powers. Of these, 30 were held at Oakington Reception Centre and five at Tinsley House. The remaining cases were either age dispute cases held at other immigration removal centres while their age assessements were being carried out, or young children held at mother and baby units in prisons with their mother while awaiting removal. Further details of these cases (less than three in total) cannot be disclosed due to national statistics protocols on confidentiality.

  There are no data available on the number of detained women who were pregnant. Pregnant women would not normally be considered suitable for detention, unless there is the clear prospect of early removal and medical advice suggests no question of confinement prior to this. Pregnant women (less than 26 weeks) may also be detained as part of the fast-track asylum process at Oakington Reception Centre.
  WA 41
  The total number of persons held in prison as at 25 September was 150. However, an assessment undertaken in spring 2004 of figures supplied by IND highlighted possible under-counting on immigration detainees held in prisons for removal/deportation at the end of their criminal sentences. Work to reconcile these data is continuing.

  Information on numbers detained is published on a quarterly and annual basis. The next quarterly statistics, providing the numbers detained at the end of December, will be available in February on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html

  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many Immigration Act detainees have been held (a) for more than six months; and (b) longer than one year. [HL289]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Information on the number of persons recorded as being in detention in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at 25 September 2004, by length of detention, is shown in the following table.

  Persons recorded as being in detention in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at 25 September 2004, by length of detention.(1)(2)

  Number of individuals

  Length of detention (3)(4)

  Total detainee

  of whom: asylum seekers (5)

  minors (6)

  14days or less

  565

  420

  25

  15to 29 days

  215

  155

  5

  1 month to less than 2 months

  195

  155

  5

  2 months to less than 3 months

  80

  50

  —

  3 months to less than 4 months

  100

  85

  5

  4 month to less than 6 months

  100

  75

  —

  6 months to less than 1 year

  125

  100

  —

  1 year or more

  80

  60

  —

  Total

  1,460

  1,105

  40

  (1) Figures exclude persons detained in police cells and those in dual detention.

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

  (3) Relates to current period of detention only.

  (4) 2 months is defined as 61 days; 4 months is defined as 122 days; 6 months is defined as 182 days.

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

  (6) People recorded as being under 18 on 25 September 2004.

  Information on numbers detained, by length of detention, is published on a quarterly and annual basis on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Immigration Officers: Scrutiny of Passengers
  Lord Judd
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  (a) what are the most recent instructions issued to immigration officials setting out the procedures, and how they should be implemented, for dealing
  WA 42
  with Roma, Kurds, Albanians, Tamils, Pontic Greeks, Somalis and Afghans who seek to enter the United Kingdom;

  (b)on what date these instructions were given; and

  (c)how many people under each designation have been admitted and how many have been refused admission since the instructions were given. [HL315]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The ministerial authorisation signed on 23 April 2001 by the then Immigration Minister (Mrs Roche) which allowed immigration officers to discriminate in the examination of passengers from certain specified ethnic or national groups was revoked on 11 June 2002. Immigration officers were advised on 12 June that they were no longer permitted to use ethnic or national origin as a basis for affording extra scrutiny to arriving passengers or prioritising workload. Data on the ethnic or national origin of passengers are not collated centrally and it is therefore not possible to say how many such persons have been granted or refused entry.

  A separate authorisation was made on 24 February this year and extended on 24 May to enable immigration officers to prioritise the examination of passengers of Somali national origin. The aim of this measure was to establish how many in-country asylum applications claiming to be Somali, apparently without documentation, enter the UK. This exercise began on 22 March and concluded on 22 August.

  Prison Visitors: Assistance with Travel Expenses
  Earl Atlee
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether there is any financial assistance available to meet the travel expenses incurred by close relatives visiting inmates in prisons and young offenders' institutions; if so, what amount was expended for this purpose in the latest year for which figures are available; and in relation to how many people. [HL347]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Assistance to help meet the travel expenses of prisoners' close relatives and partners when visiting a prison or young offenders' institution in England and Wales is available through the HM Prison Service, Assisted Prison Visits Scheme. Help may also be available to the prisoner's only regular visitor. To qualify for assistance the visitor must meet the criteria on relationship and income as set out in the rules.

  In 2003–04 expenditure on grants to qualifying visitors, including direct costs such as bank charges, was £1,822,499. The number of individuals who claimed assistance is not collated centrally. However, the total number of visits assisted was 61,318.

  Asylum Seekers: Destruction of Travel Documents
  Lord Hanningfield
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many individuals have been prosecuted and convicted of destroying travel documents in an attempt to stay in the United Kingdom. [HL369]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Between 29 September 2004 and 29 November there have been 124 people charged under Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. During the same period there have been 36 convictions.

  The difference is due to the number of cases currently proceeding through the courts.

  The figures provided are obtained from locally collated management information and may be subject to change.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many persons have been imprisoned to date for breaching Anti-social Behaviour Orders. [HL422]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The number of persons who have received a custodial sentence for breach of an ASBO, as reported to the Home Office in England and Wales, from 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2002, is 223. Later figures are not yet available. Persons breaching on more than one occasion during the period are counted once. The figure is based on the severest penalty imposed across all breaches.

  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many cases to date concerning anti-social behaviour orders have been heard in the absence of the defendants; and whether this practice contravenes the European Convention on Human rights. [HL423]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Courts do not collect this information.

  ASBO hearings may take place in the absence of the defendant if the defendant fails to turn up for the court hearing. The normal rules of the magistrates' court will apply in this situation. Section 55 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 sets out what may happen in the case of non-appearance of a defendant at any court hearing. The hearing may go ahead in the absence of the defendant, or it may be adjourned. There are provisions for issuing a warrant for the arrest of the defendant to ensure his or her attendance at the hearing. We are confident the practice is compatible with the ECHR.

