Westminster Hall Sitting of 2 May 2001

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Regional Arts Boards
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
9.30 am
Mr. Robert Maclennan: In recent years, the Arts Council of England has achieved laudable objectives. It embarked on a programme of devolution to the regions. It successfully advocated more central Government funding and sorted out the mess of lottery capital funding. For all those achievements, Mr. Gerry Robinson, the chairman of the Arts Council, deserves credit. Given such a record it was a surprise when, in mid-March, the Arts Council announced its plan to abolish all 10 regional arts boards by the end of April. The plans were sprung on the world and politicians without prior consultation. Whatever the chairman, Gerry Robinson, and his chief executive, Peter Hewitt, had in mind, they have disastrously mishandled their plan.
After the initial shock, anger has grown throughout the country at the Arts Council's unilateral attempt to remove local accountability from the arts funding system. The arts boards, elected politicians from all spheres—including Members of Parliament, the Mayor of London and councillors—universities, artists and regional consortiums have expressed their opposition to the plan. The Deputy Prime Minister is also opposed to it. It is an audacious and misguided attempt to centralise in an age when other organizations are moving towards devolution and localised decision making.
Moves to devolve arts administration began in the 1970s and were developed as a result of the Wilding report, when Richard Luce was Minister for the Arts. They have been vigorously pursued by successive Governments. ACE would sweep all that away. Everyone supports efforts to reduce bureaucracy and spending on administration in the arts, but ACE's proposals are not the way to achieve that. The plans are under attack from all sides and have created great confusion and uncertainty. It is high time that the House examined them and their genesis. It is also notable that the implementation of the plans is now behind the chairman's announced schedule.
What are the proposals? At present, 10 regional arts boards decide arts funding and policy in the regions with good input from local government and local education institutions and have developed links with regional development agencies and regional assemblies. ACE proposes to abolish those boards, take all decisions in London and execute them through subsidiary offices in the regions—a system similar to that which was abandoned as long ago as 1957. It argues that such action would deliver a range of benefits that most of us would happily support. They include a simpler, quicker, more arts-friendly service to the arts community, more
226WH
flexible funding decided at regional level and reduced administration costs which would produce more money for the arts.
The press release accompanying the plans promised greater autonomy for the regions. It stated:
"more will be managed and delivered regionally than is currently the case."
The truth is, however, that such benefits are mere aspirations. No detail has been given regarding how they might be achieved. It is difficult to understand how requiring artists to engage with a regional office that must refer back to its boss in London about policy and funding will result in a more friendly arts service. While flexible funds may be further devolved to the regions, funding for regularly supported organisations will be clawed back to London. That amounts to more than 80 per cent. of regional arts boards budgets, but we will have gone through a complex and far-reaching process of devolution for nothing. Everyone would welcome reduced administration costs, but handing power to ACE in London is not the answer. Its record of restructuring to save money is not encouraging. In 1998, it promised to reduce its staff to fewer than 200 and plough an extra £2 million into the arts as a result. This year, ACE still has more than 200 employees, and staff costs at the centre have increased. Figures show that ACE employees cost a good deal more than RAB employees.
The promise of greater capacity to address needs and act on bold ideas for the arts throughout England sounds hollow when we consider how the inadequately bureaucratic London-based organisations respond to regional diversity and bold local innovation. The RABs were formed in 1991. They were built on regional arts associations, which were established independently to co-ordinate arts in the regions, and purposely involved local authorities. All RABs have guaranteed local authority representation, and local authorities pay financial subscriptions to them. ACE proposes regional offices accountable to London and advised by regional advisory boards, which will include local authorities. It also suggests that councils should hand over their financial subscriptions to RABs to new local partnership funds. Councils that have enjoyed a vote on the executive are extremely unlikely to be impressed with a post on an advisory board.
Already, in the south-west, councils are cancelling their subscriptions to the RABs. With local authorities providing half of arts funding in England, we cannot afford to alienate them from the arts scene. The proposed centralisation will do just that. RABs are also building relationships with regional assemblies. For example, South West Arts is a member of its regional assembly. In the capital, London Arts is currently developing a strong relationship with the Greater London Assembly and mayor—a model for progress under future moves towards regional governance. Both the mayor and the Assembly have rejected the proposals.
The Arts Council's prospectus promises a single agency that will
"provide the arts with one voice…a single voice and a single brand…and one funding organisation with one set of priorities and objectives."

227WH
A clearer definition of a centralised body would be hard to find. In any event, is single branding the way to represent the diversity of the arts? We are not marketing sandwiches.
Chief executives of the regional offices will be line-managed by the chief executive of ACE. There will be regular reviews of their performance and agreement of targets. They will also sit on the executive board of ACE in London. While ACE makes sweet noises about devolution and decentralisation, the truth is clear. Taking back 80 per cent. of RAB funds and deciding priorities in London is indeed centralisation. Making regional chief executives accountable to a superior London chief executive is centralisation. Giving regional chiefs a job in London is centralisation. The many artists, business people and other volunteers who give their time and expertise to deliver the remit of the regional arts boards are unlikely to do so with as much conviction if their role becomes solely to advise London.
To understand the Arts Council's real attitude towards regional input and decision making, we need only examine how the root and branch changes were developed and proposed. Far from believing in consultation, it sent the proposals to the RABs 24 hours before they were launched to the press. Hon. Members received them at the same time as the press did, and it appears that even the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had little notice. An article in Monday's Guardian painted a vivid picture:
"in mid-March…Gerry Robinson launched a dawn raid on England's ten Regional Arts Boards…Plans were drawn up in secret and sprung on astonished RABs, which were given six weeks to hand over all their assets to Gerry…The six weeks are up and no one has handed over anything. Eight out of ten of the RABs are in open rebellion."
The prospectus pledged that it would move swiftly to build a new structure, but only with the consent of the regional arts boards as to what form that new structure should take. ACE called on the RABs to sign over all their assets and staff, and then engage in consultation regarding the way forward. In other words, the main act of centralisation would be achieved before the new regional structures were agreed. At the time, such proposals were presented as having the support of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and most of the chief executives of the RABs. However, it has since emerged that the Secretary of State—and no doubt other Ministers—has serious concerns about the proposals and their effect on regional accountability in the arts.
Sue Robertson, chief executive of London Arts, who previously worked for the South Bank centre and the Arts Council of Great Britain, has resigned her post as a result of the proposals. RABs that regarded the plans as ill thought out and backward looking soon learned that they were not alone. All have registered their discontent about the lack of consultation. South West Arts noted:
"It would be wrong to under-estimate the offence this has caused and the extent to which it has undermined trust and confidence in ACE."
ACE's attempts to bounce the arts community and politicians, including the Government, into accepting its proposals have failed, and its timetable is in disarray. It
228WH
had intended to have the new structures in place by the end of the year. The RABs are self-determining companies, and have rightly shown that they will not bow to ACE's calls to disband. ACE proposes a more detailed prospectus by June, perhaps to coincide with an election period and the first days of an incoming Government. ACE says that it will take on board concerns over loss of regional autonomy. Given its record on consultation, we should not be optimistic.
In a recent parliamentary answer, the Secretary of State said:
"I am looking forward to receiving formal, detailed proposals in due course and will consult".—[Official Report, 20 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 171W.]
Such proposals are far from ready and, given that the Secretary of State's commitment to consultation is greater than that of ACE, it seems unlikely that satisfactory proposals will be in place for months.
All the uncertainty has a cost. Staff have been told that no post is safe, which has had terrible effects on morale. Artists have been told that flexible funding for 2002– must be put on hold. Local authorities and regional development agencies have no idea whether the bodies with which they are engaging will have any power within months. ACE's staff are running up and down the country trying to convince RABs that the plans are the best way forward. RABs have been forced into hurried meetings, consultations and press gatherings, as well as into efforts to reassure local artistic and political communities. That is expensive.
We also know that ACE was planning to hire change-management consultants from the end of April to effect the changes. With the timetable in flux, will the Minister tell us whether such consultants are in place, what that has cost, and what funds ACE has earmarked for them? It is a curious way for an organisation that proclaims its intent to watch the pennies to proceed.
The Government's reservations about the proposals are understandable because they have consistently supported the RABs. In 1998, the Department's comprehensive spending review document stated:
"At a local and regional level, many RABs have successfully developed a role as a wider investment agency for the arts in liaison with other regional bodies and in building local partnerships…ministers want to ensure that decision making takes place as close as possible to the point of delivery".
Such goals were publicly shared by an Arts Council that at that time had pledged to devolve responsibilities and reduce itself at the centre. That was restated time and again in the House. The Minister will recall that on 5 November 1998 he told the House:
"In January, Mr. Gerry Robinson was appointed Chairman of the Arts Council with a clear mandate to bring about changes. Mr. Robinson has recently announced his strategy to restructure and redefine the Council's future role, and the Secretary of State and I fully support him in that…The Arts Council has already committed itself to delegation. The aim is to devolve as much as possible of what is currently dealt with by the Arts Council to the regional arts boards, including in particular grant-making and stewardship responsibility for regional clients."—[Official Report, 5 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 1120–21.]
On 18 March 1999, the Minister still supported ACE's mission to become
"a leaner, more effective organisation. Many of its current responsibilities will be delegated in future to the regional arts boards".—[Official Report, 18 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1378.]

229WH
On 26 November 1999, the Secretary of State told the House:
"The Arts Council is devolving decision making…the process of delegation chimes well with the Government's own emphasis on the importance of regional decision making."—[Official Report, 26 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 862.]
It is, therefore, small wonder that the Secretary of State is now seeking detailed proposals to gain reassurance that the voice of the regions will not disappear.
Why has ACE made those proposals in such a disastrous fashion? At first glance, it might appear idiotic to make major restructuring proposals without holding consultations or explaining matters in detail, and in such a way as to cause disruption, recrimination and financial loss. However, such a view might be regarded as charitable. It seems more likely that, following ACE's failure in 1998 to restructure at the centre and to reduce waste, senior people at the council decided that the axe should fall on the regions.
Moreover, those people have seen that the writing is on the wall for ACE in its present form. The Conservative party has pledged to abolish the Arts Council, and my party has pledged to devolve further to the regions and to reduce the role and size of the council at the centre. As regionalism enjoys an ascendant position in the Government's political agenda, perhaps Mr. Robinson thought that the best time to pounce was a few weeks before an expected general election. Perhaps he thought that the political community would be distracted in the pre-election period, and that that would allow ACE to bounce artists and politicians into accepting its plans. Fortunately, a strong Department for Culture, Media and Sport manages to keep such issues centre stage. The secrecy surrounding the launch, and the duplicity of the false suggestions that the chief executives of the RABs supported the proposals, appear sufficiently Machiavellian to suggest that ACE knew that its grab for power would be opposed unless it rammed them through.
What should happen now? With trust between the centre and the regions destroyed, and the future uncertain for artists and employees, what must be done? All the RABs have acknowledged that bureaucracy must be slimmed down and that reform is desirable. There are several available options. One option is to rely on a single, centralised arts council for England that dictates to the regions. My party's preferred option would be for most funding decisions to be devolved to the regions, and for the Government to take responsibility for funding the few national organisations. The Arts Council would become a small but authoritative advocacy body for the arts at national level, advising the Government, and acting as a repository of expertise for the regional arts boards. It might retain some funding for touring, and to support innovation. The RABs would be accountable to regional government, and they would work closely with regional cultural consortiums.
Arts funding underwent a significant restructuring in 1998, and the RABs were established only in 1991. It might appear macho to sweep away all that went before, but real savings will be delivered by creating a system that is based on consultation and consent, and which will not be uprooted again five ears in the future. I suggest that the Government make it clear that there is no question of the RABs' ceasing to exist. We do not
230WH
need a new structure, as the existing one is fairly new and is only now beginning to function as intended. It must be made to work even better, and it should absorb less of the Treasury's grant in aid to the arts. It must be able to carry authority and trust, and to attract, at reasonable cost, regional managers of high quality. Its decisions must continue to be examined and endorsed at regional level: that will make it independent of central policy fashion. It must have an easy, close and knowledgeable relationship with artists and their organisations, and it must carry the respect of Parliament and the public.
I ask the Minister to invite the chairman and chief executive of the Arts Council of England to withdraw their unacceptable proposals and work within the system laid down by successive Governments and supported by all parties. Given the widespread rejection of the proposals, failure to do so may make the position of the chairman and chief executive untenable.
9.49 am
Mr. Phil Hope: I listened with great care to the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), and I understand his concerns. Change is always a difficult process, but I am sure that everyone wants a system and a structure that is simpler to understand and navigate, has clear links between the regions and national decision making, and is responsive to local concerns, flexible in its way of working and funding and organised on efficient lines to remove unnecessary waste and duplication. The new proposals must be judged against such criteria.
I shall reflect on the impact that the Arts Council and East Midlands Arts have made in my constituency, in the hope that future structures and proposals can be secured and enhanced in years to come. Art is playing a key role in the regeneration of my constituency, especially in the town of Corby, and several exciting initiatives in the town are helping to raise people's aspirations and educational standards and involve people, especially young people who have in the past been excluded from art almost entirely, in planning Corby's future and tackling problems.
Corby Community Arts was established as long ago as 1977 and is possibly one of the longest-standing arts organisations in the area. It has a proud track record, established by the Arts Council, of supporting community development through art throughout Corby's history, and throughout the closure of the steelworks, when Corby faced difficult circumstances in the early 1980s. Indeed, it was through a project supported by Corby Community Arts, the Corby Balls Up juggling club, that I first learned to juggle—a skill that, regrettably, you would not permit me to demonstrate in this Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could cite many examples of how such projects, supported by the Arts Council, help bring young people who are otherwise excluded from art into art and into Corby's future, and raise the standard of art performance and the quality of life in Corby.
Another example is the It Matters photo-stories group, a young people's photography group, which is supported by Arts Council and East Midlands Arts

231WH
funding. It is a group of young people who have produced a series of photo-stories as magazines, similar to those that young people buy in newsagents. They have written them from a young person's perspective, using photography to explore issues such as bullying, smoking, racism and even the stress of taking exams. They are written by young people for young people, using art as the medium to make that contact.
The latest project involves a photo-story about stealing cars, a problem that I assume is found in other constituencies. Young people are saying to other young people, "Look, come on, there's a better way of living your life." The group is working with young people from a local school who would not be attending that school if they were not engaged in that project: they would be out stealing the very cars with which they are now dealing in a magazine photo-story. The It Matters group has been recognised by the Home Office for its work in countering racism in its photo-story magazines, and it even travelled to China, with help and sponsorship from the Arts Council, to share its ideas and work with young people from another country.
Another group that is excluded are the young people from the Kickstart project, who have been excluded in years 10 or 11 and will not return to mainstream schooling. It is using art to tap into the creativity and imagination of young people whom the rest of the education system has failed. The fantasy town planning project in which they are involved has arts workers motivating and exciting young people with whom others have been unable to connect.
In Corby, the Arts Council has supported dance in a big way. Young people in Corby are famous for their talent in dance. A former mayor of Corby adopted dance as his theme for his term of office, and the celebration of talent and skill that that unleashed was staggering. As you may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Corby has a strong Scottish heritage, a legacy of the steelworks, and I am delighted to say that the two young national champions of Scottish dancing come not from Scotland but from Corby. Last year, the many different schools of dance came together to hold an evening of dance at Corby theatre, to raise money for Children in Need. They even managed to get me on stage, not juggling but tap-dancing, which is another hidden talent that—to the relief of all present—I shall not demonstrate. However, it raised hundreds of pounds for charity.
The Arts Council and East Midlands Arts have provided an arena for celebrating art and making art happen in Corby, as well as grabbing national lottery money. National lottery funding has paid for a "year of the artist" programme, a local residency and two artists working with young people at the Pen Green centre. It also funded the Shout youth theatre, which provides workshops for young people to explore issues of concern. The lottery also funded the Corby choral society, catering for an older age group, which provides musical performances for local communities and raises funds for churches and charities. Last year, millennium funding helped to pay for the making of a community banner to celebrate Corby's success, and, in the process, engaged people in talking about the problems and issues in the town.
232WH
There is also a strong link, supported through the Arts Council, between art and education. I recently judged a "Stars in their Eyes" competition—I dare say that other Members of Parliament do similar things—at the Kingswood secondary school in my constituency. It was a showcase of musical and singing talent of young people in the school, and the whole evening was organised by the young people themselves. That school is also host to the Corby music school, which meets every Saturday and allows young people to sing, perform and learn musical instruments. Students from that music school can progress to the renowned Northamptonshire youth orchestra. I am grateful that Studfall junior and Rockingham primary schools will be receiving £450,000 from the space for sport and the arts scheme, which is supported by the national lottery and the Treasury with the Arts and Sports Councils, to create new multi-use arts and sports spaces in the area.
I would guess that all of those present have a love of art. We know that art is special because it gives us hope, pleasure, inspiration and excitement, and that art can connect to parts of ourselves that other activities cannot. We also know that art can connect to people who have low self-esteem and self-confidence, and help them to find self-esteem and self-confidence. It can connect with people who are not reaching their potential, but who, through art, can achieve spectacular results. We must prove that, however, in order to convince policy makers, especially the Treasury, to fund more of the arts. We must show how art can have a wider impact, and we must measure that impact in terms of raising educational attainment and regenerating rundown areas.
I am therefore delighted that Corby has been chosen by the Arts Council as one of two pilot areas to assess the impact that arts can have on raising educational standards. The arts and education interface programme will measure the long-term sustained impact on young people as well as the impact of short-term discrete pieces of art on young people, teaching, educational attainment and arts learning in and out of the school, and, in the process, it will be part of the education action zone. A new forum of teachers in the town—the Corby arts teachers forum—is now in place. It is planning a musical play to raise young people's self-esteem, and is even talking about staging a large-scale rock opera in Corby, which will involve hundreds if not all of the young people in the town. Those and other projects in Corby show how the contribution of the Arts Council and East Midlands Arts has been successful in Corby. Elsewhere in my constituency, Oundle has a nationally famous festival, the Stahl theatre and the Court House museum, which opened last month, and other marvellous events.
Art is alive and well, and that is because the Arts Council and East Midlands Arts are doing such an effective job. They are not only raising performance in the arts but tackling social exclusion and the Government's whole agenda of trying to raise educational performance. I shall listen to the Minister with care. I hope that the new structures will ensure not only that those initiatives survive, but that they flourish and develop in the years to come.
9.59 am
Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope). My father worked for Stewarts and Lloyds before the war and once asked the chairman whether he had experienced any difficulty in introducing the concept of the works in Corby in the depths of the depression in 1932. The chairman replied that only one question was asked at the annual general meeting at which the concept was announced, from an elderly Glaswegian who stood up at the back of the hall and asked whether there was adequate provision for Presbyterian worship in the county of Northamptonshire.
There is an element of farce to the events that we are describing today. In an introduction by P. G. Wodehouse to a book of humour, he takes the line from "Julius Caesar" about "That day" we beat "the Nervii" after which he adds the results of a football match in brackets—Dulwich v. St. Paul's 3–0.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) will recall me saying on the Floor of the House, in the words of Milton's "Lycidas", that
"we were nursed on the self-same hill."
I do not know whether this is his valedictory speech, but I think that all of us are grateful to him for instigating this debate. As a Unionist, I am grateful that the matter was raised by someone from the north of Scotland. That is good for the kingdom as a whole—I note that we are discussing the Arts Council of England.
I will not rehearse the narrative that the right hon. Gentleman deployed because he did that admirably and comprehensively, but I reinforce his comments on timing and consultation. I am surprised that there was no reference to a referendum, but perhaps referendums have gone out of fashion since the first spate took place, when the rules could still be changed from referendum to referendum to suit the Government's view. Now that we have rules, perhaps referendums have become less popular.
I echo the right hon. Gentleman's comments about Mr. Robinson, and about Mr. Hewitt, whom I knew during his time at Northern Arts. I have the greatest respect for him and, in the context of the regional network, he certainly knows how many ducks make five. I also admire and respect Mr. Robinson, whom I knew during my time in the National Heritage Department. I understand how the private sector operates when it is engaged in restructuring, and there may not be much consultation about it. However, one still expects to have some idea of where the whole thing is supposed to go, and how it will work. I grew up, in part, at the Harvard business school, where there was a famous phrase:
"If you do not know where you are trying to get to, any road will get you there."
I add to my words of respect for Mr. Robinson and Mr. Hewitt, by paying tribute to those who have worked in the regional arts field and on regional arts boards over the past 10 years, some of whom are among the most outstanding people whom I have met during my time in public life. As for the Government, they either knew what was going to happen or they did not—which is a tautology. If the Minister says that the Government were not consulted, and there was neither wink nor nod,
234WH
I shall, of course, believe him implicitly. The arm's length principle is reinforced when a case such as this proves an exception to the rule. That should be a reassurance. The Government have a rare capacity to turn a problem into a crisis. On the first evening following the Wall street crash of 1929, the French ambassador in Washington, Paul Claudel, was giving a soiree at which he expressed the view that
"between the crisis and the catastrophe there is always time for a glass of champagne".
If I may say so, that is a very new Labour sentiment.
We live in the era of devolution, but the Government deliver—by actions louder than words—the message that the man in Whitehall knows best. If there is any doubt about that, one need only examine what is happening in the national health service, or the actions of the Department for Education and Employment. It is not surprising that non-departmental public bodies—if that is what they are still called—do not know where they stand. This farce is a good index of what can happen. There is a separate problem for morale in the regions.
I do not think that the following fact is relevant, but in this era of political correctness one cannot be too careful, so I should tell the Chamber that I am the president of the British Antique Dealers' Association and of the British Art Market Federation. At the BADA millennial dinner last November, the Secretary of State heard Sir Nicholas Goodison, the chairman of the National Art Collections Fund, rehearse eloquently the problems in provincial museums. That is an index of the very problem that we are discussing.
I have said that we owe a debt to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for introducing the debate, because we do not know where we are, how we got here or where we are going. That confers major importance on the Minister's speech and I remind him of Mr. Claudel's words that between the crisis and the catastrophe there is always time for a glass of champagne. I look forward to his sparkling proof that we have all got the matter wrong and that in this new Labour era, all is still for the best—in the Panglossian phrase—in the best of all possible worlds.
10.5 am
Dr. Lynne Jones: I should like to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and congratulate him on raising this issue. It was not prominent in my mind until yesterday, when I received several communications drawing my attention to today's debate.
I, too, am concerned about the manner in which it was announced that a centralised structure would be created, especially given the lack of consultation or any real attempt to assess the scope of the work being done in the regions. There was no consultation with the partner organisations and the clients of the regional boards. That does not augur well for the claim that the new structure is intended to give more autonomy to the regions. The manner in which the new arrangements were announced and the speed with which they are to be implemented do not suggest that there will be that devolution of power or autonomy.

235WH
It would appear that, because the proposals have aroused such disagreement, the implementation of the structure has been deferred. However, there is concern that what consultation is taking place is based on the principle that the creation of a single organisation is non-negotiable.
It is clear to me, from the representations that have been made, that West Midlands Arts is valued as a partner by local authorities. I know that Councillor Andrew Coulson, the cabinet member responsible for regeneration in Birmingham, has written to the Secretary of State expressing his dismay. Staff of the board are also worried about the manner in which the proposals were announced and their lack of involvement in that process, and of course they worry about their own future. The arts organisations who have worked with West Midlands Arts value that partnership and are equally dismayed by the proposals.
I am heartened to learn that the Secretary of State is looking forward to receiving detailed proposals and that he will consult further on them. I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will demonstrate that the Government are committed to the open consultation and debate without preconceived ideas or conditions that is necessary for us to progress and create arts organisations in this country of which we can be proud. I will not go into details of arts organisations in my constituency, but certainly the arts are an important part of generating an inclusive society. They are playing an ever greater role in our economy. It is essential that we get this right.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I understand that the Minister wants slightly longer than is normal to reply to the debate. I think that we want to give him that time. If the next two speakers are prepared to use self-discipline and be brief they will both get in, but I hope to start the winding-up speeches at about 10.20 am.
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I emphasise that above all I want to hear the contributions that hon. Members wish to make? It may be for the assistance of the House if I have the opportunity to set out the Government's position a little more fully than is conventional in these debates, but I do not want anyone to feel constrained on my account.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are obviously grateful to the Minister for that response. It is an important subject.
10.10 am
Mr. Nick Harvey: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) on securing this short debate on what he rightly described as an audacious smash-and-grab bid by the Arts Council. I was involved in a professional capacity in the previous reorganisation and when I heard about the
236WH
proposal on the radio news, my heart sank. We are only just starting to make sense of the current system and it is premature to contemplate something as radical as this.
I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend and others in bemoaning the manner in which the reorganisation is being done. It was astonishing that the plan was whipped out of the hat in the middle of March and that those organisations were expected to hand over all their assets and amalgamate themselves by the end of April. I cannot imagine how the Arts Council supposed that anyone would acquiesce in the process on such a time scale. If it is attempting to convince us, the regional arts boards and the arts world that it will form a central organisation based in London, which will nevertheless be decentralist at heart and have the needs of communities at the forefront of its thinking, the manner in which it has gone about it could not have been less successful in persuading anyone of its noble intentions.
The prospectus that the council put forward advocating the changes spoke of creating an organisation that would be simpler, quicker and more arts-friendly. There was talk of greater flexibility for funding decisions at a regional level. As the council saw it, the reduction in administrative costs was behind the proposals. It is vital that more of those decisions are taken nearer to the community. The regional arts boards offer the right means for forming partnerships at a regional level with the emerging regional development agencies and the local authorities. I simply do not see how an office that is an outpost of a central organisation can possibly form the same meaningful partnerships at community level as an autonomous board, existing in the region in its own right.
The measures would have a hugely centralising effect. The majority of funding decisions would gravitate back to London and, with the best will in the world, no matter how talented the staff of an organisation based in London are, they simply cannot have the feel for what is going on in a region. They cannot know about emerging talents that have not yet hit their radar. They cannot know about a project that deserves to be given a break and some early funding so that it can go on to become successful.
My own regional arts board, South West Arts, looks after diverse interests throughout the south-west peninsula. I do not always agree with every decision that it takes. Even in its own notes on this subject, the recitation of the things that it has done reminds me yet again that I wish that it had done more for North Devon. My constituency is something of a rural outpost, although we have two good theatres and much emerging talent in the arts field. Nevertheless, I prefer my chances of persuading the regional arts board in Exeter of the need to support and fund specific projects in my constituency to my chances of persuading an organisation based in London.
No one claims that the current arrangements are perfect. It is always worth looking for improvements. It may well be that those organisations could have a lighter touch, or could respond more rapidly. The arts world could have a more effective voice in London, and no one is saying that the current arrangements must be preserved in aspic. However, the way in which the proposals have been brought forward, and the proposals themselves, are unacceptable. I am not surprised that there is open revolt throughout the country. There is no way that the arts world will be persuaded that this is the right direction to take. The

237WH
Arts Council should withdraw from the proposals. We should have a blank piece of paper and start again from scratch.
10.15 am
Mr. Richard Burden: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) on securing the debate, the focus of which I thought would be narrow. However, having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), I realise that the debate is not just about the future of regional arts boards, but about procedures in the House. If we could find some way of allowing him both to juggle and to tap-dance in the Chamber, I would look forward to that.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), I have had representations from the West Midlands about the genuine concerns of a wide range of people about the proposals for the regional arts boards. As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, it is a shame that the proposals have provoked those criticisms, as many of the things that Gerry Robinson has done have been laudable and have met with a great deal of support. Last year, Birmingham celebrated its Forward festival—a massive extravaganza over the millennium year, involving hundreds of artists, more than 100 new works and 46 arts organisations—made possible by a whole range of organisations and bodies. The £1.7 million lottery grant was vital to the festival and the role of the Arts Council of England in that is to be applauded, welcomed and recognised. It put Birmingham back on the map as a city of culture, and we look forward to its bid to be European city of culture.
Coming on the back of those sorts of things and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, of the whole trajectory of policy making towards devolution and more local decision making, the proposals as they stand give cause for serious concern. Will the Minister give some indication of the kind of questions that will be asked of the Arts Council of England when it brings forward its proposals?
My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak referred to a letter to the Secretary of State from the Birmingham city council cabinet member for regeneration. Some of the cabinet member's comments do seem to outline some of the existing concerns in the arts community and the region about disparities in arts funding. Those concerns may be aggravated if the proposals go through in their current form. He gave the example of the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra—world famous under Sir Simon Rattle, with massive progress and a commitment to excellence continued by his successor. Its excellence lies not only in its work in Birmingham's Symphony hall and around the world, and in requests for tours, but in its community and educational work in Birmingham. It has received enormous support from the people of Birmingham and elsewhere. Yet there are worries about funding reviews. Even under the current system, the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra received a 3 per cent. uplift in funding, whereas two competitor orchestras, based in the capital, received an uplift in funding of 160 per cent.
I do not want to present the difficulties as a row between London and the regions because, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter
238WH
Ross mentioned, there have also been concerns from London about the proposals. However, I ask the Minister to recognise, and I am sure that he does, that there are real concerns in the regions that our ability to develop the arts in the way that we need to, and to do right by the communities that we serve, require an equity in funding. If there is to be that equity, there must be an element of local decision making. On the face of it, however, ACE's proposals—perhaps I have read them wrong—lead in the other direction. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will listen seriously to what is said today. I ask ACE to reconsider the way in which it has gone about the proposals, which seem to constitute a centralisation of power when all logic suggests that we should go the other way.
If we have read the proposals wrong, surely ACE needs to take the time to become involved in the consultative procedures. That would allow a dialogue to take place and a solution to be found with which everyone could feel comfortable. Unless that time is given and ACE has the confidence of people in the regions, the reorganisation will start on the basis of distrust, which sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I look forward to what the Minister has to say and I wish him well in asking questions of the Arts Council in the coming weeks. I ask the council to listen seriously to the genuine concerns that are being expressed in the regions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful for the self-discipline that has been shown. I hope that the Opposition spokesmen will show similar discipline in winding up.
10.21 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: I will indeed show discipline, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I take as an optimistic sign the fact that the Minister wants to speak for some time. I should have thought that if he had bad news, he would have asked for a shorter period, so I draw the opposite conclusion and assume that we shall hear an encouraging speech.
I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) on securing the debate. The issue was in danger of being swept under the carpet, but by putting down a marker for it in what could be the final week of the Parliament, he has done a great service. He has brought the situation to the attention of the media and of many hon. Members who were unaware of what was taking place. The Minister has also been provided with a chance to respond, so the debate is very welcome.
I shall discuss the timing, the proposals and the way ahead. If I may, I shall also indulge in saying a little about Southern Arts, which has its base in my constituency. We should first place the debate in context. We have heard about the many aspects of the work carried out by the Arts Council that we should celebrate. As a vehicle for managing the considerable funding from Government and the lottery, it has been successful. Hon. Members have described projects throughout the country that would not have happened if we did not have the Arts Council.

239WH
I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the work carried out by some of the individuals whom we are now tempted to criticise. The tone of the debate is interesting, because there has been no anger, as there sometimes is when such proposals are made. Instead, there is bewilderment: we cannot quite understand why an organisation with such a reputation has done what it has, and in such a way.
The decision taken on 15 March to bring forward the proposals took the arts world by surprise. We rightly condemn the plans immediately to announce the abolition of the regional boards without giving them notice. I understand that six weeks' notice was given to wind up staff contracts, undertake the difficult process of talking to staff about the change and send through centrally all the contracts and administration. How can any organisation suggest that it can turn around in such a period? It was pleasing that it at least recognised that early and decided to extend the consultation period. However, it has been extended only until mid-May. Given the broad range of the issues that have been raised this morning, a much longer period is needed to enable us to work out where the organisation is going.
I am told that Southern Arts, for example, has still been put on notice that, subject to that consultation period, it is expected to wind up its organisation by the end of the year. It seems bizarre that those plans must be put in place before a consultation period has been completed. Let us imagine the reaction of the 400 or so staff who are affected by the proposal. They must be very worried, and we must ensure that their rights as employees are protected throughout the process.
Why was the process so rushed? Can the consultation period be further extended? It would help if the Minister said when the Government first knew about the proposals. There would be concern if the Government had been made aware of them before the arts world was. Might the system be examined to ensure that the Arts Council can never again do anything like that?
On the proposals, we have heard many arguments why it does not make sense to move towards a single tier. The Arts Council has argued that it would be a quicker, simpler and less bureaucratic structure. Why is it assumed that delays in the process have been caused by the regionality of the system? It has been put to me that one reason for those delays is the structure of the centre and the way in which it operates, and it has been argued that the centre has been at fault for not giving clear guidelines to the regions. I have heard examples of lack of clarity in communication. Will not centralisation prolong the decision-making process? If decisions are taken from the centre, will not fieldwork have to be done in the regions to try to establish local knowledge? Rather than speeding things up, suddenly removing the arm in the regions that gives immediate information about applications could lengthen the process.
The administration costs of the Arts Council run to about £36 million. It is estimated that the regions cost about £16 million. Why, then, is it assumed that the burden of responsibility for reducing costs should fall on the regions? Has the option of reducing costs at the centre been examined? I have seen nothing to suggest that such work has been undertaken. The board
240WH
members of regional boards give up their time for no payment. If one is trying to reduce costs, it seems strange to remove a tier of individuals who give knowledge and expertise at no cost.
Will the Minister also comment on what assessment, if any, has been made of the administrative costs that will be involved in the proposals? Hon. Members have talked about what I would describe as the deficit of democratic accountability. A third of the members of Southern Arts are from democratically elected councils, which is extremely healthy. As other hon. Members have said, we need to protect the link between local government and local authorities, which already do so much for the arts. They have invaluable knowledge.
Do not the proposals go against the devolution to the regions that we are trying to enable? Do not regions know what is best for them? Do we not want to celebrate diversity? Do we not want a structure that allows different systems in different regions? What works best in northern England may not work in the same way in southern England. We could lose all that with a centralised system.
Southern Arts is based in my constituency and I am proud of the work that it has done in the area. Its chairman, Robert Hutchison, came to see me two days ago to express his concern about the proposals. In the time scale that Southern Arts has been given, it has done its best to consult some of the individuals that it supports. I do not know how scientific the consultation was, but the organisation claimed that 85 per cent. of the people to whom it had written, whom it has supported over the years, are against the proposals. I am sure that other hon. Members, like myself, have received several letters from high-profile organisations.
We are proud of the work that the regional arts boards have done. Incredibly, three years ago Winchester had no theatre or cinema—a bizarre anomaly for such a city. We now have a thriving cinema and hope to have a theatre opening within months. We do not, thankfully, yet have "Stars in their Eyes" competitions, but I was interested to hear the list of work that also goes on in other areas.
We need a sensible way forward. Hon. Members have demonstrated their willingness to try to work through the issue. No one is against change for change's sake—not even the regional arts boards, which recognise that the systems need to be improved. It is annoying that the Arts Council does not accept that some faults, and some of the need for change, could lie at the centre. Is the possibility of cuts act the centre being explored? The regional boards may need to be reduced in some way, but do we not need better decision making and clearer criteria on how decisions should be taken to speed things up? Above all—I am optimistic about it because I believe that the Minister can take a lead in this respect—we need to buy ourselves time to think about the proposals and to ensure that, at the end of the year, there is a robust organisation that supports arts in this country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) for his co-operation in this important debate.
10.29 am
Mr. John Greenway: As I was driving back to Yorkshire last Thursday evening, wondering what on earth we would discuss in the debate called by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—the area of responsibility is usually that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth)—I tuned into Radio 3 and heard the live relay of the first concert in the BBC tour of south America from a cinema in Montevideo. The orchestra was outstanding and it was given a tumultuous reception. It served as a timely reminder of how successful and precious the arts are to so many of us.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross on securing this timely debate. I am grateful for the presence in the Chamber of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who referred to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman came from Scotland. I cannot match the courtesy with which my right hon. Friend alluded to the incongruity of a Scottish Member securing a debate on the arts council for England and Wales and discussing our regional arts boards. However, we are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and acknowledge his vast experience and interest in the matter.
We have too few opportunities to debate the arts and the debate is all the more welcome to the Conservative party as we highlighted the need for the reform and restructuring of the Arts Council and the regional arts boards in the launch of our arts policy on 13 March, to which the right hon. Gentleman briefly alluded.
The case for reform should not be ignored or underestimated. Hon. Members have referred in the debate to central and regional bureaucracy; staff in the regional arts boards have grown in number from 380 to 419 in the past four years and more than £16 million has been spent in administration. Levels vary significantly between boards, but in the most recent year for which figures are available South East Arts spent 34 per cent. of its entire budget on administrating. That is too much. Equally, too much of the Arts Council's budget is spent monitoring and administering the regional boards, and more money is wasted by the requirement for the Department to monitor the Arts Council. There are English regional arts boards, the club of the arts boards and the regional cultural consortiums set up by the Government—what are they for?—all of which are a potential waste of time and money.
It is disturbing that the Arts Council, the prime purpose of which is to distribute funds that sustain the arts—it is remarkably successful—appears to command so little respect or affection. I commend to hon. Members an article in the Evening Standard on 27 March by Mr. Brian Sewell, which encapsulates the attitude of many people to the Art Council.
Our policy paper, "Common Sense for the Arts and National Lottery", promised a fundamental review of ACE, its structure and function. If the present organisation, which is half a century old, proves incapable of further reform we will replace it with a new, simplified national body that will better reflect the contemporary needs of the professional and voluntary arts.
242WH
Four principles should underpin any reformed structure, whatever emerges following the Arts Council's announcement. There must be consultation with the arts sector to achieve a system of funding in which artists can have confidence. We must reinforce the arm's length principle in arts funding, enabling decisions to be taken in the interests of art, rather than in pursuit of Government policy. We need to ensure that the voice of the voluntary arts sector is heard where decisions are taken and to ensure that more money from the arts budget is spent on the arts themselves and less on administration.
We were favourably surprised when, two days after making our views public, the Arts Council made its own announcement. We have heard what a furore that caused. At the same time, we were bewildered, if not astonished, that the Arts Council had taken its decision without consulting the regional boards or their many clients. There was no evidence of consultation with Ministers—not even a nod or a wink, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said.
Our own discussions with the Arts Council chief executive threw some light on why this stance was adopted. The Arts Council concluded that a single structure was essential to achieve the objectives of a new streamlined organisation with less bureaucracy, and wanted to signal that that was its clear and settled intention. It was a serious mistake not to consult because it generated great opposition and hostility, much of which has been articulated in the debate. A new maxim has been coined: how to displease all of the people all of the time.
The announcement may have been heroic but, having so clearly and controversially set out the stall, the chairman and chief executive now have the monumental task of explaining how the new structure will work, and how regionality, local decision making and accountability can be maintained and strengthened—the stated aim. How can the regions be represented on a single national council that avoids over-centralisation but must not become too unwieldy? How can more money be spent directly on the arts?
Part of the problem is that there is no obvious model or organisation that adopts the structure that ACE advocates. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned that ACE intended to publish a more detailed prospectus in June, which we look forward to reading.
Some critics say that the existing boards could be reformed and restructured. Several representations made by the regional boards to Members of Parliament advanced that view. The Southern Arts brief says:
"there are cheaper and better ways of achieving the aims stated in the prospectus".
Southern Arts spends more than a quarter of its budget on administration. Yorkshire and Humberside Arts in my region was slightly less critical, but is not persuaded that the removal of regional autonomy means anything other than increased centralisation.
Critics cannot argue that a regional structure is essential and then deny ACE the opportunity to establish a new, less bureaucratic structure based on regional committees with closer links to the council and perhaps including dual membership between the council