  Applications for interim anti-social behaviour orders may be made without notice to the defendant. The jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights recognises that victims and witnesses, as well as defendants, have rights and need protection. In deciding whether to grant an interim anti-social
  WA 44
  behavour order without notice to the defendant the courts must balance the rights of the defendant against those other rights. Furthermore an interim order made without notice has no effect until the defendant receives a copy; he or she can then apply to have the order varied or discharged. An interim order will only remain in force until the court decides whether or not to make a full order, where the defendant will have the opportunity to defend himself or herself We have included provisions in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill which give courts the power to require a defendant to return to court for consideration of an order on conviction if the order is not made when the sentence is passed.

  Prisons: Population Pressures
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have for reducing overcrowding in the 82 prisons currently suffering from that problem. [HL425]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  We are addressing population pressures by a range of measures. First, we are increasing capacity in the prisons estate. A number of projects are underway including building around 2,400 additional public sector prison places at existing prisons by 2006. A new private sector prison, HMP Peterborough is due to open in March 2005. Following the spending review, funding has now been announced for the start of a new building programme commencing in 2005–06 to create an additional 1,300 prison places.

  As well as expanding prison capacity, we are looking to provide more effective options for sentencers to ensure that prison is reserved for dangerous and persistent offenders. We will also ensure that better targeted, more effective and demanding community penalities and properly enforced fines are available for other serious offenders. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 supports this approach by providing for community orders and improved frameworks for suspended and short sentences via custody plus and custody minus and through intermittent custody.

  Finally, we are, with the Sentencing Guidelines Council, working with sentencers to address regional variations in sentencing as well as seeking to ensure that sentences are targeted effectively.

  Young Offender Institutions: Bereavement Counselling
  The Earl of Listowel
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What provision for bereavement counselling is made in young offender institutions. [HL510]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Many prisons, including young offender institutions, have arrangements with local bereavement agencies, such as CRUSE, to provide individual bereavement counselling for prisoners bereaved while in custody.
  WA 45
  All prisons maintain a care team and have in place a strategy to support staff and prisoners following a death in custody. The local chaplaincy team offers support to families bereaved by a death in custody, and to prisoners and staff. Additionally, governors appoint a member of staff to make and maintain contact with the bereaved family, and to provide information and practical support.

  Armed Forces: Recruitment
  The Earl of Listowel
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many recruits to the Armed Forces in the last year have previously been placed in local authority care. [HL378]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  The Armed Forces are an equal opportunities employer and recruit young men and women regardless of their social background. The information requested on how many recruits to the Armed Forces in the past year have previously been placed in local authority care is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate effort.

  Armed Forces Healthcare Records
  Lord Astor of Hever
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What records the Ministry of Defence collects and collates for its own purposes on the type and severity of injuries to, and illnesses of, members of the Armed Forces. [HL430]

  Lord Bach
  Currently, the only data relating to injuries to and illness of members of the Armed Forces collated and held centrally is on the medical downgrading of Service personnel. The Defence Medical Services are working hard to ensure easier access to healthcare records through the introduction of a new information management system, the Defence Medical Information Capability Programme (DMICP).

  DMICP is designed to provide the DMS with a modern and efficient information system that is coherent across primary, secondary and dental healthcare boundaries, and is useable both in peacetime and on operations.

  Schools: Building Repair Work
  Lord Hanningfield
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  For each local education authority in England and Wales, what is the current backlog of school building repair work. [HL367]
  WA 46
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Filkin)
  The following table shows school buildings maintenance requirements for each English local education authority. The figures are derived from data supplied to the department by authorities, based on their condition assessments. In addition to backlog repair work, the figures cover work needed over a five-year period from the date of the assessments, including cyclical and scheduled maintenance.

  Central government capital support for investment in schools has increased from under £700 million in 1996ȓ97 to £4.9 billion this year and will rise further to £6.3 billion by 2007ȓ08. Progress is being made year by year in improving the quality of the school building stock.

  Schools maintenance requirements

  £

  Barking and Dagenham

  44,222,497

  Barnet

  58,603,516

  Barnsley

  47,377,891

  Bath and North East Somerset

  17,672,104

  Bedfordshire

  74,270,969

  Bexley

  35,247,167

  Birmingham

  338,036,375

  Blackburn with Darwen

  26,590,050

  Blackpool

  21,402,538

  Bolton

  44,117,191

  Bournemouth

  13,262,327

  Bracknell Forest

  14,343,860

  Bradford

  112,036,642

  Brent

  33,459,172

  Brighton and Hove

  21,667,673

  Bristol, City of

  77,466,174

  Bromley

  39,801,557

  Buckinghamshire

  54,121,211

  Bury

  42,449,317

  Calderdale

  37,353,404

  Cambridgeshire

  39,569,409

  Camden

  17,268,774

  Cheshire

  66,938,233

  City of London

  [1]

  Ccrnwall

  146,972,745

  Coventry

  31,478,511

  Croydon

  22,269,907

  Cumbria

  62,161,197

  Darlington

  22,193,948

  Derby

  56,113,188

  Derbyshire

  129,542,559

  Devon

  87,228,805

  Doncaster

  59,152,824

  Dorset

  73,090,428

  Dudley

  22,261,560

  Durham

  106,241,188

  Ealing

  37,065,046

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  90,490,815

  East Sussex

  28,509,456

  Enfield

  39,640,750

  Essex

  197,634,312

  Gateshead

  22,732,259

  Gloucestershire

  51,072,003

  Greenwich

  49,255,654

  Hackney

  42,775,383

  Halton

  26,868,923

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17,079,357

  Hampshire

  240,085,161

  Haringey

  39,297,795

  Harrow

  23,790,537

  Hartlepool

  15,007,057

  Havering

  48,416,933

  WA 47

  Schools maintenance requirements

  £

  Herefordshire

  16,897,205

  Hertfordshire

  75,086,217

  Hillingdon

  25,770,287

  Hounslow

  44,954,654

  Isles of Scilly

  [1]