243WH
and the regions. ACE already gives considerable resources—even more in recent years—to the regional arts boards, which demonstrates how regional committees could redistribute funds. Such a demonstration would be vital to winning over the regions.
As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, the regions are independent now and cannot be forced into the new position. The council must take people with it and win the argument. An enhanced role for local government will be a crucial ingredient of any new arrangement if the new organisation is to be more responsive to local needs and local democracy.
The present arrangements are highly unsatisfactory and some reform is needed. The question is as to the form that any change should take. The Conservatives recognise the need for change in our own review of arts policy and emphasise the value of consultation to take the arts world along with any proposals. ACE should now do the same and put some meat on the bones of its ideas in an effort to win over the regional arts world. We say, give it a chance and then review. We believe that ACE has the interests of the arts in Britain at heart. Reference has been made to its achievements under the chairmanship of Gerry Robinson. I believe that Peter Hewitt, with his background in Northern Arts, has the interests of the regions at heart.
However, the one missing ingredient in the debate is the view and role of the Government. In light of all the furore, the lack of any leadership from the Secretary of State has been lamentable. We hope that the Minister will explain today—we are grateful for the opportunity to provide him considerable time in which to do so—how the Government view the matter and what they want the structure and governance of the arts to be in the long run. For our part, we have criticisms of the way in which the announcement was made, but the objectives are right.
The Arts Council may have bungled its announcement, but it is difficult to resist the temptation to rejoice at the prospect of a serious setback to the Government's regional agenda if the plans proceed. We feel sure that the Secretary of State will not allow that prospect to influence the eventual outcome of that sorry mess, because the arts in Britain are too precious for that.
10.41 am
The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): You have noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is an important debate. I welcome the opportunity to respond on the Government's behalf. I am most grateful to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for giving us the opportunity to debate these matters today. It is entirely proper that we should; they are serious and important. The right hon. Gentleman set out his anxieties fully in a passionate speech. He was wrong in some of his interpretations, but none the less stated some important issues.
I am most grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was
244WH
mellow—he hardly needs champagne. He will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong, but I recollect that Disraeli characterised the speeches of Palmerston as ginger beer, not champagne. The right hon. Gentleman's speech this morning was sparkling, and we are all grateful for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) gave us all pleasure by introducing a thoroughly positive note and describing the successes that have been achieved in collaboration with East Midlands Arts in Kettering. My hon. Friend spoke of Corby Community Arts, with its long and distinguished history. He drew attention to the successes of the young people's photography group. He surprised us all by telling us how Scottish dancing is thriving in Corby—but we can understand the historical reasons for that. He spoke of the Northamptonshire youth orchestra, and I am grateful for what he said about the contribution of Government funding for the project to provide space for sport and the arts. He was right to stress the value of the arts in encouraging young people to have high aspirations, and the contribution that the arts can make to education and social inclusion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) drew attention to the position of the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra—an orchestra of which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) are, rightly, especially proud. I should just say that it has been offered a funding increase of 6 per cent., not 3 per cent., which will bring its funding level above that of the London orchestras. It is worth our reflecting on the fact that that decision, about which my hon. Friend to some extent complains, was a decision taken at regional level about an orchestra of national—indeed, international—standing. We must reflect on how things work now and how they might work. My hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak also set out her anxieties.
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) for speaking in a thoroughly constructive spirit. He expressed some bewilderment—a well-chosen word—at what may be in train, but he was fair minded, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging that additional funding is entering the system. It gave me especial pleasure to hear what he said about Winchester, which is my home town. I am delighted that there should now be a cinema and hope, as he does, that a theatre will also be established.
We all appreciate the gallant efforts of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in deputising for the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). I will return to some of his comments.
Let us be clear about what the Arts Council proposes. It is proposing that the regional arts boards and the Arts Council of England be merged into a single organisation, and that the offices of the regional arts board become regional offices of the Arts Council of England. It is proposing that the regional chief executives become members of a national executive team and that the Arts Council regions be aligned with the Government office regions, which would mean a reduction in the number of regional organisations of the Arts Council from 10 to nine. It also proposes that more funding be delegated to the regional offices and that new

245WH
relationships be established between the regional structures of the Arts Council and other regional Government structures and local government.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was incorrect in what he said. The Arts Council wants to scale down the centre, reduce the overall cost of administration and spend more on the arts. We are all at one on much of this, as we desire greater simplicity, a smaller centre, less money spent on administration, more spent on the arts and—as the hon. Member for Ryedale said—an enhanced role for local government. I praise him as a repenting sinner, as that was not always his party's view.
The proposals emanate from the Arts Council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes, as I do, that it is entirely appropriate that the Arts Council should have taken an initiative in this respect. My right hon. Friend has consistently enjoined the Arts Council to cut excessive bureaucracy, and it has made an important start in doing so. In 1999, 330 staff were employed in Great Peter street; in 2001, 220 were employed there. That process has been traumatic and painful for Arts Council staff, but none of us would dispute that it was important to scale down that central bureaucracy.
The overhead costs of the Arts Council and the total system, including the regional arts boards, are approximately £36 million. We should place that in context: the total turnover of the system is some £500 million, so the overheads represent some 7 per cent. Many may feel that that figure of 7 per cent. is too high, however. In all, some 660 people are employed in the system.
Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Howarth: If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, we are tight for time.
For a long time, we have operated on an arm's-length principle in the funding of the arts in this country, which is a vital principle in a liberal state. I hope that if the Conservative party contemplates the abolition of the Arts Council, it will consider the possible risks in politicising arts funding decisions, because that would be a dangerous policy to follow.
If the arm's-length principle is to work, we would all agree that the precondition must be that there will be trust, that full information will be given and that there will be proper consultation. That is the strong opinion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Of course, it is true that Mr. Robinson and Mr. Hewitt came about a week before they made the proposals public to advise my right hon. Friend and myself of what they had in mind. We believe that it is proper, in an arm's length arrangement, that the Arts Council should initiate consideration of reform for a process that it is tasked to operate. However, let me make it clear that it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to approve any eventual restructuring, because the proposals are plainly of major importance. They offer an opportunity for major benefits: reduced bureaucracy, devolved decision taking and benefits to the arts throughout the country.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is attracted by the objectives that the Arts Council has established and broadly supports them. I shall not dwell
246WH
on the technical reasons why it would be necessary for my right hon. Friend to approve important proposals such as those for pay, pensions and conditions of employment. Under Treasury rules, matters concerning insurance and trusts all need to be approved by him. As Parliament wishes, he must be satisfied that public funds are applied efficiently. There can be no rushing headlong into a premature resolution of such matters.
Mr. Oaten: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Howarth: I am sorry; we lack the time.
I understand the worries that have been expressed about the time scale originally set by the Arts Council. It wanted to bring matters to a rapid conclusion to minimise the period of uncertainty. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I made it clear from the outset that it was important to be realistic about the timetable and to consult fully. The Arts Council has accepted that fuller consultation is needed than it envisaged originally. It made that clear in its letter to the chairmen of the regional arts boards on 30 April. The Arts Council has now proposed that the consultation period should close on 15 May, but said that it will remain in listening mode. I am sure that Mr. Robinson and Mr. Hewitt agree with us that it is a case of more haste, less speed.
I shall clarify the tests that my right hon. Friend will apply when he makes a judgment on the proposals that emerge from the process. He said what the tests would be when he first discussed the matter with Mr. Robinson and Mr. Hewitt. As a result of change, there must be more genuine power in the regions. The devolution of power must be real, not cosmetic. The regional directors must become not representatives of the centre but champions of their region. There must be a genuine increase in decision making in the regions. We require a reduction in bureaucracy, so that it would be genuinely simpler for clients to navigate the system and cut out duplication and waste. We must achieve real savings throughout the system, which should be genuinely deliverable and delivered. As a consequence, more money should be spent on the arts. There must be a clear benefit for the regions, one that must be sufficiently accepted in the regions.
We must ensure that the voice of the arts is enhanced in the emerging regional forums to make possible richer collaboration between the Arts Council bodies—whatever regional entities emerge—and other regional organisations sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In response to a point raised by the hon. Member for Ryedale, I say that such policies must not run counter to other key Government policies for the regions.
I say to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross that we need to emerge with an open, intelligent, collaborative pattern of dealings between the citizen and the Government. Gone are the days—if ever they existed—when culture was a matter of crumbs thrown down from Olympus or from some metropolitan Parnassus.
The main themes expressed in representations to us concur with the analysis of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. People ask how we shall ensure genuine local and regional distinctiveness under an altered system. How will regional autonomy and accountability be preserved or enhanced? How precisely

247WH
will regional voices be heard under the new system? What decisions will be made at regional level? What relationship will there be with other regional structures? What will be the savings in bureaucracy and administration? Will the new model really mean less bureaucracy, a simpler structure and no duplication? "If so, good, but persuade us", people are saying. There is scepticism about whether such action is genuinely that of devolution, or centralisation as suggested by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey). Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak insisted on full consultation. As the hon. Member for North Devon said, people have told us that they agree that change is needed. They would welcome more simplicity and greater consistency and fairness across the country.
Let me note that the criticisms that have been expressed have come predominantly from politicians and people working in the system. Relatively few criticisms have come from artists or arts organisations. Ultimately, the crucial test will be how the system works for artists.
I join those who paid tribute to the work of those who are responsible for administering arts in the regions—I appreciated what the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said about that.
A distinguished theatrical manager and director has described the costs of operating the regional arts boards as a handling charge. That grossly underestimates the contribution that members and chief executives of the regional arts boards make. I have spent days alongside Felicity Harvest of South East Arts—the administrative costs of which are high, as we have noted—and with Sue Robertson, who, as was mentioned, has resigned because she does not see a future for herself in the model proposed by the Arts Council. I have no doubt that the work that they do in fund raising, mobilising local authority support, spotting talent, offering advice and
248WH
counselling, in diplomacy and brokerage is an important and indispensable contribution to the vitality and success of the arts in this country. Some arts practitioners grumble about the very existence of the regional arts boards, but that is an overwhelmingly unfair change. We cannot decide everything at the centre.
The issue of the balance between the centre and the regions is an old conundrum. It has been a live issue in the administration of arts funding since at least the late 1940s. The Arts Council was set up in 1945 and, by the late 1940s, offices were being set up in the regions, in big cities outside London. People have gone to and fro with a variety of attempted solutions ever since. We now have an important challenge to arrive at the right solution in our time, and to do better than has been done previously.
Perhaps the most difficult set of issues are those in connection with regionalisation and relations with other regional structures and local government. The Arts Council recognises the strength of feeling on that point and the importance of it. Solutions must be found that genuinely command wide assent in the regions. Hon. Members will have seen the useful briefing note for Members of Parliament that the Arts Council issued yesterday. I hope that it will be recognised that that briefing note expresses a serious attempt to come to grips with issues of regionalisation and relations with local authorities. I am grateful to the Arts Council not only for initiating the discussion but for seriously addressing such issues.
Following the close of a two-month consultation period on 15 May, the Arts Council will draft a new prospectus, which will be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will heed carefully everything that is said to him on the issue. We have set out our tests; if they are met—and only if they are met—my right hon. Friend will approve the proposed changes.

Common Fisheries Policy
10.59 am
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I think that this is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss the European Union's Green Paper on reform of the common fisheries policy. If I can catch the Minister's ear for a moment—someone is blathering away to him—I shall tell him that I think that this is also the first opportunity that he has had to comment on the Fisheries Council meeting of 25 April.
The subject is heavy and controversial, but I make my usual promise to be brief—unlike some hon. Members. I am grateful for the excellent briefing documents and advice that I have received from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wide Fund for Nature. I also thank personally Mark Dixon of the graduate school of environmental studies at the university of Strathclyde for his advice and assistance about the reform of the common fisheries policy.
My family's experience relates to distant water grounds, and I am hugely inexperienced in coastal fisheries. However, the Minister may be interested to know that my brother Keith, an ex-trawler deckhand, has received what, for an ex-trawler deckhand, is a substantial sum of money from the compensation scheme. However, I shall now take the smile off the Minister's face by telling him that my brother Leslie, who is the skipper of a freezer trawler, and is sailing at this moment off the north Norwegian coast, has not received a penny. I told him to appeal, because some of the decisions are fanciful, and I hope that all fishermen who are entitled to compensation receive their just rights. I thank the Minister for his support on the matter.
Every fisherman, and every hon. Member, knows that the common fisheries policy is the means by which the European Union manages and regulates the fisheries' fishing effort and the fish markets of the member states. As a system of fisheries management, it is over-centralised, over-bureaucratic and inflexible. The WWF stated in its brief:
"it is widely recognised that the system of management under-pinning the existing EU Common Fisheries Policy has not adequately protected target stocks or the interests of the fishing industry."
I think we all agree with that.
I shall outline three of the many failures of the existing CFP. First, over 40 per cent. of fish caught in the North sea are discarded. That is due to the CFP's system of fishing quotas. Secondly, most of the commercial stocks fished by UK fishing vessels are at historically low levels, with more than 50 per cent. in danger of collapse because of the CFP's failure to address the critical matter of over-fishing.
Thirdly—I speak as a Scots MP—the CFP fails to take account of the fact that, although numerous Scottish fishing communities are located close by what were once rich fishing grounds, they are on the periphery of the EU itself. Mark Dixon pointed out to me that while such communities receive sympathetic treatment from the social and cohesion polices, they are severely disadvantaged by the CFP. I have no doubt that my English colleagues would agree with that observation.
250WH
The political management of the CFP is characterised by the annual round of bargaining or horse trading by national Ministers who attempt, at all costs, to maintain their national quotas in real terms. Such horse trading is always accompanied by jingoistic media coverage in all the maritime states of the EU, demanding the retention of the domestic fleet.
In a recent letter to The Herald—formerly the Glasgow Herald—Mark Dixon wrote:
"On every single occasion when the quotas have been set by the Council of Ministers of the EU the scientific advice relayed to them by the Commission of the EU has been ignored, due to the horse-trading that takes place annually in Brussels.
This is entirely down to the wishes of politicians who seek to come home and show their constituents how hard they are at negotiating with Brussels bureaucrats. This is however not true. The negotiations take place between national politicians and the Commission only relays scientific recommendations. Therefore, no real debate takes place with regard to the European fishing industry as a whole and it becomes pork-barrel politics of the worst kind."
That view is supported by the RSPB, which, in the briefing sent to all hon. Members, argues that there is a huge onus on the radical revision of the common fisheries policy in 2002. In fairness to the European Commission, because I am trying to be even-handed—
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Oh no.
Dr. Godman: I expected this kind of heckling from my old and hon. Friend. The European Union has produced a review of the CFP, and a Green Paper has recently been published on the future of the policy. That Green Paper is far more extensive than the requirements of the review, which I fear will not encourage a move towards the radical and comprehensive reform of the CFP that is necessary if we are to protect the interests of our fishing communities and the maritime environment. The Green Paper contains an admission of the pressing need for such reform. On page 4, it states:
"The CFP has yielded some positive results during the last 20 years."—
I think that one would have to look hard for them. However, it goes on to say that
"Today's situation calls for a thorough and urgent reform of the CFP independent from the legal requirements linked to the 2002 deadline."
Again, every fisherman and every hon. Member here today knows that. That deadline signals either the abolition or the renewal of the rules of access to the six to 12-mile limit, the Shetland box and the North sea.
The Minister attended the Fisheries Council on 25 April. Am I right in thinking that the Government expressed their support for the Green Paper, but that other member states were less supportive? Is it true that Spain and Portugal are resistant to the proposal to reduce the size of domestic fleets? In the absence of reform and change, is there not a strong possibility that Spain and Portugal will gain, or at least demand, access to the North sea? Many people believe that we will probably not achieve the reform of the CFP, because of the unwillingness of certain member states to accept change. Despite my own pessimism about the likelihood of reform, I want to outline some of the changes that the Green Paper will, I hope, bring about, which recognise the need for a reform of the CFP.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely

251WH
debate. Based on his experience of the industry, has he made any personal assessment of the environmental damage caused by the common fisheries policy, especially in areas such as the North sea? Does he not think that the mainstay of any reform should be a consideration of the environmental consequences of the CFP in the past and future?
Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend refers gently to my experience of North sea fishing, which is confined to two or three days when I went out on Arbroath boats. I have also been out on a couple of Aberdeen boats. As I said, I am an observer of, not an expert on, this industry. However, we must recognise the need to protect the wider maritime environment, not only the fishing grounds. The Minister recognises that, as does the Green Paper, which is radical for the European Union, even if not radical enough for us.
One of the most important reforms should be the creation of regional systems of fisheries management. That should be at the heart of the reformed CFP. I would like the Minister's comments on that, but the Government should support the extension of exclusive national control of territorial waters to at least 12 nautical miles, as the Green Paper proposes. I support the resolution passed by the European Parliament that calls for national control to be extended to 24 nautical miles—that represents a rare occasion when that Parliament got something right. The resolution has the support of the Irish Republic and Portugal. What does the Minister think about a 24 nautical mile exclusive fisheries zone?
A larger territorial sea would make it much easier for a coastal state to control access to an area of considerable significance vis-à-vis spawning and nursery grounds. I fully support the joint advocacy of the RSPB and the Scottish Fisherman's Federation, which call for a permanent restriction of access to inshore waters. They argue for member states to control their inshore waters and the vessels that fish those waters. I fully support that; it is of profound importance to the Scottish fleet, more than three quarters of which—some 2,000 vessels—fish inshore waters. As the SFF and the RSPB say:
"These waters are vital not just to the fragile economies of our coastal communities but to all who value and enjoy Scotland's diverse coastline."
I am sure that hon. Members would agree with those sentiments.
Important stakeholders must be actively involved in any coastal fisheries management scheme, and none are more important than the local fishermen and their communities.
Many other elements of the reformed CFP, too numerous to mention in a brief contribution, should be given serious consideration—inter alia, the question of multi-annual total allowable catches. The CFP places an impossible burden on the catching and processing sectors, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for the Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) would agree. How can the catching and processing sectors make sensible and realistic plans on the basis of this annual horse trading? What is the Government's view of multi-annual TACs?
252WH
Also, what do the Minister and his officials think of multi-species TACs? Fish are part of a dynamic and multi-layered environment. Multi-species TACs make sense in terms of stability and of focusing on responsible management by the fishermen.
I cannot allow a speech to pass without mentioning the disgraceful problem of discards, which makes a mockery of the present system of TACs. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that this is already being done, but why not examine the Norwegian method of dealing with discards? Am I right in thinking that the Norwegians compel fishermen to land all by-catch fish, for which a small price is paid? It appears that the discards problem is much less severe in the Norwegian catching sector than in the EU fishing fleet.
As for technical measures, Scottish fishermen have shown the way on increased mesh size. I come from a fishing family, but at the risk of angering fisherman throughout the United Kingdom, I say that we should examine closely developments in the United States of America and in Canada. The plan to increase our mesh size of 100 mm to 135 mm makes many fishermen deeply unhappy. However, in America the net size for certain species is to be increased to about 166 mm, on the basis that too many juvenile fish are being netted with 145 mm nets.
As for industrial fishing, it should be banned. I congratulate the Minister on his efforts to reduce such a dreadful wasteful form of fishing, but we must secure its total abolition. In a recent letter to The Sunday Telegraph, the Minister rightly said that we should not make the mistake of claiming that the decline of North sea cod stocks is due entirely to sand-eel fishing. Industrial fishing vessels should go the same way as the sailing smacks and the sidewinders. It is time that their day was brought to an end.
I thank the Minister for his letter about the recovery of cod. However, we must go further than that. We should be arguing for longer closures of the areas threatened by total collapse. I think that I am right in saying that, in the United States of America, 6,000 square miles of George's bank have been closed since 1994. There is now evidence of some recovery of fish stocks that were almost extinct.
The CFP must be altered radically. I have only touched on some of the management controls that need to be introduced. At the heart of any reform must be the implementation of zonal or regional management, and the active involvement of fishing communities in systems of management. Maritime states of the European Union must be given the right to develop and manage their coastal fisheries. At the least, such a management system would allow for a more adaptable response to economic and environmental needs at both local and national levels.
Such developments will be affected by the enlargement of the European Union. We must get the CFP right, in a way that will not be achieved with the common agricultural policy, before enlargement takes place.
When European Union fishing vessels fish in the waters of developing, countries, a Europe-wide code of conduct that ensures that those countries are not exploited by large fishing vessels from member states should be in place. Codes of conduct govern other

253WH
interchanges and relationships with the third world, and we should be governed by such a code. We must put into practice in our fisheries policy a genuine and fair-minded application of the EU's principle of subsidiarity. Nothing less will do for our fisherman and their communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. This is an important debate, and winding-up speeches must commence promptly at 12 o'clock. If hon. Members share an element of self-discipline, I am sure that those who seek to catch my eye will be able to speak.
11.19 am
Mr. Alex Salmond: I congratulate my friend the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)—I was about to call him "my old Friend", but he applied that term to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), and I am not sure that it was a compliment.
Mr. Mitchell: I am happy to be called that.
Dr. Godman: It was meant to be a compliment.
Mr. Salmond: I hope that that was not the valedictory performance in the House by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde. Whether it was or not, it showed a wisdom that has characterised his speeches in Parliament on this and other subjects over the years. Of course, the hon. Gentleman comes from a fishing family, as he keeps telling us—although they were wise enough to push him into politics and keep him out of the family business, apart from that one trip on the North sea that he told us about. However, his experience in fishing is well known and well understood.
I shall focus first on the Green Paper that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Undoubtedly, no European Commission document on fisheries has been so well received as the Green Paper that has been published in the past few weeks. Considering what the previous documents were like, that is probably not saying much. None the less, the paper contains a number of substantial and positive indications. I look for the Minister's confirmation that, given the terms in which the Green Paper is written, we can be reasonably certain that relative stability will be secure.
There is a steer in the direction of multi-annual quotas, which the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde mentioned. There is also a hint that zonal management is moving up the agenda, and many of us who have campaigned for that over many years will welcome that, although we would like to see something more decisive. I am particularly interested in the passage that speculates that in the fishing environment into which we are moving, recovery plans and substantially enhanced funding for structural measures—including tie-ups—will be required. I certainly hope that the Under-Secretary welcomed the terms of the Green Paper, and will give us an indication of the Government's change of heart on that particular aspect, because it is very much part of an overall package. If we are going to engage in recovery plans, including
254WH
temporarily closing off areas of the sea, there will have to be temporary structural means of dealing with that pressure, such as tie-ups. Otherwise, we run the risk of destabilising the entire fishery—a point that I will return to shortly.
Secondly, I shall refer to an interesting letter, not from the Under-Secretary but from his boss, which was published on 27 March in the Glasgow Herald—or rather The Herald; as I write a racing column for that newspaper, I should know its name. It is worth looking at exactly what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had to say in that letter, addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which was that he had been "holding the line" against decommissioning grants. I had understood for many years that the Under-Secretary was an enthusiast for decommissioning grants in certain circumstances, and I remember many good speeches of his that I supported, and that hon. Members would also support. Now, however, we discover that the Minister's boss has been holding the line against decommissioning grants.
Even more interestingly, the letter goes on to say:
"I am facing heavy and renewed demands for the English fishing industry to respond to the economic pressures which they face as a result of the strict measures which have been further developed and imposed during February to conserve fish stocks. At present there is in prospect only the small package of measures to regenerate areas affected by the decline in the industry being prepared by the DETR, DIEE, and DTJ. And there is nothing planned which will respond directly to the problem of overcapacity."
That is a fair comment, and there have been some changes since the letter was published. It continues:
"We now face a development in Scotland, where the executive has responded to mass demonstrations by fishermen by offering a decommissioning scheme worth up to—25m for next year. The English industry is arguing strongly that this puts them at an obvious disadvantage and that I should offer a similar package.
This is a most unfortunate situation. The four fisheries departments of the UK have traditionally sought to move together on policy, but with devolution of fisheries policy we no longer have control over territorial handling."
That is a devastating leak. If the Minister does not comment on it, that will confirm that the letter is a genuinely leaked document. The Government do not comment on leaked documents, but if it is not genuine, I am sure that he will tell us. Much publicity and reaction were generated, so let us consider what the letter means. We already know that the Under-Secretary's heart is in the right place, but that leak certainly places substantial question marks over whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is genuinely in favour of structural measures to help the industry.
The letter goes on to tell us what we already knew in Scotland—that the impact of the massive fisheries demonstration was to force a substantial concession from the Scottish Executive. It then argues—reasonably, in my view—that the English industry should receive a similar concession. That shows how having a Scots Parliament and Executive allowed a different policy, and subsequently led reluctant English Ministers to go to the Treasury to seek equivalent funding.
What differences might Members of Parliament in fishing constituencies have with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the light of the

255WH
letter? First, they would be enthusiastic, rather than reluctant, about structural support for the fishing industry. Secondly, instead of having the problem of "holding the line"— "an unfortunate situation", to quote the Minister of Agriculture—Members of Parliament with fishing constituencies south of the border would be wise to learn the lessons and, when the fishing industry dominates the political agenda north of the border, they should view it as an opportunity to gain extra support for English fishermen.
It is difficult to sustain the proposition advanced by some hon. Members that the only place to which the fishing industry should look for structural support is this place. On the evidence of the letter, they should look for it north of the border, and argue the case for an English catch-up policy.
Mr. Mitchell: I agree absolutely, and if I could express my gibbering gratitude to the Scottish Executive—
Mr. Salmond: And the fishermen.
Mr. Mitchell:—and to the Scottish fishermen, and the incentive to demonstrate, but let me ask the hon. Gentleman a question. English vessels fishing from English east coast ports are registered in Scotland as Scottish vessels. Will we be able to share in the greater largesse that should go to vessels registered in Scottish ports?
Mr. Salmond: The scheme has not yet been published in detail, but is likely to be based on port of registration, so the hon. Gentleman effectively answers his own question. No doubt the Scottish Government will soon publish the details; perhaps the Minister is privy to them. We have been promised them for weeks, and keep being told that they are imminent.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me; no doubt his Scottish colleagues are even more enthusiastic in their agreement. Worryingly, he and I have been in agreement about fisheries policy in recent debates. I do not know whether that does more damage to the hon. Gentleman or to me, but we—as well as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde—have a long-standing concern for the fishing industry and want the best for it. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby should learn from this letter that the impact on the political process of the mobilisation of an industry can be considerable.
Miss Anne Begg: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The Scottish Executive's offer of£23 million was on the table before the Scottish National party issued a press release inviting people to a demonstration. The demonstrations took place after, not before, the Scottish Executive made its announcement. I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman welcoming the news, because at the time the SNP was looking for something quite different.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Lady is factually wrong. [Interruption.] I shall explain it to her. The fishing demonstration sailed up the river Forth on Monday night and Tuesday morning, and the package was announced to the Scottish Parliament on the following Thursday. The hon. Lady can check the facts, but that was the sequence of events. We also have it on no less an authority than the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who wrote:
"We now face a development in Scotland, where the executive has responded to mass demonstrations by fishermen by offering a decommissioning scheme".
If the hon. Lady disagrees with me, she disagrees with her colleague in the Cabinet. That may not too bad a thing in some circumstances, but it might not do her career prospects any good.
Mobilisation of the industry was a factor in making fishing dominate the agenda of the Scottish Parliament in a way that it has never dominated the agenda of this Parliament. I should have thought that English Members would be interested in that, to find out whether fishing could gain its proper importance in this place, as it already has in the new Parliament on the Mound in Edinburgh.
A final point, which is absolutely vital if we are to make sense of fisheries policy, is encapsulated in a good quote from the briefing by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde outlined. The briefing states:
"It is necessary that the plan"
the cod recovery plan—
"should be truly comprehensive and include …potentially beneficial measures interacting in a coherent way. It is also necessary that the plan should have, at least, the tacit approval of fishermen and this will require action to minimise the level of economic disruption."
Those are extremely wise words. Attempts at a cod recovery plan were implemented quickly, resulting in substantial confusion and disruption of other fisheries.
Cod is the third most important whitefish species for Scottish fishermen, after haddock and whiting. It therefore does not make any sense to disrupt or jeopardise other main species unnecessarily as a result of an attempted cod recovery plan. Everyone supports a recovery of the cod species, but a cod recovery plan put the haddock stock in extremely substantial jeopardy in March, and forced the bulk of the Scottish whitefish fleet to fish in areas that they would not otherwise have been near at that time of year, right among a stock of juvenile haddock that is the largest in the North sea since 1965—a golden year class of haddock.
A recent deputation to the Scottish Parliament included John Goodlad, a well respected leader of the Shetland fishermen. He told MSPs in Edinburgh that in 1965 the Shetland economy was on its knees. That was before oil; agriculture and crofting were doing extremely badly. Then that year class of haddock turned up, and the number of fish-processing factories in Shetland increased from four to 13, purely on the back of that year class of haddock in the mid-1960s. That is the extent of the resource opportunity of such a massive stock of haddock in the North sea, and that is why fishermen were so angry at that stock being jeopardised, and almost sacrificed, in pursuit of protecting another species.