  Isle of Wight

  15,539,240

  Islington

  27,481,974

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7,199,700

  Kent

  168,504,199

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  53,394,655

  Kingston upon Thames

  32,425,060

  Kirklees

  97,452,943

  Knowsley

  25,520,785

  Lambeth

  74,926,620

  Lancashire

  244,291,587

  Leeds

  136,625,524

  Leicester

  39,445,204

  Leicestershire

  102,188,829

  Lewisham

  44,676,681

  Lincolnshire

  72,040,420

  Liverpool

  32,976,859

  Luton

  33,314,852

  Manchester

  87,231,469

  Medway

  43,669,885

  Merton

  17,662,950

  Middlesbrough

  40,918,539

  Milton Keynes

  20,583,973

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  85,592,912

  Newham

  33,628,011

  Norfolk

  92,413,508

  North East Lincolnshire

  56,234,100

  North Lincolnshire

  22,126,151

  North Somerset

  36,242,355

  North Tyneside

  21,895,120

  North Yorkshire

  100,547,176

  Northamptonshire

  84,661,298

  Northumberland

  57,273,727

  Nottingham

  47,910,920

  Nottinghamshire

  113,001,142

  Oldham

  60,592,182

  Oxfordshire

  67,250,167

  Peterborough

  32,021,378

  Plymouth

  74,257,325

  Poole

  16,773,163

  Portsmouth

  26,686,671

  Reading

  22,783,119

  Redbridge

  33,523,467

  Redcar and Cleveland

  19,607,080

  Richmond upon Thames

  18,838,344

  Rochdale

  43,838,994

  Rotherham

  51,240,253

  Rutland

  4,164,651

  Salford

  36,994,416

  Sandwell

  35,947,806

  Sefton

  88,101,684

  Sheffield

  128,032,809

  Shropshire

  26,834,447

  Slough

  18,409,704

  Solihull

  23,165,245

  Somerset

  66,163,207

  South Gloucestershire

  42,445,864

  South Tyneside

  35,563,408

  Southampton

  16,380,584

  Southend-on-Sea

  16,468,874

  Southwark

  36,191,627

  St Helens

  27,343,605

  Staffordshire

  119,230,578

  Stockport

  61,495,833

  Stockton-on-Tees

  42,563,198

  Stoke-on-Trent

  3,747,091

  Suffolk

  66,606,033

  Sunderland

  38,582,178

  WA 48

  Schools maintenance requirements

  £

  Surrey

  111,580,199

  Sutton

  15.502,502

  Swindon

  25,127,638

  Tameside

  34,345,720

  Telford and Wrekin

  29,263,278

  Thurrock

  29.794,067

  Torbay

  6,925,565

  Tower Hamlets

  19,165,134

  Trafford

  17,098,082

  Wakefield

  55,601,652

  Walsall

  72,001,847

  Waltham Forest

  20,412,472

  Wandsworth

  44,993,672

  Warrington

  53,194,121

  Warwickshire

  144,361,958

  West Berkshire

  20,475,147

  West Sussex

  87,345,791

  Westminster

  20,380,584

  Wigan

  67,385.979

  Wiltshire

  74,824,346

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  22,786,267

  Wirral

  45,502,149

  Wokingham

  26,334,926

  Wolverhampton

  53,234.172

  Worcestershire

  65,016,251

  York

  41,611,318

  [1] These small authorities were not asked to supply data.

  Schools: Temporary Buildings
  Lord Hanningfield
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  For each local education authority in England and Wales, how many temporary buildings are currently used on school premises. [HL368]

  Lord Filkin
  The following table shows numbers of temporary buildings on school premises for each English local education authority. The figures are derived from data supplied to the department by authorities. Not all temporary buildings are used for teaching. They may accommodate one or more classrooms.

  Central government capital support for investment in schools has increased from under £700 million in 1996–97 to £4.9 billion this year and will rise further to over £6.3 billion by 2007–08. Progress is being made year by year in improving the quality of the school building stock. The bulk of schools capital is now allocated by formula to authorities and schools so that they can addresss their local priorities, including the replacement of decayed temporary accommodation, on which we have set a high priority.

  Modern, high quality mobile or demountable classrooms provide a good environment for teaching and learning where there is short-term need. They might, for instance, be needed to cope with a short-term increase in pupil numbers, or where extensive remodelling or rebuilding of permanent accommodation means providing temporary accommodation on the school site, rather than transporting children elsewhere.
  WA 49