257WH
Cod is an extremely important stock. Everyone hopes that a cod recovery plan can be successful, although international examples of attempts are not encouraging. There is a class of haddock in the North sea that is already two years old. Surely fisheries policy should be designed to protect that stock and that species, not to put them in great danger.
Although the three-week voluntary tie-up of fishermen was attacked and criticised, I estimate that over that three-week period, 10 million young haddock were saved that would otherwise have been discarded, dead, into the sea. Whatever people said about it, that voluntary tie-up of fishermen, which I enthusiastically supported, not only concentrated the minds of the Scottish Executive but was probably the single most important conservation initiative, saving a minimum of 10 million juvenile haddock in the North sea.
As it was with haddock, it is now with whiting. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde said, mesh size and technical measures are important, but for most boats it will be extremely difficult to pursue a whiting fishery in the North sea if boats fish with 110 mm nets: whiting will not be caught. We are pursuing a mixed fishery in the North sea, and it is not a case of one size fits all.
Those who are familiar with fisheries know that seine-net boats are probably the most selective in the North sea, and have the highest quality catches. Their pulling speed is 1 knot, and the fish in seine nets are not dead, as they would be in those of other trawlers, which pull at a higher speed. If seine-net boats must have the same mesh sizes and arrangements as boats with vastly greater pulling power and speeds, those highly selective boats will be unable to pursue their fishery. As other countries have sought derogations, will the Minister say whether it would be possible, for example, for boats to fish with one mesh size if they agree to take cod only as a by-catch, and with another size if they take cod as a major species?
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde talked about the substantial mesh sizes used in the American fishery, but the size depends on the fish that people are trying to catch. If we move to 135 mm, for which the Norwegians have argued, a directed cod fishery will emerge in the North sea, because at that mesh size, it is the only species that will be caught. In trying to recover a stock, we would in fact be encouraging boats to concentrate on that stock, because it would be the only fish that they could catch. That is why we are in a complex situation, in which reason and judgment are required.
I would like the Minister to give an undertaking that—unlike his boss, who does not even like decommissioning schemes—he is aware that if we engage in temporary closures of fishing areas, we must have temporary structural support through a tie-up to make that viable. I also want him to say that he is aware that in a mixed fishery, different boats catch different fish in different areas. He will have to produce regulations that make sense to all sectors of the fleet.
As the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde said, we must have a fishing industry in which industrial fishing does not take priority over fish for human consumption. No one in this place, and no one who fishes, can understand how the industrial fishery has
258WH
managed to be sustained at its present size while other stocks are starving for lack of food in the North sea, and fishermen are struggling for their livelihoods. I would like assurances from the Minister on those points.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat that the winding-up speeches need to commence at midday. If all those who want to speak are to be able to, perhaps hon. Members will bear that in mind.
11.37 am
Mr. Frank Doran: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) on securing this timely debate. I hope that it is not his valedictory speech, but the newspapers tell us that it might be. I do not disagree with much of what he said, so I shall not go through all the points that he covered.
The Green Paper certainly represents progress, but those of us with an interest in the industry feel that it is not radical enough. The starting point seems to be current practice and how we can develop from that, whereas I believe that we need a fairly strong cultural change in the way in which the industry operates in the North sea and is regulated, which is my main interest. Technical measures and gear changes are certainly necessary, but are not the whole solution to the problem. There is the prospect of some cultural change if we can have a proper scheme of regional and zonal management that allows partnership and the development of stakeholding in the industry. We want a lot of support for that, but the culture is wrong and we need to address that.
We must also consider the serious problems of a cyclical industry, which is sometimes cyclical in very short time frames. Currently, we are all trying to come to terms with the problems that have been created by a shortage of fish stocks. The processing sector has been especially seriously hit. Friends in the industry, however, tell me that we will see a glut of fish in July or August. The market will be awash with haddock and cod, and we are likely to see much-reduced prices.
Apparently, the catching side of the industry is doing well at present because, although fish are in short supply, quayside prices are good. However, in July and August, prices will plummet. With the shortage of fish stocks, the industry has been forced to adapt. In Aberdeen, a few years ago we could have said that the fish came from the North sea. We fished in distant waters—from Iceland, the Baltic and Norwegian waters. I am told that now in Aberdeen we can buy fish from virtually anywhere in the world. Fish from China, the far east, Australia, Canada and America are all available in the market. Of course, that affects the viability of the fish catching industry. Yesterday, one merchant told me that about 60 per cent. of the fish processed in his factory is now outsourced—coming from other than the marketplace in Aberdeen. It is a serious problem that must be considered.
Part of the cultural change in the industry is that until relatively recently we could never have said that we had a united industry—there was a great divide between the processing side and the catching side. Sometimes it was

259WH
jocular: the processors worked on the basis that the catchers were all thieves and pirates and the catchers operated on the basis that the processors took the food from their bairns' mouths. During the past four or five years, however, there has been considerable change as the industry has come together to start addressing problems.
For example, through the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Scottish fishing industry encourages the Government to accept the introduction of the square mesh panel—a major advance in the industry's approach to the environment and its own sustainability. The Association of Fish Merchants and Curers in Aberdeen develops its own environmental policy and lobbies the Government on it—that is a fairly radical change. It is essential to have a united industry that can speak to the Government and persuade them of its case, so that Government and industry can go forward to argue their case in Brussels.
Unfortunately, there has been a fracturing in the industry of late. I had to chuckle quietly to myself when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) accused the Government of destabilising the industry. Nothing has been more destabilising to the fishing industry than the recent action on the east coast of Scotland under the auspices of the Fishermen's Action Committee. That has rent the industry asunder. The fish catching side of the industry has been split, with the west coast fishermen based in the Clyde area and in Mallaig falling out with and threatening to withdraw from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, and with a major split between the fish processing and fish catching side of the industry.
I attended a meeting of Scottish fish processors at Newburgh about a month ago, when they decided to withdraw their support from the action by the Fishermen's Action Committee—an organisation based in Peterhead. Like everyone else who has read the newspapers and seen the scene, of course I have sympathy with the catching side of the industry, which is going through difficult times. However, by the time of that meeting in Newburgh it was clear that the whole event was being stage-managed and heavily politicised. It was being organised by the Scottish National party as an assault on the integrity of the Scottish Executive.
I do not need to look hard for proof. One of my hon. Friends made a comment from a sedentary position about the burning in effigy of a Scottish Minister at a protest in Peterhead. I wonder what sort of image of the fishing industry that gives the general public. That event was called by a press release issued on 12 March by the Fishermen's Action Committee. It was issued on Scottish National party headed notepaper—I have a copy of it here. If that is not a political event, nothing is. I feel strongly about such politicisation of any industry.
Miss Begg: Does my hon. Friend agree that that event took place after the Scottish Executive had offered£23m for a decommissioning scheme?
Mr. Doran: It certainly was. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan juggled with dates to pretend that the Scottish Executive's decision to invest£27 million in the
260WH
restructuring of the Scottish fishing industry was a result of the fishermen's protests. That is nonsense. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes and I now want to make my contribution.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Doran: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for long enough, and other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
The hon. Gentleman's claim that the Scottish Executive announced the investment because of the fishermen's protests is nonsense. The Scottish Executive and the Fisheries Minister had been holding discussions with representatives of the fishing industry for about two months before the protests began.
It is a tragedy that the announcement of the largest single investment in the restructuring of the Scottish industry was treated as a cause for protest. Fishermen should have been celebrating. However, the welcome that the announcement received from the Clyde and Mallaig fishermen was perhaps more typical of the reaction of most people in the industry. They wanted a decommissioning scheme to be introduced, and they wanted to sit down with the Government to ensure that the investment scheme was properly implemented.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Doran: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for long enough.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan must sit down as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central refuses to give way.
Mr. Doran: I have made my point. A split industry would be ineffective. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that the fishing industries in England and Scotland had different profiles and priorities. I agree with him about that. The industry should have a higher profile in England. We recognise that it is an important industry in Scotland, but it is difficult to see how, in its present state, it can make progress by coherently communicating its case to the Government.
The discussions that I have held over the past few days with both sides of the industry have shown me that they are beginning once again to come together and to consult about matters. It is widely recognised in the industry that it is foolish to become involved in campaigns that are politically stage-managed. I hope that that will not happen again.
I want the Minister to encourage the industry to come together: his predecessors pursued that end by holding fisheries summits. I congratulate my local authority, Aberdeen city council, for holding a regular fishing summit that is attended by all sides of the industry, and which encourages people to pull together and to make common cause. The Minister should sit down and discuss matters with all sides of the industry from Scotland, England, and Northern Ireland to ensure that the best possible deal is secured as a result of the Green Paper.
11.47 am
Mr. Austin Mitchell: My intervention will be brief, although I would like to launch into a lengthy analysis of the common fisheries policy and its iniquities. We should never have accepted the CFP. It was cobbled together and forced on us when negotiations were beginning over our entry into Europe. It was a deliberate attempt to gain access to the richest fishing grounds in Europe, and it could have been resisted, as Sir Con O'Neil's memoir highlights: he was prevented from resisting it, at a time when it was malleable, because there was a desperate desire to enter Europe.
By accepting the policy, the Government of the day accepted the principle of equal access to a common resource. However, the proper approach to fisheries conservation can be taken only by the nation state, as it alone has an interest in maintaining stocks to be inherited by future generations of fishermen, and it alone can control all those who have an interest in exploiting stocks. That has been the experience in, for example, Iceland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
I would like us to withdraw from the CFP. The Scottish National party once shared that desire. It has now stood on its head with regard to that policy, as it has with regard to many others, but I will continue to carry the flame in favour of withdrawal—Interruption.] I do not want to discuss that matter any longer, as I did not decide the Scottish National party's policy on it; I want to express my own point of view clearly. My basic point is that the common fisheries policy is not a policy of conservation but a political policy. The process often consists of doling out paper fish to satisfy the conflicting demands of nation states, and proper conservation is not possible on that basis.
The CFP is also a policy that is remote from the fishing grounds and the fishermen. Some of the decisions on timing in relation to the opening up of areas under the cod preservation plan could have been made more sensibly if the Commission and its officials knew something about the spawning processes of fish, and what happens in fishing grounds, which clearly they did not. The policy has not worked effectively.
It is difficult for us to prevail, because we are just one voice. Our problem is unique because each country has a specialised interest—usually in specific species—whereas we are a country of mixed fishing. Therefore, we have interests in a wider spread of species, which involve many different approaches and types of net. We are therefore negotiating at a disadvantage. My hon. Friend the Minister has done a good job, but when other national interests intervene, fishing; has only a small voice, and is likely to be overruled by higher national priorities. That was certainly the case under Conservative Governments.
The overlap between national Government policy and the common fisheries policy causes another set of problems, as fishing tends to fall in between. The Treasury seems to have no idea about the needs and problems of fishing—it views fishing as a greedy supplicant, to be slapped back every time; it never sees it as a possible investment, or a framework for development. However, all the studies—the WWF study is fascinating in this regard—show that a proper policy of managed conservation and managed
262WH
restructuring of the industry, which requires money, would increase the return and produce a much greater dividend on investment. That is especially important at present.
As the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations argued last night, there is a desire to progress from the present situation, in which fleets are too large and stocks too small, to the situation that we want to inherit—one of sustainable, growing stocks, on which to base a sustainable industry. The financial problem is that the Treasury is not willing to finance that process, which involves restructuring, support and subsidy for the fleet. It involves the modernisation of onshore facilities and investment to get from A to B and to reap the rewards of proper conservation and a proper common fisheries policy.
The British side has always been weakened by the Government's failure to provide the necessary finance, and their reluctance to accept finance from Europe. Finance has poured from Europe into the fishing fleets of every other country, which have been modernised, rebuilt and re-energised, whereas the British fleet has not had access to the European money that is available. Other countries' industries receive finance from Europe to install satellite surveillance, but ours does not. That is a ludicrous example of the way in which the British industry loses out every time because of the failure of national financing and our lack of access to European financing, to which other countries have access.
The consequence of that, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out, is that our industry is run down. It is interesting to remember that we opposed the Government's plans to control fishing by limiting days at sea. We demanded a decommissioning programme, which the Treasury was too mean to finance. As a result, there were bankruptcies, closures and sell-offs of licences, which were bought up by quota hoppers who became yet another problem for our industry. That was the Treasury's fault. We are now back in the same situation. If finance is not available, the industry's restructure will he weakened. Licences will be sold on. Who will buy them? It will be the fishing industries that have been subsidised by their Governments and by Europe. That will be the inevitable consequence, unless financial action is taken.
I am about to sit down and shut up, because other hon. Members wish to speak—but first I must point out that there is a failure of co-ordination between a common fisheries policy that would be adequate to our needs, and a central Government approach to fishing that is narrow-minded and reminiscent of Gradgrind. That is damaging an industry that may have been pushed into the shadows by the foot and mouth epidemic, but which has an equal demand for fair and proper financing to keep it going from now into the future that we want it to inherit.
Mr. Quinn rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) said that he would speak for about four minutes, so I am happy to call him.
11.55 am
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that you have been in some sale rooms in the fishing industry, understood the figures and accepted the bid that was being offered.
I have been a Member of Parliament for only four years, but I wish to take the opportunity to say how much I have enjoyed listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) in fisheries debates. If, indeed, his speech was his valedictory performance, he will be of great service to the fishing community whatever he does in the future. What he has done in the past has been deeply appreciated by the communities in Scarborough and Whitby. It is important to put that on the record.
I never thought that I would be in a position to say that I was in some sympathy with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), especially in respect of his argument for devolution. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) know, I am a passionate advocate of English devolution. Eventually, there will be a Yorkshire and Humberside regional assembly. If any issue concerning the economy of our region demands such an approach, it is fishing. It is absolutely desperate that the need for a regionalised agenda is recognised in respect of our fishing industry north of the Humber up to the Tweed.
I hope that the Minister will continue to use whatever powers he has to influence the regional development agencies in the north-east and in Yorkshire to approach such an important part of our economy with greater seriousness than they have done so far. I thank the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan for encouraging fishing communities north of the Humber whose boats are registered in Scottish ports to take their fair share of the£23 million that has been negotiated.
Mr. Salmond: May I briefly acknowledge the support of several boats from the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the fishing demonstrations? That belied the argument that the fishing demonstrations were centred in Peterhead.
Mr. Quinn: I was about to come to that point. The hon. Gentleman indeed recognises the contribution of the boats from Whitby. Such matters concerned with the common fisheries policy show that not only do we need to take a United Kingdom approach but we must recognise the international aspects of the industry that are vital to this country.
In recent years, the shellfish industry in Whitby has been thriving. The Minister visited Whitby and Scarborough recently and the fact that refrigerated lorries leave the port of Whitby for places such as Barcelona and Paris with catches that are almost pre-booked shows that we are in a global marketplace. It supports the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. Central (Mr. Doran).
I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, let me say for the record that I would like a response to the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and I sent him recently regarding the Government's position on net sizes. He knows about the
264WH
considerable concern in the north-east Yorkshire ports over the proposals that are on the table about net sizes in an attempt to assist with the cod recovery plan.
Secondly, will the Minister tell us how inshore fishermen such as salmon netsmen will be impacted by the CFP reforms?
Thirdly, as well as supporting the industry in discussions with the Treasury, will he argue the case in Europe on behalf of the Government? We must ensure that there is a contribution from the European purse in future proposals for environmental recovery plans, to fund the measures necessary for the industry to make sustainable progress and ensure the prosperity that many hon. Members wish to see in our communities all round the British Isles.
12 noon
Mr. Andrew George: Like other hon. Members, I strongly congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) on securing this debate, and making a significant contribution to fisheries debates in the past. Today, he set out a sensible case for the reform of the CFP, welcomed the Green Paper and reminded us of his highly respected knowledge as well as his close family connections with the industry. As well as taking a robust attitude to me when I first spoke in fisheries debates, he has an honourable record of standing up strongly for the importance of safety in the fishing industry—a passion that we share. He has consistently maintained a line that is now gaining currency within the industry, which was considered less important some years ago. He has also made telling criticisms of the CFP in the past, all of which I agree with.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) emphasised the importance of maintaining relative stability, but from my own perspective, and that of Cornwall, it does not give fishermen in the western approaches—in area VII—the same fair share of fishing resource that Scottish fishermen managed to achieve. Therefore, fishermen in my area have mixed views about greater stability. Nevertheless, if that is making the best of a bad job, it is worth maintaining.
The hon. Gentleman quoted from an interesting letter from The Herald, and the Minister will no doubt deal with the issues concerned if not with the letter itself. He also made a good case for investment in the industry according to WWF models. If we are to establish seasonally closed areas to protect the collapse of target species, we should find the necessary finance over four or five years for all those circumstances in which tie-ups are required. I was encouraged by a recent statement by Commissioner Fischler supporting that line. The Minister should speak to his colleagues in Europe and encourage Commissioner Fischler to direct structural funds to support tie-ups.
Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Scottish Minister for Rural Development, took the same view on tie-ups as he does, we could achieve the same progress on tie-ups as we made on decommissioning.
Mr. George: That causes me no discomfort because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the debate is ongoing and

265WH
We must push the matter forward. We are all pushing in the same direction and the question is how that can be practically achieved in the immediate future. We are pushing towards finding medium and long-term solutions to establish a sustainable fishing industry, and short-term comments such as the hon. Gentleman's should be left for the party political scrap that is no doubt approaching. We should all take on board the responsible point that if we are to establish a sustainable fishing industry and fisheries, we must examine the matter and budget for it in the future.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) was right to suggest that the future of the fishing industry could be examined with cautious optimism. Many challenges lie ahead but, if we know what they are and are prepared to meet such management and financial challenges, there are good reasons to push the matter forward, given the opportunity afforded by a reform of the common fisheries policy.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby characteristically lambasted the CFP, as he always does. He is absolutely right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] His fundamental criticisms are correct that the CFP is a political compromise and too remote in terms of where management decisions are made. However, his conclusion that we should pull out of the CFP, as if we could pull out willy nilly, is clearly unrealistic, although I agree with his criticisms. He is correct that the UK fleet was treated unfairly during the 1990s in relation to other European fleets.
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) emphasised his passion for devolution, which I share—[Interruption.] I like passion, provided that we have passionate devolution to regions that people feel passionate about, rather than to sanitised, synthetic places that do not exist. Provided that it is on that basis, I am sure that we can passionately step forward.
I have a number of questions fox the Minister, some of which relate to points that have already been made. What progress is being made on the hake recovery programme? There was supposed to have been an announcement, and there may have been, although it has not yet reached my desk. The Commission's emergency powers are to be clarified, and it is disappointing that there is still an across-the-board cut in the hake quota for the western approaches that affects the whole fleet, although as far as Cornish fishermen are concerned, hake stocks are in a healthy state. Our fishermen are catching larger fish than their Spanish counterparts.
What progress has been made, on the scientific assessment of the use of pingers in the tuna driftnet fishery? I understand from the industry that the use of pingers is making such a method as eco-friendly as line-caught tuna. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that.
An interesting and telling article appeared on 20 April in Fishing News, which is an excellent publication, as the Minister knows. It appeared on the back page and mentioned a trawler owning family from Hull, the Boyds, who pointed out the problem of catching small fish, particularly cod, haddock and plaice. They made it clear from their long professional and family experience in the industry that there is a commercial advantage in purchasing small plate-sized fish. There appears to be an
266WH
increase in the catching of small and juvenile fish. Will the Minister tell us what he knows about numbers of small fish being caught and about the actions being taken to address that?
The common fisheries policy presents major opportunities. I welcome the regional dimension in the six and 12-mile retention zone, although certain hon. Members, who seem strangely to be absent today, tell us that not all those reforms are possible in one round. I have been promoting multi-annual quota setting for years; I welcome that and the consideration of improvements in technical measures to enhance stock management.
Fundamentally, however, the regional dimension of the CFP is the most important focus. The Green Paper considers it from a purely advisory and consultative viewpoint. I urge the Minister to give those regional committees real teeth. If we want adequate pan-European enforcement and monitoring of the CFP, it must be seen to be even across the board. I encourage the Minister to establish bilateral agreements, whereby United Kingdom fishing inspectors might spot-check Spanish fishing ports or any other ports, rather than going down the route taken by the Green Paper, which would establish a joint inspection structure. In that way we might maintain national fisheries enforcement instead of setting up a new European structure.
12.11 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), not only on securing the debate but on his customarily authoritative contribution. He said that the CFP was over-centralised, over-bureaucratic and undemocratic, and I could not agree more with that assessment. The longer I listened to him, the more I thought that he was persuaded by Conservative party policy on fishing, as I agreed with about 90 per cent. of what he said. When he talked about taking back national control, I thought that he was with us, but he then qualified what he had said by suggesting that national control should stop after 24 miles. Why stop after 24 miles?
Sir Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moss: No, I have only eight minutes, and plenty to say.
I agree with most of the comments that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde made about multi-annual total allowable catches and multi-species quotas, and with his important point about industrial fishing. It makes no sense to anyone in the industry that, when there is a huge ban on fishing in a large area of the North sea for the sake of cod recovery, in other parts of the North sea we are allowing industrial fishing that is reducing the base of the pyramid of the food chain. I know that the Minister supports curtailment of that industrial fishing, but it should come as no surprise if the stocks are under pressure.
The industry's view of that cod recovery programme and the closure of the area is that it is ill thought out. It is a panic measure introduced far too late in the proceedings, which, as the hon. Member for Banff and