  Parliamentary Question HL 368

  Numbers of temporary buildings on school premises

  Temporary buildings

  Barking and Dagenham

  9

  Barnet

  Barnsley

  34

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Bedfordshire

  205

  Bexley

  174

  Birmingham

  320

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1

  Blackpool

  1

  Bolton

  6

  Bournemouth

  38

  Bracknell Forest

  39

  Bradford

  107

  Brent

  70

  Brighton and Hove

  72

  Bristol, City of

  114

  Bromley

  28

  Buckinghamshire

  100

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Cambridgeshire

  128

  Camden

  Cheshire

  264

  City of London

  Cornwall

  174

  Coventry

  28

  Croydon

  116

  Cumbria

  42

  Darlington

  Derby

  39

  Derbyshire

  303

  Devon

  345

  Doncaster

  60

  Dorset

  Dudley

  115

  Durham

  65

  Ealing

  119

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  104

  East Sussex

  208

  Enfield

  Essex

  742

  Gateshead

  72

  Gloucestershire

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  10

  Halton

  20

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Hampshire

  635

  Haringey

  30

  Harrow

  146

  Hartlepool

  6

  Havering

  2

  Herefordshire

  76

  Hertfordshire

  272

  Hillingdon

  90

  Hounslow

  53

  Isle of Wight

  90

  Isles of Scilly

  Islington

  11

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  Kent

  912

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  77

  Kingston upon Thames

  Kirklees

  120

  Knowsley

  Lambeth

  41

  Lancashire

  29

  Leeds

  263

  Leicester

  67

  Leicestershire

  432

  WA 50

  Parliamentary Question HL 368

  Numbers of temporary buildings on school premises

  Temporary buildings

  Lewisham

  32

  Lincolnshire

  294

  Liverpool

  40

  Luton

  Manchester

  42

  Medway

  Merton

  4

  Middlesbrough

  25

  Milton Keynes

  24

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newham

  89

  Norfolk

  837

  North East Lincolnshire

  81

  North Lincolnshire

  164

  North Somerset

  142

  North Tyneside

  29

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  320

  Northumberland

  2

  Nottingham

  Nottinghamshire

  169

  Oldham

  33

  Oxfordshire

  239

  Peterborough

  63

  Plymouth

  107

  Poole

  46

  Portsmouth

  6

  Reading

  1

  Redbridge

  Redcar and Cleveland

  21

  Richmond upon Thames

  16

  Rochdale

  Rotherham

  151

  Rutland

  7

  Salford

  5

  Sandwell

  27

  Sefton

  46

  Sheffield

  98

  Shropshire

  56

  Slough

  33

  Solihull

  103

  Somerset

  431

  South Gloucestershire

  South Tyneside

  Southampton

  42

  Southend-on-Sea

  25

  Southwark

  11

  St Helens

  10

  Staffordshire

  334

  Stockport

  54

  Slockton-on-Tees

  63

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Suffolk

  109

  Sunderland

  26

  Surrey

  Sutton

  104

  Swindon

  63

  Tameside

  50

  Telford and Wrekin

  126

  Thurrock

  Torbay

  66

  Tower Hamlets

  12

  Trafford

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  15

  Waltham Forest

  19

  Wandsworth

  22

  Warrington

  45

  Warwickshire

  368

  West Berkshire

  73

  WA 51

  Parliamentary Question HL 368

  Numbers of temporary buildings on school premises

  Temporary building.

  West Sussex

  336

  Westminster

  Wigan

  32

  Wiltshire

  193

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  52

  Wirral

  134

  Wokingham

  68

  Wolverhampton

  Worcestershire

  185

  York

  57

  Where no figures are shown, either no data have been supplied by LEAs, or there are clearly significant data anomalies.

  Schools: PISA Tests
  Lord Steinberg
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, in view of the United Kingdom's sixteenth position in tests conducted by the Programme for International Student Assessment, there will be any change to the education curriculum. [HL409]

  Lord Filkin
  It is the view of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the body overseeing the running of PISA, that the data for the United Kingdom from the 2003 study cannot be reliably compared with other countries' scores or with UK PISA results from 2000. It would therefore not be appropriate to try to construct a ranking for the UK against the advice of the OECD, still less to draw conclusions from doing so.

  Schools: Modern Languages
  Lord Harrison
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Why the decision was taken to make modern languages non-compulsory for children over the age of 14 in secondary education. [HL411]

  Lord Filkin
  The recent changes to the national curriculum for 14 to 16 year-olds, with modern foreign languages and design and technology becoming entitlement areas as opposed to compulsory requirements, were undertaken to provide greater flexibility, allowing schools to offer programmes that better meet their students' individual needs and strengths. We recognise the importance of modern foreign languages. That is why all students have a statutory entitlement to follow a languages course should they wish to do so and schools can of course retain compulsion if they so wish.

  Lord Harrison
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What steps they propose to take to counter the decline in take-up of modern language studies:

  (a) in comprehensive schools;

  (b) in schools in the North of England; and

  (c) amongst boys. [HL412]

  WA 52
  Lord Filkin
  The changes to the statutory curriculum at key stage 4 were introduced to enable schools to offer more choice and flexibility to their pupils, facilitating the introduction of new types of learning— in particular more vocational approaches. This was proving difficult within the constraints of the previous requirements. The flexibility in the new curriculum creates space for students to pursue learning programmes that reflect their aspirations and needs as well as maintaining a strong grasp of the basics. In this new flexibility students have an entitlement to follow a course in modern foreign languages.

  The changes at key stage 4 should not impact on our able and enthusiastic linguists, who we expect will continue to study languages at GCSE, A-level and beyond. Our ambition for key stage 2 learning is that we engage pupils when we know that they are more receptive, so that we maximise their potential for language learning. Our National Languages Strategy puts forward a vision of high-quality language learning for all, regardless of gender, supported by a new national recognition scheme—the Languages Ladder. In doing so it is in fact seeking to reconfigure the existing curriculum, extending pupils' language learning experience into key stage 2 and supporting a more flexible and personalised curriculum for the 14 to 19 phase.

  Provision of a varied and personalised range of courses is being supported by new arrangements in relation to accreditation. It is now possible for students in all maintained schools and of both genders to be assessed through a wide range of non-traditional schemes, which have been given numerical equivalences by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. This includes a number of level 1 and level 2 qualifications. It also underpins the proposed reforms of the 14 to 19 agenda as set out in Mike Tomlinson's report.

  There are currently 62 specialist language colleges in the north-east, north-west and York and Humber regions with more interest from schools in applying for this specialism in the current round.

  There are also a number of innovative MFL-related projects taking place in the north. For example, the Sheffield-based VIPs pilot scheme aims to equip students with language skills directly transferable to the world of work. Students are allocated to an international company and visit the company during the academic year. They have a "mentor" within the company who will offer face-to-face and e-mail support. All students follow a language course leading to NVQ qualifications.