267WH
Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, has forced fishermen into grounds and fisheries where they would not normally fish at this time of year. That has led to pressure on those fisheries, and the discarding of huge quantities of young year class haddock, which would not normally be caught at this time of the year.
Given the perilous state of the fish stocks, if the stock recovery programmes are to be repeated in the future, some thought must be given to how best to sustain the fishing industry when it is not allowed to catch its normal quotas. Several speakers alluded to that, in particular the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, who asked the Minister a direct question that I repeat: what aid will be forthcoming from the Government to sustain the fishing industry during the tie-up periods? This year will not be a one-off. It is obvious that there will be a repeat, so the Government must tell us what aid they will give the fishing industry during such periods. Otherwise, the fishing fleet will ultimately be much diminished.
The core and heart of the CFP is, as we all know, regulation 101/76, the equal access principle—the acquis communautaire to which every country that has joined the EU has signed up. What is the CFP? We assume that it is a current entity that will continue after December 2002, but the CFP as we know it, and the two principles of the six and 12-mile national limits, and the relative stability are, as the policy is currently formed, derogations, as the European Court confirmed. A Commission paper states:
"the Court of Justice has itself recognised that the quota system, as a system of national quotas, is a derogation from the general rule of equal conditions of access to fishery resources … and the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 40(3) of the Treaty… And there are long-standing derogations for access to inshore waters. These two factors demonstrate that at this time in the CFP's evolution"—
the paper dates back to the early 1990s—
"there are respects in which there is not complete common access to resources."
What is the real CFP? Will the Minister confirm that he recognises that those are derogations? Will he confirm that the Green Paper that has briefly been discussed this morning is not part of a review of the CFP, but simply a requirement under the regulations to report by the end of the 10 years, which is next year?
The 1991 report produced at the end of the first 10-year period of the derogations contains some interesting statements, including the following:
"The years from 1993 to 2002"—
looking ahead, as that then was—
"must be regarded not simply as a continuation of the period from 1983 to 1992 but rather as a preparation for the years to follow, when access to the Community's fishing areas will in principle be free. It is for this reason that operators in the fisheries sector must be told as soon as possible how the rules are likely to change."
That was written in 1991. What have we done in the decade since then? We have not prepared our fishing industry for the likely outcome of the meaning of the CFP momentum.
Mr. Andrew George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Moss: I shall not give way, as I do not have much time.
268WH
The report goes on to say that
"the principle"—
of relative stability—
"would be maintained after 2002 subject to possible adjustments to the allocation key adopted in 1983 and"—
the crucial point—
"the specific limitations resulting from the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal to be decided on the basis of this report and submitted before … January 2002."
Given the Commission's words, we should not be surprised that, although the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that the Green Paper was warmly welcomed, it was not warmly welcomed by Spain and Portugal, as they have a completely different agenda.
As the treaties and the Commission's 1991 report state, any relative stability that continues in future—I do not oppose a form of relative stability in principle—must involve a share-out on a sensible basis for all sea resource areas. However, that relative stability will not be based on the same apportionment and allocation that we currently see. The real message for the British fishing industry is that if it has to make way at some point for Spain, Portugal and the other countries that acceded later than the early 1980s, that will be at the cost of its quotas. The papers that the Spanish are submitting want the mechanism for that equal access to be tradeable quotas.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made the important point that over the next few years, as our unaided industry runs down, the only fishing industries that will be economically robust enough to make the necessary bids for the quotas will be in the EU countries—I mentioned Spain in passing—that have received considerable quantities of state aid. They will be able to buy into the quotas, and our industry will atrophy on the vine as the fishing fleets of other EU countries buy up our quotas. It would be criminal to sit back and allow that to happen. The Minister must tell us how he sees the future, and how he will protect the interests of the British fishing industry.
12.21 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I add my words of congratulation to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) on securing the debate. I, too, hope that that was not his valedictory speech. For the record, I should say how much I have appreciated his encouragement over the years. His family experience, which is probably unrivalled in the House, has provided much valuable advice. I was also pleased to hear that at least one member of his family has benefited from the pay-out from the loss of the Icelandic waters. Like him, I am glad that the Government have honoured a long-standing commitment and put right a wrong for the distant water fleets.
Mr. Mitchell: Hear, hear.
Mr. Morley: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has long campaigned for that.

269WH
A range of issues has been raised, and I will try to get through the points raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), for Great Grimsby and for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), and the hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. George) and for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
First, I shall deal with discards. It is not altogether fair to blame the common fisheries policy for discards. Most discards are undersized and unmarketable fish. There were discards before the CFP, and there are discards in countries where there is no CFP. That is not to say that the CFP does not have its flaws, however, and we must address the issue. As has been outlined in the debate, it is a policy well overdue for reform and revision.
The Green Paper has been broadly welcomed because it has clearly been influenced by the debate in this country, and particularly within our fishing industry. The papers produced by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations have fed into it. I welcome that. In relation to the trade-off in the annual quota negotiations, it is fair to say that there has been a lot of horse trading over the years. Ministers have been anxious to come back with increased quotas to show to their domestic industries—but that it changing. There is more realism in the Council of Ministers, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde that in the last Council I did not argue against the scientific advice on any quota. I accepted that advice.
In 1999 the Council of Ministers accepted the precautionary principle as a basis for setting quotas. I argued against some of the figures when the Commission recommendations went against the scientific advice. Indeed, it is important to listen to the comments of the industry. I have always tried to take its views into account in the discussions and negotiations. There is less horse trading now. It is more about examining the science and talking about what is sustainable. That applies to all countries.
We had a preliminary debate on the Commission's Green Paper at the previous Council Spain was the only country to speak against it; even Portugal, which is keen on coastal limits, did not do so. Every country except Spain broadly welcomed it as a basis for discussion. It is clear that there is a consensus on taking the Green Paper forward.
In my contribution at the Council of Ministers, I stressed how essential coastal limits are for supporting sustainable low-impact fishing. They are an important conservation management tool. Some EU countries have argued for an extension of the limit from 12 to 24 miles; I am confident that we will be able to maintain our coastal limits, and I have no objection in principle to extension. My attitude would depend on what it means in practice. It would be a pointless and empty gesture to argue for an extension to 24 miles while accepting the historical rights of vessels currently fishing within the 12 to 24-mile zone. It is difficult to deal with the question of people's historical rights.
I do not know what the Conservatives' argument about national control means—nor, I think, does anyone else. We have national control over our own
270WH
waters within the CFP. One can argue for national control, but does that mean confiscating quota or keeping out other vessels with historic rights? We would need another treaty to effect such changes, and a Conservative Administration could not have that without withdrawing from the European Union. If that is the Conservatives' policy, they should say so, and people could judge them accordingly.
The issue of national management is related to coastal management, which we can secure. I also strongly support the case for multi-annual quotas and welcome the fact that the Commission is making proposals about them. The principle of relative stability is also extremely important. It would not be in any country's interests to open up the principle of relative stability—a principle that is not under threat. My legal advice is that it will continue unchanged unless there is a qualified majority against it within the Council of Ministers. I do not believe that there is such a qualified majority.
Norway's policy of landing discards is an interesting one, which I have discussed with the Norwegian Minister—and the Icelandic Minister, when Iceland had the same policy. The problem, which those countries admit, is the difficulty of enforcement. Norway, Iceland and the Faroe islands have fewer discards because they use bigger mesh sizes. They do not have the mixed fishery that we have in the North sea; theirs is more of a single species fishery. Nevertheless, we need to learn lessons in that regard.
I agree with hon. Members' comments about industrial fishing. My own views have been well documented over the years. As a Minister, I take pride in the fact that we have introduced closed areas for industrial fishing, as part of a proper scientific analysis. We have also reached agreement with the Danes, to whose co-operation I pay tribute, on the science of industrial fishery, the impact on fish stocks and the ecological chain, and the levels of by-catch of whitefish. We need sound scientific information if we are to argue for change. I have consistently made it clear that fisheries for human consumption must take priority in the CFP and the Council of Ministers.
There are arguments about how the industry should be financially supported. I have always accepted our industry's case for support for structural change, and have kept my promise to argue for that: indeed, I have delivered a package of measures. There will always be argument about whether the money goes far enough, but that package consists of £11 million for the financial instrument for fisheries guidance package,£6 million for a one-year decommissioning package and£5.5 million for support for ports. There are additional funds for the regional development agencies in England, and money is even available through the rural development programme. Considerable funds can therefore be directed towards the industry.
Time does not permit me to go on. Suffice it to say that there are changes to the industry. We need effective recovery plans and the support of the industry to achieve them. The industry has a good future and untapped potential, which warrant the support that the Government are giving for structural changes. I do not believe that demonstrating is the right way to achieve that.

NHS Appointments (Political Bias)
12.30 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter of political bias in national health service appointments. As the Under-Secretary of State for Health will recall, it is about nine months since we lasted debated the subject in Westminster Hall. It is now more than a year since the Commissioner for Public Appointments published her report on 22 March 2000, in which she made some damning indictments against the Government's record on political appointments in the NHS. I shall quote briefly from her report:
"I conclude from the evidence…that there are examples where a candidate's political association has been a decisive factor in their early selection and appointment, and that decisions have not always been based on merit … the process itself has been politicised".
On 22 March 2000, the Department of Health responded to the report and, in a press statement, promised a fundamental overhaul of the NHS appointment system. That overhaul did not happen, and primary care trust boards were stuffed with Labour party activists in the same way that health authorities and NHS trust boards had been before. Instead of real action to tackle the problem, we had spin and media management.
Ministers repeatedly deny that there is a problem. They even deny that Dame Rennie Fritchie, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, criticised their actions and record. They point frequently to increased numbers of women and ethnic minority candidates who have been appointed. Such outcomes are welcome, but only if they come alongside appointment on merit—appointment of the best possible person for the job—and not instead of it. As Dame Rennie said in her report last year, positive discrimination would be a step too far.
I have been pursuing the matter for some time and, on 31 March 1999, I raised my concerns at Prime Minister's Questions. The Prime Minister's response was very interesting. He baldly stated:
"An independent system now appoints people."—[Official Report, 31 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 1087.]
That was two years before the independent commissioner for NHS appointments was appointed. A written answer that was given to me by the Under-Secretary about a week ago points out that the independent mechanism has not yet come into action; therefore, in light of the evidence, the Prime Minister stated something two years ago that was hard to support. That, in turn, was a year before Dame Rennie's report, which was so damning.
On 22 March 2000, I again raised the matter with the Prime Minister. In typical fashion, he tried to avoid a straight answer and tried to manipulate facts to his advantage. He quoted part of a sentence from the commissioner's report:
"The issue of politicisation of appointments is not new—the practice of inviting MPs to comment on the shortlists of candidates was first introduced by the Conservative Government".—[Official Report, 22 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 994.]
272WH
He failed, of course, to conclude the sentence with the phrase
"but has gained a new momentum since the last General Election."
He went to the heart of the commissioner's report and pulled one sentence to pieces to try to excuse or justify conduct that had been criticised by an independent officer who was appointed to maintain high standards in public life.
Some people have raised the question whether an appropriate political balance has been maintained. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office about that or 21 March 2001, and he replied to the effect that the number of councillors appointed to NHS boards reflected the proportion of councillors on the ground. Again, that is not supported by the evidence—by neither my experiences nor by rigorous scrutiny of evidence taken by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments. Ministers might wish to ignore the facts and make other claims, but they should not be allowed to get away with it.
I raised my concerns with the Leader of the House on 30 March 2000. She stated that
"appointments are undertaken by a panel with an independent assessor".
Referring to me, she said:
"The hon. Gentleman…continues to raise a matter that is erroneous".—[Official Report, 30 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 508.]
That is as though the commissioner's report, which had come out just a week before, had never been published. It also found that people were appointed for reasons other than merit. The commissioner raised doubts about the effectiveness of the independent assessors and said:
"Not all independent assessors are independent.
From 22 March to 5 July 2000, the Department of Health took no action apart from issuing a press release. On 11 April, the Minister confirmed in a written answer:
"We have no plans to meet the commissioner"
to discuss the findings of her report. Indeed, no Minister had taken the trouble to meet Dame Rennie before the Department issued its press statement on 22 March. The Minister also promised that
"a detailed response will be made in due course".—[Official Report, 11 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 132W.]
However, there was nothing until 5 July. As we rehearsed in July's debate in Westminster Hall, that response came a day after I had succeeded in securing a 90-minute debate on the subject.
On 2 May, I asked how many hon. Members had been consulted on appointments, contrary to the recommendations of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Minister answered that the selection process had been largely complete when the Fritchie report was published. The implication was clear—that action had been taken but that it had been impossible for that action to impact on appointments already made. When I asked, nearly a year later on 26 April 2001, what representations had been made by hon. Members in connection with appointments to NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts, Ministers avoided the question. The reply stated only that
"the process of consulting hon. Members was discontinued in September 2001".—[Official Report, 26 April 2001; Vol. 367, c. 333W.]

273WH
I presume that that was a typographical error and that it should have stated September 2000. Even if that consultation of hon. Members was discontinued in September 2000, it would have been six months after the commissioner had criticised the Government on those grounds, six months during which the systematic politicisation of the NHS continued, and six months after the Government promised a radical overhaul of the appointments process.
In a written answer to me on 26 April, the Secretary of State confirmed that he had not met Dame Rennie during the past year. There is a damning report of the Government's record of politicisation in NHS appointments—a critique which suggests that the best person for the job is not appointed—and the Secretary of State has not even bothered to meet the Commissioner for Public Appointments since her report was published a year ago. The only ministerial meeting with the commissioner was on 29 November 2000, when the Under-Secretary of State paid her the courtesy of a visit.
On 26 April, I asked what undertakings had been given to the commissioner in respect of her report's recommendations. It was clear from the response that there was only one: that an NHS appointments commission was to be established, under the chairmanship of Sir William Wells. The body was established on 1 April and I was told in the written answer that it would begin making appointments shortly. That is a year after the Fritchie report was published, a year in which no action whatever was taken and two years after the Prime Minister told me on the Floor of the House that an independent appointments process had already been established.
What is the current position? To find evidence of what the Department of Health is doing, rather than what it says it is doing, I examined the evidence of appointments to primary care trusts. It is significant that the trusts were established on 1 April 2000. They have entirely come into being since Dame Rennie's report on appointments to NHS trusts and health authorities. The Government have had the benefit of the guidance, recommendations and evidence of Dame Rennie since the existence of primary care trusts Yet the evidence is that of all those appointed to primary care trust boards, 20 per cent.—one in five—declare a record of political activity for the Labour party, 6 per cent. for the Conservatives and 5 per cent. for the Liberal Democrats. That is almost exactly the same proportion as in NHS trusts and health authorities. No wonder that a report in The Times on 14 April stated:
"Dame Rennie Fritchie is said to be furious that Alan Milburn, the Health Secretary, has ignored her advice".
She receives as many complaints as she received 18 months ago.
I have pursued the matter for some time, as the Minister knows. I have tried to raise its profile and to ensure that action is taken. I took stock after a year or so and asked myself what was its significance, why it mattered, and whether I should continue my investigations. I concluded that it was a matter of the greatest significance and that I am right to pursue it assiduously; I shall continue to do so. It matters, first, because all parties accepted the basic principle of fairness embodied in the Nolan report and in the steps
274WH
taken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life to try to raise the standard of behaviour. All parties pay lip service to those principles, but if they are ignored they are worthless and might as well be swept away.
Secondly, it matters because of the important question of competence. If people have been appointed other than on merit, the best people for the job have not taken the job and these vital posts in our NHS will end up in the hands of people who are not up to the job. That is a serious issue, especially now that primary care trusts are to be given an expanded role and more control over larger budgets. A certain person might have been considered competent when trusts had smaller budgets and a less important role, but the standard will need to be higher in view of the expanded role envisaged for primary care trusts.
Thirdly, it is indicative of a culture of dishonesty among the Government, who have refused to accept Dame Rennie's criticisms. Mr. Anthony Harrison of the King's Fund investigated the Government's record on the NHS prior to a likely general election. In a passage reported in the weekend press, he said:
"There is a reign of terror in the Department of Health. Nobody is talking to us about these activity figures."
A respected independent institution cannot acquire the information on which it depends because of a reign of terror.
Two million people—twice the number when the present Government came into office—are now waiting to see a consultant, and the average waiting time for inpatient treatment is also higher than in 1997. The president of the Royal College of Surgeons described the Government's health policy as unethical and said that patients were suffering as a result. This week has seen GPs adopt an unprecedented work to rule.
It is now more important than ever to have the most able people— not political placements—running the NHS, and to have people who are prepared to speak out when there is evidence of wrong-doing or incompetence. By ignoring the findings of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the Government have shown contempt not just for Dame Rennie and her office, but for the House of Commons and the Nolan principles. It is a perfect demonstration of the arrogance of power and its ability to corrupt, so well exemplified by the Government.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on securing the debate on NHS appointments. One could be forgiven for thinking that it was a debate about the relationship of the Department of Health and the Commissioner for Public Appointments rather than the actual title of the debate— NHS appointments and political bias.
I realise that the subject is close to the hon. Gentleman's heart, but I am taken aback if he believes that repeating the same fact over and over again amounts to evidence. Neither is the quotation of isolated comments from favourable newspaper sources my idea of proper evidence. The hon. Gentleman might benefit from taking note of an old IBM maxim: one should not mistake activity for achievement. The hon.