  Lord Harrison
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many schools meet the government standard of modern languages teaching in primary schools of one 20-minute lesson per week. [HL413]

  Lord Filkin
  On 30 September this year the Department for Education and Skills published the results of research, undertaken in the 2002–03 academic year, into the extent and nature of foreign language learning activities at key stage 2. This
  WA 53
  research highlighted that 44 per cent of all schools teaching key stage 2 pupils in England were offering language learning programmes in some form, with 35 per cent using curriculum time to do so. Approximately 3 per cent of schools were making a 20-minute per week provision for foreign language learning for their key stage 2 pupils.

  The 44 per cent figure represents a significant increase since the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and University of Warwick published research in 2000 that stated that 20 per cent of primary schools were teaching foreign languages.

  Lord Harrison
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What steps they are taking to ensure that primary schools have enough teachers qualified in modern languages tuition to meet the government standard of modern languages teaching. [HL414]

  Lord Filkin
  There has been considerable progress on the development of language learning in primary schools, underpinned by the launch in December 2002 of the Government's National Languages Strategy for England. The strategy recognises the importance of developing a workforce to implement primary language learning, and much of our work to date has focussed on this area.

  In developing a school workforce, we are building up a cadre of both specialist teachers and non-teacher specialists to support primary language learning. 580 places have been allocated this year for primary initial teacher training with a specialism in French, German, Spanish or Italian, and we intend to expand this programme further next year. This means that over 1,200 teacher trainees will have been trained by the end of this year. In addition we have allocated 50 primary MFL places a year to the Graduate Teacher Programme.

  For existing teachers, we have funded primary MFL advanced skills teacher posts and are working with the TTA to develop and pilot CPD courses for existing primary teachers to enhance language skills and MFL pedagogy.

  For non-teacher specialists, we are working with the British Council to extend the foreign language assistants programme into primary schools, and are developing training for teaching assistants to support primary language learning.

  Sports Colleges
  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Which specialist sports colleges have not been redesignated in the past three years; and for what reasons. [HL415]

  Lord Filkin
  One sports college (Compton High School & Sports College) has been de-designated in the past three years—because the school closed in 2003 and West London Academy, Ealing opened in its place. Academies are not eligible for specialist school status as such but do have specialisms—in this case, enterprise & sports.

  Disability Discrimination Bill: Consultation
  Lord Skelmersdale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether in their consultation on the Disability Discrimination Bill they consulted Macmillan Cancer Relief, and [HL600]

  Which organisations they have consulted on the Disability Discrimination Bill. [HL601]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)
  Many of the provisions in the Disability Discrimination Bill were the subject of proposals in the Government's 2001 consultation document Towards Inclusionߞcivil rights for disabled people (Department for Education and Employment, March 2001). That document was mailed to around 6,000 interested bodies and organisations including organisations of and for disabled people, employers, service providers, trade and employer representative bodies, trade unions, public authorities and voluntary organisations.

  In December 2003, we published the draft Disability Discrimination Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The draft Bill was considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament in early 2004 and attracted around 125 written and oral submissions to the committee, including a submission from Macmillan Cancer Relief. A revised Bill, covering further measures that the Government accepted following the Joint Committee's report (Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill, 27 May, HC 352-I, HL Paper 82-I), was introduced into Parliament on 15 November.

  In July 2004 and December 2004, we published two further consultation documents which included proposals for using regulation-making powers contained in the Bill. The first document Delivering Equality for disabled people (Department for Work and Pensions, July 2004, Cm 6255) focused on the regulation-making powers in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, and nearly 5,000 copies were issued to interested bodies. Eight regional consultation events were attended by around 700 participants, and a targeted event for people with learning disabilities was also held.

  The second document, Consultation on private clubs; premises; the definition of disability and the questions procedure (Department for Work and Pensions, December 2004, Cm 6402) included, among others, proposals for using regulation-making powers to exclude certain cancers from the scope of the extended definition of disability. A direct mailing exercise was carried out to a range of representative bodies, including employers, landlords, organisations representing private clubs and specialist bodies dealing with cancer including Macmillan Cancer Relief.
  WA 55
  The Department for Transport has consulted separately on lifting the Part 3 exemption for transport services in the DDA (an initial consultation in 2002 and detailed consultation on draft regulations launched in November 2004) and on the proposals to amend the rail provisions of Part 5 of the DDA (in November 2003). Those consulted included organisations of and for disabled people, transport industries, public authorities and trade unions.

  Copies of the named consultation documents, which were also published in a wide range of accessible formats, are available from the Library.

  Government Departments: 0870 Numbers
  The Earl of Northesk
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many, and which, government departments and agencies are currently using 0870 telephone numbers for the purposes of public communication with their offices. [HL434]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  The Office for Government Contracts Buying Services (OGCBS) draws up framework contracts for government departments to purchase telephony services. These do not stipulate what kinds of services individual departments should choose, and so there is no centrally held information on which government departments and agencies currently use 0870 numbers.

  The independent regulator the Office of Communications (Ofcom) allocates 0870 numbers to eligible network communications providers in units of 10.000 numbers. Those providers then allocate individual numbers to end-users either directly or through resellers. Although Ofcom knows who is reponsible for all number blocks it has no record of individual 0870 number end-users, including government departments and agencies.

  Community Hospitals: Remuneration of GPs
  Earl Howe
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What arrangements are in place to ensure fair rates of remuneration for general practitioners working in community hospitals. [HL564]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  The pay of general practitioners working in community hospitals is decided locally by the relevant employer or commissioner for these services. The NHS Confederation (representing NHS employers) has recently looked at this issue as part of a study into the terms and conditions of non consultant career grade doctors. The confederation has recommended that there should be more appropriate and flexible use of existing options for setting appropriate local remuneration for doctors undertaking this hospital work.

  Badgers
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether there have been any studies into the effects of an increase in the badger population on hedgehog and ground-nesting bird populations; and, if there have been such studies, what have been the conclusions. [HL300]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)
  Badgers are known to predate on ground nesting birds, although such predation is likely to be largely opportunistic. The impact of badger predation on bird populations has not been specifically quantified, but is not thought significantly to affect populations nationally. Locally, however, the situation may be different.

  Bird remains are typically found in about 7.5 per cent of badger dung in the UK, and diet studies confirm that badgers eat eggs, nestlings and adult birds. These studies are unable to distinguish between scavenged and killed birds, and do not quantify the importance of birds in the badger diet.

  Defra is currently funding research aimed at providing a scientifically vigorous assessment of the importance of badger predation for ground nesting birds. The project involves a review of current knowledge and intensive field investigations to assess the extent of predation by badgers. The project, which is being undertaken by the Central Science Laboratory, will report its findings in March 2005.

  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What has been the cost of repairing damage to canal banks caused by badgers for each year since 1997; and what is the estimated cost of repairing recent damage, attributed to badgers, to the bank of the Llangollen Canal. [HL492]

  Lord Whitty
  No records of damage to canal banks by badgers are kept by navigation authorities. British Waterways has advised that repairs to the bank of the Llangollen Canal are likely to be in the region of £500,000. It is probable that the damage was caused by badgers.

  Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council
  Lord Marlesford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they expect to make a formal announcement on the future of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council; and when they expect the council to be operating as an independent body. [HL528]

  Lord Whitty
  As has previously been made clear, Ministers have decided that the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council's administrative ties with British Waterways should be severed and that the
  WA 57
  council should be reconstituted as an independent body reporting to and supported by government. The main role of the new council will be to provide a source of strategic advice to government, navigation authorities and other waterway bodies about the inland waterways generally.

  The Government now plan to use the proposed Modernising Rural Delivery Bill to provide the legislative changes necessary to implement these decisions and will make a more detailed announcement when the draft Bill is published. The changes would take effect early in 2007.

  Common Agricultural Policy: Payments to Farmers
  Lord Marlesford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the total of payments made to farmers under the integrated administration and control system scheme of the Common Agricultural Policy in each of the past three years; and what is their estimate of payments to be made in each of the next three years under the single farm payment scheme of the modified common agricultural policy. [HL590]

  Lord Whitty
  The table below sets out figures for expenditure by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) under schemes covered by the integrated administration and control system (IACS) of the common agricultural policy (CAP) in each of the past three years. Also set out below is the estimated expenditure by RPA for claimants under the single payment scheme (SPS) of the modified CAP in each of the next three years. The devolved administrations make payments under these schemes in other parts of the UK. The figures include payments to claimants who have land both in England and in one of the devolved areas of the UK.

  Expenditure paid under IACS for the past three financial years

  Scheme

  2001–02£000

  2002–03£000

  2003–04£000

  Arable Area Payments

  874,590

  903,935

  983,427

  Beef Special Premium

  121,674

  133,487

  124,437

  Extensification Payment

  51,698

  54,056

  55,620

  Sheep Annual Premium

  66,347

  108,574

  117,229

  Slaughter Premium

  50,505

  73,442

  91,840

  Suckler Cow Premium

  91,584

  78,445

  102,513

  Dairy Premium

  N/A

  N/A

  103,606

  Total

  1,256,398

  1,351,939

  1,578,672

  Estimated Expenditure under SPS for the first three years of the scheme

  The UK has been allocated a national ceiling for SPS of 3.667 billion euros for the 2005 scheme year (1 December 2005–30 June 2006), 3.840 billion euros for the 2006 scheme year (1 December 2006–30 June 2007) and 3.840 billion euros for the 2007 scheme year(l December 2007–30 June 2008), excluding
  WA 58
  29.8 million euros allocated to Scotland to operate the Beef National Envelope. The above figures cannot be converted into pounds sterling as the exchange rate has not yet been published.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Lord Marlesford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many staff are presently employed by the Rural Payments Agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; how many have professional qualifications in agriculture; and what they expect the equivalent staff figures to be by the end of 2005. [HL593]

  Lord Whitty
  As at 31 December 2004, 3,702 people were employed by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). Of these, 308 have a qualification in agriculture or related sciences.

  By the end of 2005, it is expected that 3,033 people will be employed by the RPA. Of these, the total number of staff possessing professional qualifications in agriculture is planned to rise rather than fall, owing to the RPA's commitment to a broad range of professional training over the forthcoming year.

  Rail Fatality Management Group
  Lord Patten
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 15 December (WA 96 ), by what date the Rail Fatality Management Group expects to publish its guidelines for preventing suicides and handling their aftermath. [HL568]

  Lord Davies of Oldham
  The Rail Fatality Management Group expects to publish its guidelines for preventing suicides and handling their aftermath by the end of March 2005.

  Railways: Franchises
  Lord Berkeley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Following their invitation on 17 December for expressions of interest in the Greater Western and Thameslink franchises which stated that past performance would be taken into account when letting new rail franchises, whether they have instructed the Strategic Rail Authority to apply the same criterion in evaluating bids for the new Great North Eastern franchise. [HL570]

  Lord Davies of Oldham
  In future, greater weight will be given to past performance at the pre-qualification stage. The InterCity East Coast (ICEC) competition was launched in advance of this decision. The ICEC franchise bids will be evaluated using the standard Stratetic Rail Authority (SRA) method, a full copy of which is available on the SRA website at www.sra.gov.uk. This weights the various factors

  WA 59
  important for delivering a successful franchise. Performance (punctuality and reliability) of the train services and the robustness of the bidders' plans to deliver it are highly weighted in the evaluation.

  Crossrail: Funding
  Lord Berkeley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What are the proposed sources of funding for Crossrail; and how much is expected to come from the private sector. [HL571]

  Lord Davies of Oldham
  I refer the noble Lord to the Written Statement on Crossrail that the Secretary of State for Transport made on 20 July 2004, (Official Report cols. 23–26 WS).