275WH
Gentleman may be right that we have not moved quickly enough, but I shall challenge and refute his allegation that we have not taken any action.
I am happy to affirm that people are appointed to NHS boards on merit and not as a result of political bias. If an NHS non-executive director has a declared political commitment to Labour, the hon. Gentleman seems to equate it with not being up to the job. Just because a Labour sympathiser is appointed, it does not mean that standards are dropping. The hon. Gentleman appears to believe that standards are falling simply because Conservative appointments are not made.
I shall outline what the Government have done. There is no evidence that party affiliation is connected with competence. I want to put it on record that we have the highest regard for our appointments.
Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Stuart: I shall give way once, but only once.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful. The allegations that the Minister refuses to accept are not mine, but are contained in the commissioner's report. Does she accept that the commissioner found evidence of appointments being made other than on merit?
Ms Stuart: I take the line that we decouple non-political bias. Where is the evidence to support language such as "stuffing with appointees" and saying that they are not up to the job? Those are two different issues, and I should like to make it clear that we have the highest regard for those being appointed.
In a debate last year, I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman the comments of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Even the commissioner's independent auditors, Ernst and Young, supported many of our arguments that the process is proper. The commissioner's report on NHS appointments stated:
"The data available suggest that the proportion of candidates declaring political activity at the application stage of the process are similar to the proportions declaring political activity at the appointment stage."
Almost two-thirds of applicants for primary care trusts declared no political activity. In other words, there was no suggestion that those with a Labour party background were any more likely to be appointed than anyone else. The fact is that if only a small number of Conservative activists come forward, only a proportionally small number are likely to be appointed.
I also pointed out in my response last year that since January 1999 the evidence showed that applicants who had declared political activity on behalf of the Labour party had a 39 per cent. chance of being appointed, whereas Conservative applicants had a 56 per cent. chance. The hon. Gentleman chose to ignore such evidence at the time, and he has done so again today. I have no doubt whatsoever that when Dame Rennie Fritchie concludes her current examination of appointments to primary care trusts, the same picture of a fair process will emerge.
On taking office, we wanted to ensure that NHS boards were firmly rooted in the communities that they serve. We therefore placed a premium on candidates'
276WH
records of community service. We wanted people from all walks of life, not only business, so we advertised widely in national newspapers, specialist journals and the minority press to attract people who might otherwise not have come forward. In addition, all appointments to primary care trusts have been advertised locally to ensure a wide field of candidates. Also to widen the pool of candidates, we asked hon. Members and local authorities to make nominations from their local knowledge.
Our changes have been hugely successful in making NHS boards more representative of their communities. The proportion of women on the boards has increased from 39 per cent. before the election to 49 per cent. today. I am proud of that record; I make no apology for it. I resent the hon. Gentleman treating the matter as if it was used as a fig-leaf. It is a good record. We have an even better record on the proportion of black and ethnic minority candidates appointed, which has increased from 5 per cent. to 12 per cent. The proportion of people with disabilities has also more than doubled.
Equally successful has been the increase since 1997 of those appointed with a community background. The number of people from the voluntary sector or who are primarily users or carers has increased to 19 per cent. We have moved away from the domination of NHS boards by white middle-class business men that prevailed under the Conservatives. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman considers that they are the only people who are up to the job; I do not. Of course, our boards still need business skills, and people from that background are still represented, but overall the balance has changed to help boards focus on real local issues.
In planning the way forward, we have responded positively to the recommendations in Dame Rennie Fritchie's useful report. To suggest that the Government have failed to respond to her recommendations or to take them seriously is simply wrong. Dame Rennie herself has not suggested that that is the case. I know that the hon. Gentleman entered the House of Commons only in 1997, just like me, but one thing that we should have learned is that simply because one newspaper report cites sources close to someone does not, never has and never will amount to evidence. Let us just consider the facts.
We have, in fact, gone much further than the commissioner's own recommendations in order to meet her concern about the perception of politicisation. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's definition of what is independent. He sneeringly refers to independent assessors who are not independent. The process was independent.
Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I should like to make it clear that I was quoting directly from the commissioner's report.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): That is a matter of record, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Ms Stuart: It has been the practice under successive Governments to involve Members directly in the appointment of trust and health authority chairs. Members' views have been sought at the short-list stage. It was not this Administration who introduced the

277WH
process. We put at an end to it. Dame Rennie was critical that this part of the process did not meet her requirement for transparency at all stages. Critics were able to suggest that it introduced an element of political patronage into the process. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health therefore wrote to all Members advising them that their views would no longer be sought from last autumn's trust appointment round onwards.
We also adopted measures last year to streamline re-appointments. If candidates serving their first term had performed well and had received a satisfactory appraisal report, they were recommended to Ministers as the sole candidate where they wished to be re-appointed. Again those were suggestions that were put forward that we adopted. We accepted Dame Rennie's recommendation that we should continue to give members the opportunity to draw from their local knowledge and nominate candidates. That was always on the understanding that their nominees would be interviewed and treated in exactly the same way as all other candidates.
However, we did not accept the commissioner's recommendation on the issue of councillors on NHS boards. Dame Rennie suggested that we review whether
"the presence of so many councillors on NHS boards is healthy".
It should not be a surprise, particularly to hon. Members, that many of those applying for a position on an NHS board also show their public spirit through involvement in local politics. We do not see that as a disadvantage. On the contrary, it can be a positive advantage.
We have been quite open about our wish to see the NHS acting with its local partners so that all the issues that make for a healthy community can be considered together. When one sees how the NHS is working more closely with social services, it is obvious that that is the right way forward. Similarly, it should be noted that the Select Committee on Public Administration, including Conservative Members, also rejected that recommendation from the commissioner.
Most significant of all the Government's measures, however, has been our decision to establish an independent NHS appointments commission for all appointments to NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts. That was not in fact recommended
278WH
in Dame Rennie's report, although the Select Committee itself suggested it. We have gone further. We wanted to remove the process entirely from the political domain, going well beyond what is required by Nolan principles and the commissioner's guidance.
The commission came into being on 1 April, and all non-executive and chair appointments will be its responsibility from now on. However, it will continue to be subject to Dame Rennie's guidance, and subject to independent scrutiny and regular audit. The new chair of the appointments commission, Sir William Wells, has already met Dame Rennie and will be working with her closely over the coming months as the commission begins its work. Sir William was appointed as a regional chair under the previous Administration, and they awarded him his knighthood for services to the NHS. He has never been politically active, but has served the NHS in a variety of different positions for more than 30 years. It is for that reason that we made an appointment on merit irrespective of political background. That is now on the record.
There is more harmony between Dame Rennie's office and the Department of Health than the hon. Gentleman would like to believe. We have been able to discuss our proposals for the NHS appointments commission with it during the course of its formation. I know that the first official act of Sir William's term of office as chair has been to meet Dame Rennie. I understand that that meeting was constructive and fruitful. Neither are we ignoring the needs of those whom we appoint. I have recently discussed with the NHS Confederation how we might review the roles of chairs and non-executives. That was another recommendation in the report. Its role has moved on from the quasi-business model introduced to support the ill-conceived internal market. We need to ensure that everyone is clear about the contribution that he or she is expected to make to our new NHS and its development through the NHS plan.
I have agreed with the NHS Confederation that we will build on the extensive consultation that it has recently carried out with its members in setting out its new role. In conclusion, we value our non-executive directors. We draw them from the wider community. We would like to put on record our gratitude for the role that they play. Appointments are made on merit, not as a result of political bias.
I hope that the new system will move beyond even the suspicion of bias.

Asylum Seekers (North-East Lincolnshire)
12.59 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall raise the specific issue of the transfer of use of Springfield Hall in Grimsby to accommodate about 209 asylum seekers and the general issue of the dispersal of an unknown but probably substantial number of asylum seekers to north-east Lincolnshire. That is being done without the consultation of North East Lincolnshire council. Indeed, it found out what was proposed only by accident. South Humber health authority and the education committee were not consulted either. They have all been treated with contempt as a result of what looks to be an administrative cock-up or mess. There has certainly been confusion, and I would like the Minister to say who is responsible for the mess and exactly what is going on.
The shaft of light that has fallen on dispersal procedures as a result of the situation shows neither an attractive picture nor a process that will win good will and consent. I emphasise that this is not a matter of racial hostility or hostility towards asylum seekers in general. Indeed, North East Lincolnshire council has shown the way by welcoming asylum seekers. Early in the process, the local authority made a voluntary offer to accommodate asylum seekers. I think that 50 or 60 have been going through—or 40 at any one time—and they are accommodated in the Towers.
The situation has worked well, as it should have done. Grimsby is a good place in which to be or to live. I hope that the asylum seekers have enjoyed being there and liked it, because they have certainly caused no problems. The reaction to them in Grimsby has been supportive and welcoming, which is in total contrast to the experience in Tetney, which is across the border of civilisation down in Lincolnshire. There have been problems with accommodation provided there, including fighting, racial hostility, the eventual disappearance of some asylum seekers and the closure of accommodation.
That has not been our experience in north-east Lincolnshire, but we share the circulation of a newspaper, so problems in Lincolnshire become headlines in north-east Lincolnshire even though the problems and the fault for them are not ours. I want to make it clear that north-east Lincolnshire is not hostile towards asylum seekers—I am not and nor is the council. The problem is the consequences that flow from the initial and maintained generosity of offering accommodation for asylum seekers. As a result, Grimsby, not Cleethorpes, was designated a cluster without being consulted or asked.
Answers to my parliamentary questions, however, show that we should have been asked. One answer says:
"All accommodation is acquired within defined Cluster Areas the extent and location of which is agreed between the local authorities concerned and National Asylum Support Service".
There was no agreement on the extent and location of the cluster, so that answer is wrong.
The answer to another parliamentary question—I have tabled a substantial number—says:
"The identification of suitable cluster areas for the dispersal of asylum seekers and their dependants is based on research conducted centrally by NASS. Information is obtained from local authorities and other organisations".
280WH
No information has been obtained, so I am not sure about the quality of that research. The answer goes on:
"NASS consulted the regional consortium to enable the relevant local authority to have an input into the decision making process."—[Official Report, 30 April 2001; Vol.367, c. 541–42W.]
However, we had no input; North East Lincolnshire council was not consulted in the decision-making process.
More important North East Lincolnshire council was not told the consequences of any designation as a cluster area. The problem with being a cluster area is that it opens the door to larger numbers. Even if it had been told, the consequences that now apply did not apply in 1999 when the area took the first asylum seekers. Since 1999, private accommodation providers have been brought into the game, financed by NASS—that is, by the Home Office. Clearly, the incentive for private accommodation providers, who have access to the clusters for dispersal, is to buy where property is cheaper and where they can make the biggest profit. That has nothing to do with the suitability of an area; it has to do with local house costs.
One of the joys of living in Grimsby is that our house prices are comparatively low. I will bore you some time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the sad tale of the depreciation on my house in Grimsby, which was a heart-breaking experience. Property prices are an incentive for accommodation to be sought by private accommodation providers. Indeed, that will be a mandate.
On 30 April 2001, the Minister told me what neither I nor the local authority knew, that there are now four private contractors and one registered social landlord seeking to purchase property in north-east Lincolnshire. "Seeking to purchase" indicates that the process has gone some way. That does not give the number who have not yet found property, but shows the number who are looking for it. That is disastrous, because north-east Lincolnshire does not fulfil the criteria set down for an area to be designated as a cluster. Those criteria were set down by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), in answers to parliamentary questions and in a letter to me of 24 April 2001. She says:
"This will ideally include: where available accommodation is located; where a multi-cultural or multi-ethnic population is evident, and where there is scope to develop a voluntary and community support infrastructure. The nomination of Grimsby as a cluster area has been discussed and agreed between the Regional Consortium and NASS."
There is no mention of north-east Lincolnshire playing any role in that. The letter goes on:
"Accommodation Providers who wish to offer a property to NASS which includes more than 6 bedspaces must do so having obtained any relevant planning permission."
However, planning permission has been applied for, but not yet obtained. The letter continues:
"Thereafter, NASS will also consult with Local Authorities via the Regional Consortium".
NASS is clearly involved in the purchase, because it is coming to see the council tomorrow to discuss it. Therefore, NASS is playing a part at an earlier stage than the Minister said.
Grimsby does not fulfil the criteria. It does not have a substantial ethnic population that can provide asylum seekers with supportive networks and contacts. It seems

281WH
at times that I am the only immigrant in Grimsby, because a total distaste for Yorkshiremen is advertised from time to time in graffiti—not, I hope, directed at me. There is only a small ethnic population, mainly of professionals. Indeed, the health service in Grimsby would not keep going without the ethnic community. However, many of the applications for education finance have been turned down because Grimsby does not have a sufficiently large ethnic population to qualify for special educational measures. Therefore, it seems ludicrous that Grimsby is supposed to have a large enough ethnic population to accommodate networks and support for asylum seekers, but is considered too small to qualify for anything else. That is nonsense.
I want to know what research has been done on Grimsby and who carried it out. Is it just opportunism that the Home Office is now working on its well-known principle of never giving a sucker an even break? Grimsby volunteered to take asylum seekers in 1999 and now it is facing the problem of accommodation providers coming in because property prices are cheap.
The Minister stated that another criterion was the provision of services and back-up, but health services and education provision are already under strain in north-east Lincolnshire, because of inadequate finance in the past. Neither South Humber health authority nor the education authority has been consulted. Responsibility for the decision to designate Grimsby as a cluster was attributed to the Yorkshire asylum consortium, which issued its own press release three days ago stating that Grimsby is not suitable to take large numbers of asylum seekers That is a clear statement that the consortium is not happy with the designation, so why was it given?
I want Grimsby's designation as a cluster area to be withdrawn, because it was imposed without consultation and without the consequences being explained. Local good will is needed if the necessary services and support are to be provided, but if a decision to designate an area as a cluster is imposed, that will not be forthcoming. If there is to be harmony and acceptance, there must be consultation and co-operation. Dispersal of sizeable numbers will not work if local opinion is not taken into account; if the local authority and local services are not consulted, they will not willingly co-operate or give their support.
An application has been made for the change of use of part of Springfield Hall, an old hospital which was in existence when I was elected Member of Parliament for the constituency, and which has been used as accommodation for students and nurses. There is an old people's home and a crèche nursery nearby in the hospital grounds, and old people's private accommodation in the surrounding area. It is a quiet area about a mile and a half from the centre of Grimsby and two miles from the more swinging centre of Cleethorpes—south Yorkshire's holiday paradise. There is not much to do in Springfield for 209 asylum seekers. The first that the local authority knew about the matter was the planning application, which caused alarm and concern, especially as one big application indicates that an unknown number of others are in process.
The locals are most upset and I have had a large amount of mail on the subject from my constituents. I was called to a protest meeting on Tuesday which was
282WH
packed with very angry people. One gentleman at the back kept bawling, "We won't re-elect you." I had to point out that I could not do much for people if they did not re-elect me. However, that is the atmosphere that has been produced.
The only control available is planning. The local authority has to give its planning consent for the change of use; a planning application is pretty well automatic, but it does not consider local reaction or the needs of social services. It might be difficult to take such an application before November, but as substantial money is involved, if it is rejected the purchaser will appeal to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the cost of that appeal will fall on Grimsby. That is no way to decide a major issue which has considerable social repercussions.
The arguments about suitability will be considered only after the planning application. The Minister of State said in answer to earlier questions that local authorities may in some cases advise that particular areas, identified by postcode, may not be suitable for asylum seekers and that that information will be taken into consideration in determining whether to accept accommodation for asylum seekers. However, that consideration will come only after the planning application—which cannot take account of such matters. Suitability should be considered first, not second.
In conclusion—words that my hon. Friend the Minister has been eagerly awaiting —I say that the situation is a totally unacceptable mess into which the local authority should not have been put. It is a cock-up. Who is responsible for it? The Home Office owes us the consideration of reconsidering—indeed, of
withdrawing—the cluster status that has been imposed on us without our consent. It is no use approaching such a major and emotive issue as dispersal—right and proper though dispersal is—with a mixture of cock-up and opportunistic grabbing at the cheapest property around. Local good will, support and co-operation from the local authority are needed, as is careful management. That is why the acceptance of 40 or so asylum seekers into my area in 1979, which has been maintained since by careful management and preparation, has been successful.
For a policy to work, we also need to assure local people that we are working on a level playing field. There has been no dispersal to the neighbouring authorities of North Lincolnshire or the East Riding of Lincolnshire, for example. The only safe action seems to be to withdraw the cluster. NASS is seeking new cluster areas. It will not find them if it operates in such a fashion; it will not gather good will from the areas that it is approaching. We want the unsuitable planning application, which is conditional on the cluster status, to be withdrawn and to start over. The local authority has been treated with contempt, which is disgraceful. The people of Springfield have been upset and made resentful. As their Member of Parliament, I cannot justify or even explain what has happened. It is not a policy; it is a farce. I appeal to the Minister to withdraw the cluster status. We are happy to talk about the issue and to do our best to accommodate asylum seekers—voluntarily, and with good will, not in the way that it has been done.
1.17 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): First, I apologise for being present instead of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), the Minister of State who deals with asylum matters. She is engaged in parliamentary business in the European Standing Committee discussing common asylum procedures, a matter close to her heart. She has asked me to stand in for her today, which I am happy to do. She had a substantial meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on Thursday last week to discuss several of the issues that he has raised. I shall report on the progress made on them.
It is important to place on record our appreciation of my hon. Friend's point that his approach is not informed by racial or other hostility to asylum seekers or by a NIMBY—"not in my backyard"—syndrome. We also entirely accept his fundamental point that it is important for our dispersal policy to be warmly received by the local community. Before dealing with the issues that my hon. Friend addressed, it is appropriate to make a couple of remarks about the overall policy on asylum seekers.
When the Labour party came to office, the responsibility for providing housing for destitute asylum seekers fell on the shoulders of local authorities, in particular those in London and Kent where our main ports of entry are situated. That situation was not helped by the fact that most asylum seekers preferred, for a variety of reasons, to stay in London or other parts of the south-east, which has meant that those areas have had to bear a disproportionate responsibility for our obligations in regard to asylum seekers, with economic implications in certain circumstances of the type that my hon. Friend described.
We decided at an early stage that that situation was not sustainable. We attempted to devise a scheme that would lead to the transfer of responsibility for the support of destitute asylum seekers from local to central Government, and we set up the National Asylum Support Service to administer a support scheme. A feature of the scheme is the provision of housing that is located away from the south-east of England for those asylum seekers who need it.
In order to achieve that, it was necessary to ensure that the National Asylum Support Service had access to a range of accommodation across the country that was ready for use by asylum seekers who turned to the service for support. To that end, in the latter part of 1999, the National Asylum Support Service set in hand the procurement of accommodation from both the private and the public sectors through a tendering process. The aim was to negotiate contracts to provide for the delivery of accommodation in areas to be known as cluster areas—hence, the word "cluster", which my hon. Friend used.
Before going into detail about the situation in north-east Lincolnshire and Great Grimsby, I want to emphasise that I believe that our policy to disperse
284WH
responsibility among different areas is the right policy. I did not hear my hon. Friend say that he does not agree with that policy, but he might correct me.
Mr. Mitchell: I accept that.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend commented on the way in which the policy had been put into effect in his local authority and the constituency that he serves. I appreciate his comments, and we will examine the issue.
The approach that we took was to establish the cluster areas where there is suitable and available accommodation, where it is possible for asylum seekers to link with existing communities and where the support of voluntary and community groups can be developed. However, we accepted that at first it might not always be possible to achieve our aims completely, because all the criteria might not be in place before asylum seekers were dispersed. It is also the case that some support structures are unlikely to develop until asylum seekers are actually located in an area.
I now turn to the key point that my hon. Friend raised: the identification of cluster areas and the process by which that happened. The identification of areas relied on research carried out centrally by the National Asylum Support Service and on local and regional information fed through to us by regional consortiums, local authorities, voluntary sector groups and other organisations. The National Asylum Support Service has been circulating, and continues to circulate, information about the areas that we are using and are likely to use and the languages that we need to accommodate.
We understood that the Yorkshire and Humberside regional consortium had nominated Grimsby—there might be an issue for discussion here, to which I shall return in a second—and that Grimsby had been an active member of the Yorkshire and Humberside consortium until at least last June. However, it appears that there was a lack of understanding about what was involved in the process, and we are now addressing that.
The Minister of State, Home Office—my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green—wrote to all Members of Parliament on 25 May 2000, informing them of the cluster areas throughout the country. Grimsby was specifically mentioned at that time. None of that excuses the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby raised, because a parliamentary letter or a particular process is not enough; it is necessary to have a proper dialogue about what one is trying to do. My hon. Friend said that, in his opinion, such a dialogue did not take place at the appropriate time.
In establishing the regional consortiums, including the Yorkshire and Humberside regional consortium, we tried to provide information. We also consulted on offers of accommodation where the premises would have more than six bed spaces. That is the basic structure that we established.
Turning to the provision of accommodation, we understood from the Yorkshire and Humberside consortium that Grimsby had been identified as a suitable cluster area for accommodation of that type. As I said earlier, we made it clear that we would seek accommodation from both private and public sector