  Crossrail: Alternative Schemes
  Lord Berkeley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Following the launch of "Superlink", the proposed new East/West railway across London, whether the Government will undertake an early evaluation of this scheme in comparison with Crossrail, given that phase 1 of the scheme claims a public sector contribution which is £1.7 million less than Crossrail for similar capital costs. [HL572]

  Lord Davies of Oldham
  The Crossrail hybrid Bill will be supported by an Environmental Statement WA 60
  which will contain an assessment of the main alternatives to Crossrail. We are confident that Crossrail represents the best way to deliver our objectives for improving transport in and around London.

  Limehouse Link
  Lord Marlesford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What steps they are taking to discourage or prevent motor vehicles using the Limehouse Link tunnels as a route between the West End or the City of London and the M25. [HL589]

  Lord Davies of Oldham
  The Limehouse Link forms part of the Greater London Authority Road Network—now known as the Transport for London Road Network—and is the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London. Therefore, any works, including traffic management measures, on that stretch of road are a matter for them. Further information about the Limehouse Link should be obtained from:

  Keith Ollier,

  Director of Street Management

  Transport for London

  Windsor House

  42–50 Victoria Street

  London SWlH 0TL

  Joint Committee on Security
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
  The Joint Committee on Security (JCOS) is an advisory committee of members of both Houses appointed by the House Committee in the House of Lords and by the Speaker in the House of Commons to make recommendations to myself and Mr Speaker on the security of the parliamentary estate. Members of the Committee are available to discuss security issues with colleagues. The committee is chaired by Bob Ainsworth MP. The Lords members are: Lord Cope of Berkeley; Lord Davies of Oldham; Lord Hunt of Wirral; Lord Peston; Lord Roper; and Lord Williamson of Horton.

  Forensic Science Service
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  On 17 July 2003 my right honourable friend, the then Home Secretary, announced that the Government had accepted the recommendation of the independent review of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) that it should be transformed from a trading fund into a government-owned company (GovCo) prior to development as a public/private partnership (PPP).

  Since then, officials have worked closely with the FSS, the police, as the organisation's main customers, and Treasury officials to ensure that we are clear about how the transformation of the FSS can best be managed.

  We now have a clearer and more detailed analysis of the business and its prospects, together with its strengths and weaknesses. This confirms the conclusion of the independent review that the trading fund model would not allow the FSS to deliver to its full potential, or indeed to remain at the leading edge of forensic science in the UK and internationally, thus wasting an important asset in our drive to improve detections and reduce the fear of crime.

  In particular, the analysis has confirmed that the market for forensic science is changing rapidly in the face of increased competition. The pace of change is accelerating as technology develops and in response to action by police forces and police authorities to achieve strategic market management in line with public procurement best practices.

  To ensure that the FSS has the commercial agility and the appropriate governance structure needed to respond to this increasingly dynamic market, the government has decided to transform the FSS into a wholly owned government company.

  This will be a transitional structure. In the light of FSS performance as a GovCo the Government will consider what next steps are necessary to facilitate the growth of the business, ensure the future of the FSS, maintain its
  WS 12
  position at the forefront of forensic science, and maximise its contribution to reducing crime and the fear of crime.

  The future form and direction of the FSS will stem from a balance between the realisable value to government, the benefits to the business of private sector participation, changes in the forensic science market and the potential future need to access private capital.

  The timing of the next stage will depend upon reaching agreement with key stakeholders that conditions are favourable and the move would be advantageous to the business. We will also use the interim period to fully test the merits of the FSS as a government-owned company in its own right.

  We recognise the uncertainty for FSS employees, suppliers and customers that a process of this kind entails. The Home Office and the FSS management are working together to ensure that all staff and stakeholders are kept fully informed of the process.

  We are aware that many Members whose constituents work for the FSS have made representations about the transformation, but we must ensure that the FSS is able to respond to the changing face of the market and the demands of its customers, and to seize the opportunities presented by emerging technologies, while retaining its public sector mission.

  In following this process through we will continue to keep all stakeholders informed.

  Bichard Inquiry
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  I have today placed in the House Library copies of the Government's progress report on implementing the recommendations of Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry into issues surrounding the Soham murders. All 31 recommendations were accepted by the Government when the inquiry reported in June 2004 and we remain fully committed to delivering the necessary programme of change. In June, Sir Michael made clear his intention to reconvene his inquiry and review progress six months after publishing his findings, and in November he formally requested a report to assist him in doing so. This was sent to him on 22 December.

  The progress report is made on behalf of the Government and the range of stakeholders who have contributed to implementation. It indicates that significant progress has been made in taking forward the recommendations, which fall into four main areas: the development of a national IT infrastructure to support the handling of police intelligence and other information; the introduction of a statutory code of practice on police information management; improved measures to protect children and vulnerable adults, including a registration scheme for those wishing to work with these groups; and a range of enhancements to existing vetting processes.

  The report sets out what has been achieved in each of these areas, together with plans and milestones for future action. Key areas of delivery are:

  The introduction of a national IT system for police information sharing. The IMPACT programme (information management, prioritisation, analysis,

  WS 13
  co-ordination and tasking) has been established to provide a national information-sharing system and to modernise the central information services available through the police national computer. New information-sharing tools will start becoming available to police forces and the Criminal Records Bureau through the police local cross-check system (PLX) from early 2005, and there will be a progressive strengthening of capabilities until completion of the IMPACT programme in 2007;

  The production of a statutory code of practice on information management for the police service. A draft code has already been produced and issued for consultation. It is annexed to the progress report and is due to come into force by May 2005. It will be supported by detailed operational guidance to forces and will help to ensure that decisions about reviewing, retaining, deleting and sharing information are taken on a consistent basis;

  The development of a registration scheme covering persons considered unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable adults. This is under way and will build on the existing barring lists in providing a comprehensive, centralised, integrated system to prevent unsuitable people gaining access to vulnerable groups through paid or voluntary work. Final decisions on the detail of the scheme will follow a feasibility study which will report early in 2005;

  The enhancement of staff recruitment procedures in education to reflect best practice in safeguarding children. New guidance for schools is under development and an initial online training programme will be introduced by spring 2005;

  Advice to all social services authorities emphasising the importance of effective information-sharing with the police in relation to actual or alleged offences against children has already been issued. In addition, comprehensive new guidance will be developed by December 2005 as part of the wider guidance on local Safeguarding Children boards;

  Significant development and improvements to existing vetting procedures. A quality assurance framework to assist forces in carrying out their roles in the vetting process has been successfully trialled and will be rolled out to all police forces by October 2005.

  All these strands of work are being taken forward within a programme structure based on effective joined-up working across the government departments and delivery agencies involved. Training arrangements are being put in place to support implementation, together with targeted inspection and performance measurement regimes to ensure compliance with new and improved systems.

  It is vital to ensure the same level of protection for all children and other vulnerable people, wherever they are in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the
  WS 14
  Northern Ireland Office have therefore been closely involved in this programme of work. For some of the recommendations, the route to implementation will differ between jurisdictions, but the objective of effective, integrated systems is the same. The arrangements in different jurisdictions are set out in more detail in the report.

  The Government remain totally committed to full implementation of Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations and to ensuring that the necessary resources are available to support the process.

  Gurkhas
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  As the House will be aware, our policy is to keep the Brigade of Gurkhas' terms and conditions of service under review, to ensure that they are fair and that any differences from the wider Army are reasonable and justifiable. We are also aware of our historic relationship and understandings with the Governments of Nepal and India, which have enabled Gurkhas to serve in the British Army since 1947.

  Gurkha soldiers have spent an increasing proportion of their time in UK since withdrawal from Hong Kong in 1997, and successive amendments to the conditions under which they serve have recognised their changing role, status and personal aspirations. The most recent of these was their inclusion in the new HM Forces Immigration Rule, which took effect from 25 October 2004. This has potentially far-reaching effects on the way we recruit and manage the brigade and care for its serving members, families and veterans. In addition, some public criticism and unease continues about the remaining differences between Gurkhas' terms and conditions and those of the wider Army. We are therefore anxious to ensure that such differences are absolutely justifiable as well as fully understood and accepted by our Gurkha soldiers and want to ensure that the MoD's position, both legally and morally, is beyond reproach.

  I have therefore directed that the MoD should carry out a wide-ranging review of all Gurkha terms and conditions of service. This will be an extensive piece of work and we will endeavour to take account of the views of all those with a legitimate interest. This new review will build on earlier findings, including work to date on the review of Gurkha Married Accompanied Service (MAS), but its scope will be much wider and it is aiming to complete in late autumn 2005.

  I am aware that the outcome of the view of Gurkha MAS review has been keenly anticipated by the Gurkhas themselves and by those concerned about Gurkha welfare. I regret that this work is not yet finally completed but I expect to receive an interim report on the new study, which will enable me to make an announcement on Gurkha MAS, in early summer 2005.

  Reserve Forces
  Lord Bach
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am announcing today that a new order has been made under Section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 so that Reservists may continue to be called out into service to support operations in Iraq. The new order is effective until 6 January 2006. This replaces the order which expired earlier this month.

  During the course of past year some 2,350 Reservists were called out and accepted into service to support operations in Iraq. Details of the next tranche of Reservists to be called out were announced to the House on 14 December 2004 (Official Repor, col. 121WS). Some 900 Army reservists are involved and they will be deployed to theatre from April where the majority will complete six-month tours. We are very appreciative of the continuing support and commitment shown by both Reservists, their employers and their families.

  Allergy Services: Health Committee Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Community (Dr Stephen Ladyman) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Government's Response to the Health Committee's 6th Report of Session 2003–04 on the provision of allergy services, Cm 6433, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mental Health: Race Equality
  Lord Warner
  My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Today we are publishing Delivering Race Equality in Mental Health Care: An Action Plan for Reform Inside and Outside Services (DRE), combined in a single document with the Government's response to the independent inquiry into the death of David Bennett.
  WS 16
  It draws on three key recent publications:

  (a) Inside Outside: Improving Mental Health Services for Black and Minority Ethnic Communities in England (published on 10 March 2003);

  (b) Delivering Race Equality: A Framework for Action published for consultation on 17 October 2003); and

  (c) the independent inquiry into the death of David Bennett (published on 12 February 2004.

  David Bennett was a 38 year-old African-Caribbean patient, who died in October 1998 in a medium secure psychiatric unit after being restrained by staff. The document published today contains the Government's formal response to all the recommendations made in the report of the inquiry into his death. The responses are overwhelmingly positive and, taken together with DRE, comprise a coherent programme of work for achieving equality of access, experience and outcomes for black and minority ethnic mental health service users.

  The programme is based on three "building blocks", first proposed in the consultation version of DRE: more appropriate and responsive services (including the development of a more culturally capable workforce); community engagement (supported by 500 new community development workers); and better information (including a new annual census of mental health patients).

  DRE also needs to be set in the context of our wider programme of work tackling inequalities in health and social care. For example, in February 2004 the chief executive of the NHS, Sir Nigel Crisp, launched a 10-point race equality action plan that challenges all NHS leaders to address race equality and the needs of black and minority ethnic communities in a systematic and professional way. In October 2004 we appointed the first equality and human rights director for the NHS, Surinder Sharma, and one of his priorities will be to promote Sir Nigel's plan.

  Racism or discrimination in any form has no place in modern society, and no place in modern health or social care. David Bennett's death will remain a tragic reminder of what can happen if services fail to meet the needs of black and minority ethnic communities and individuals. With this document we offer a clear way forward to equity for all in mental health care.