285WH
sources. Indeed, when the scheme started in April last year, we had some difficulty with public sector sources. In fact, we had a contract with only Glasgow city council, but I am glad to say that we now have seven contracts with local authority consortiums: Yorkshire and Humberside, Glasgow, north-east England, north-west region, Cardiff city council, west midlands and east midlands. We are now beginning to achieve the balanced approach that had been our policy ambition at the start. Whether it is a question of private or public provision, we tightly monitor standards of accommodation, because that is a particular issue.
Following my hon. Friend's meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, a close conversation is now taking place between the officials of the National Asylum Support Service, the Yorkshire and Humberside consortium and North East Lincolnshire council to try to establish the precise situation. However, it is clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said both to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and in this debate that there are serious concerns about the effectiveness of that dialogue and the process by which Grimsby was proposed to be considered by the consortium.
I am not this morning able to give my hon. Friend the clear answers that he has sought, but I can say—I briefed myself on the matter immediately before the debate, so as to have the most up-to date information—that conversations are actively taking place to try to clarify the situation. I hope that we can be clearer than thus far. I understand that NASS has dispersed only a limited number of people to Grimsby—no more than 10 as at the end of March; and, provisional figures suggest, not more than another 10 by mid-April. It may be of interest to the Chamber that the languages that are especially relevant in Grimsby—because language has been the basis of the cluster—are Albanian, Cantonese, Mandarin, Polish and English. That may be of use to my hon. Friend when considering how best to proceed with the matter.
My hon. Friend mentioned local speculation about Springfield Hall. Given that we were focusing on Grimsby as a cluster area, the policy has been to look for further accommodation and to invite bids from both private and public consortiums to provide it. Springfield Hall has been offered to NASS by one of our private accommodation providers, and NASS has consulted the regional consortium, but, as my hon. Friend accurately said, that cannot proceed unless planning permission is
286WH
agreed in the normal way. The planning process will be honoured in every particular, as my hon. Friend would want.
My hon. Friend raised an interesting point about the chronological relationship between the offer to NASS of a particular form of accommodation and the planning process. I accept that we need to address that chronological issue, and I assure him that we will do so in policy terms. However, it is the old chicken-and-egg story: if there is to be accommodation, public or private, in a particular locality, that requires planning permission and to be accepted by NASS within the contractual arrangements. It may be that the chronological process is not perfectly established, but I know from my other responsibilities in the Home Office that it is difficult to get such issues exactly right. For example, when locating secure accommodation, the Home Office may view a location as desirable, but it is then for the local planning authority to take its decisions in the proper way. It is not always possible correctly to establish such matters.
Before concluding, I should say that there is also a range of systems of Government support, both in education—I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards in her seat today, because she has pioneered the establishment of a proper system of support for education for asylum seekers throughout the country—and in health. Of course, all such resources would be available to Grimsby.
To return to my hon. Friend's fundamental point, he asked for explanations, assurances and removals, and we have heard clearly what he has said. My hon. Friend the Minister of State heard it at the private meeting held last week; I have heard it and will ensure that his case is passed on in the clear way that he has put it today. We are now explicitly holding conversations to try to disinter the basis of the misunderstanding that he described, and I can tell him directly that we accept his fundamental point that there must be a proper relationship between the local authority and NASS to produce a system that works. That is what we want, and I hope that we can achieve that. That conversation is now taking place.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising such issues and, in particular, for making it clear that it was not a NIMBY anti-asylum seeker, anti-racial point and that Grimsby is ready to play its part in the process. I want to put right the failures that he has described and we are working actively to that end.

London Borough of Sutton (School Places)
1.29 pm
Mr. Tom Brake: I am pleased to have secured the debate. The London borough of Sutton is right to be proud of its schools. Class sizes are lower than the national average; £130 more than the national average is spent on each pupil and there is a wide range of schools to choose from. One local school is ranked 13th out of 3,873 in England's GCSE league tables, while another is ranked 21st. However, Sutton has become a victim of its own success.
Sutton's schools are extremely popular because of their high quality and diversity. Decisions such as the Greenwich judgment and the Rotherham case mean that Sutton's schools now attract many pupils from outside the borough. I shall be brief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) wishes to contribute to the debate, but I want to explain why popularity causes such a problem to my constituents who, understandably, wonder why they pay their council tax for a high quality of education, but then cannot get places for their children at the school for which their taxes pay.
In April, I wrote to the London borough of Sutton asking whether it was providing enough secondary school places for year 6 pupils in September 2001. It said that statistically it was, and that there were currently 2,003 pupils in year 6 in Sutton and that 2,483 places were available this September for year 7—a theoretical surplus of 480 or 20 per cent. However, the reality is no. Last year, 747 out-of-borough pupils were in year 7. Of those pupils, 428 attended selective schools that had only 662 places, making up 65 per cent. of the pupils attending selective schools in the borough, so only 35 per cent. of pupils were from inside the borough.
A total of 318 out-of-borough pupils attended community or voluntary aided comprehensives, which is 18 per cent. of the non-selective places. Therefore, out-of-borough pupils account for 30 per cent. of all places so we can expect there to be 267 in-borough pupils without places in local schools this September, a deficit of 10 per cent. of the places needed. That is before taking into account the desire of local parents to send their children to a particular type of school. One aspect about which the area can boast is a wide variety of different schools. There are 14 local education authority schools, of which five are selective, nine are comprehensive, two are Catholic, five are mixed, five are boys only and four are girls only.
While such a choice should be good for local parents, when there is a shortage of places it becomes a further restriction. If a child does not pass the selective entrance exams, is not Catholic, is female and her parents wish her to attend a single sex school, only one school in the borough matches such criteria. When there are not enough places for local children, the likelihood that the child will get into the school that the parents wish for that child reduces sharply even if they manage to get him into one of the borough schools at all.
The reason for the court decisions was to stop children being unable to attend the school across the road because they happen to live just outside the
288WH
borough that runs the school. I agree that that is sensible. If the standard of schools were similar between adjacent boroughs, the court decisions would not cause any particular problems as pupils from within Sutton would attend nearby schools in adjacent boroughs at a similar rate as pupils who come into Sutton from outside. However, when a borough's schools are especially popular and successful, that is not the case. Surplus places are available in adjacent boroughs, such as 9 per cent. in Croydon and Kingston and 15 per cent. in Merton, but places at those schools are not so popular, so the flow of pupils to outside the borough is far lower than the flow into Sutton.
While Sutton does not have to fork out for the additional pupils in terms of the direct amounts spent on each pupil per year, additional pupils have a knock-on effect on what happens to the local council's resources. LEAs have a statutory duty to provide sufficient schools for the children living in their borough. Therefore, even though the reason why there are not enough school places in the borough is that pupils are coming in from outside the borough the LEA is still required, in effect, to sell off council as sets to increase the capacity of the schools for displaced local pupils. The local authority estimates that Overton Grange secondary school, which had to be built recently to accommodate pupils who could not find places at borough schools, cost £4 million to £5 million, which had to be raised through selling off assets. If there were not as many pupils coming in from outside the borough however, there would never have been a need to provide that school, as places could have been provided for in the existing borough schools. The cost to Sutton council and local people is therefore £4 million to £5 million.
I received a letter from Sutton borough council, dated 3 April, which states
"Sutton has carried out a major expansion of secondary provision since 1997 to cater for this demand. Compared to September 1996, there are an additional 361 places available. with an increase in the corresponding year 6 being only 163. There will be a further expansion of 92 places for September 2002, making a total of 2,575 year 7 places available.
Unfortunately this has not allowed all parents the school of their choice, and in some cases, any Sutton secondary school. This is mainly because Sutton schools, selective and non-selective are so popular. Whenever new places are added, they are taken up in full by pupils, a significant number being from out of the borough."
It continues:
"The borough only has finance to expand its schools so far—there are also planning issues for further expanding schools".
Sutton has also told me that it has experienced problems in seeking planning permission for extensions at Carshalton boys school and Carshalton girls school.
The borough is a victim of its own success—it is legally bound to provide school places, but it is so popular that demand will always exceed supply. Many constituents have approached me about this matter. How is the local council to explain to taxpayers the increasing amount spent on local education when they cannot get their own children into the schools that their council tax is being spent on? My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has been approached by an even greater number of constituents, and meetings

289WH
have taken place in his constituency on the subject. I have had 34 different cases drawn to my attention in the past 12 months, and have written to the LEA and the Minister on numerous occasions. In her most recent response, the Minister wrote:
"Our admissions legislation requires admission authorities in an area to consult each other over their admission arrangements, including neighbouring Local Education Authorities. And School Organisation Plans (SOPs) in which Authorities set out where there is a need to reduce or add places in their area, have to be copied to neighbouring Authorities."
I am afraid to say that copying plans to a neighbouring authority, especially if it is well pleased that Sutton borough is educating children and it is not, is a procedure that is hardly likely to generate a positive response.
The Government's approach seems to be to try to place responsibility for local problems solely on the LEA's back, although the LEA cannot do anything about the system within which it is operating. As the Minister will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) raised that issue in a debate in 1998. He asked what would be done to solve the problem, and was told by the then Minister for School Standards, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), that the problem would be solved when the School Standards and Framework Bill became law, as it would
"give an additional responsibility to individual LEAs to plan the places in their locality, devolving power to local levels so that they can more readily respond to the needs of local people, and parents in particular."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 928.]
Three years later, however, the only effect that that has had in Sutton is to devolve the responsibility to the LEA without providing a solution. So far this year, there have been 263 appeals about secondary school application decisions. The number of appeals has been rising each year since 1998, when the Act was apparently going to solve the problem. Can the Minister explain how, over the past three years, the legislation has helped boroughs such as mine, which have popular schools?
In the letter that I received from the Minister yesterday, she informed me that the Government had no plans to reverse the Greenwich judgment and that they believe that it is not sensible that children should be prevented from attending their nearest school merely because they happen to live in another borough. I have already stated that I agree with them about that. However, it is not sensible that local people should see their council's assets being sold off to build schools to which their children are frequently unable to gain a place.
The Government appear determined to keep the Greenwich judgment. If that is the case, they must find a way to make it work. That is their responsibility, rather than that of local authorities. Their last attempt to make it work seems to have failed. During the debate about what became the 1998 Act, the Minister said that the Government must face the challenge of providing for parental preference with a fair, open and transparent admissions framework, and that the Act would achieve that end. However, many of my constituents have complained that they feel that the system is unfair, not
290WH
open, and about as clear as mud. Therefore, the Government appear still to be faced with the challenge, and I want to know how the Minister intends to tackle it.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): By leave of the hon. Gentleman and the Minister, I call the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow).
1.41 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I wish to contribute briefly to the debate in the hope that the Minister will be able to address the concerns of several of my constituents who, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), have been experiencing difficulties in obtaining places in Sutton's schools, despite being residents of the borough. I am, therefore, grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate, and for giving me the opportunity to speak.
As my hon. Friend said, Sutton faces a problem with regard to school places. The cause of the problem is not failure. On the contrary, it has been caused by the success of Sutton's education provision. It has a group of popular and well-regarded schools, to which parents in Sutton and beyond are attracted. The group includes both selective and non-selective schools. As well as a successful group of schools, Sutton has a well-regarded local education authority, which has sustained its investment in education at least in line with the standard spending assessment over the past few years, and which has met all of its obligations in respect of the funding of matched funding initiatives. Recently, it received a positive evaluation from Ofsted.
The problem is that one in three of Sutton's school places is taken by children who live outside the borough. That would be fine, if it were one of the local authorities that has surplus school places. My hon. Friend listed several such authorities, such as Kingston and Surrey, but Sutton is not one of them. Consequently, now, several months into the process of allocating places for transfer to high school, 93 children in Sutton have not secured a school place. I checked that figure with the LEA earlier today. Nineteen of those children live in Worcester Park, where residents have felt under considerable pressure as a result of the way that the system has let them down.
Sutton has tried to build its way out of the problem. Substantial additional capital resources have been invested in its schools: new buildings and classrooms have been constructed, and a new secondary school, Overton Grange, has been built. However, although investment in schools and raising educational standards is welcome, they cannot solve the problem. The LEA cannot simply build its way out of the problem. There are, for instance, limits with regard to planning. Glenthorn is a school that has land that could be expanded upon. However, if it were expanded, that would cause anxiety among many of my constituents who live nearby, as the school is on the border of Merton and it already admits many Merton children. Expansion would, therefore, be likely to benefit not only Sutton children who cannot at present secure places at Sutton schools, but also, under the terms of the Greenwich judgment, Merton children. As a result, investment was made for the benefit not so much of Sutton but of others.

291WH
One cause of Sutton's problems is the operation of the Greenwich judgment. My hon. Friend and I have often raised that issue over the past four years, and in various ways, not least during consideration of the School Standards and Framework Bill. It has the perverse effect of displacing Sutton children from Sutton schools in favour of out-of-borough children. The Government have made it clear that they are not prepared to pass legislation to remove the judgment and its current effects, and I believe that is also the position taken by the Opposition Front Bench. Certainly, that is my understanding from earlier debates.
I ask the Minister, in considering the representations that my hon. Friend and I are making today and have made over the years, to reconsider how the judgment works in areas such as Sutton. Could some flexibility be introduced into the system around admission arrangements, not to prevent children from attending popular schools such as those in Sutton but to give Sutton children the real possibility of being able to go to Sutton schools? Would the Minister at least consider a meeting between Sutton officers and her officials to discuss how it works in practice? I am sure that the officials would be delighted to have such discussions.
Parents in my constituency who have experienced the problem tell me that in February people receive a letter explaining whether their child is getting a school of their preference. Many are disappointed in failing to get the school of their choice; some get an offer, but many do not. They receive a letter stating that no school place is available for their children and that they will receive more information later. That leaves the parents and children in limbo. Parents and grandparents sometimes come to my surgeries not necessarily in tears but deeply upset by that news. I have to tell them that I cannot do much to help them because of the way in which the system works. We try to navigate the appeal system to discover what can be done to achieve the outcome that they want.
The news that they do not have a school place is crushing for many children, because they feel that they have been rejected by the system. The issue is not one of selection but one of rejection through the process that allocates school places. They are told that some surplus places exist in boroughs outside theirs and that they should apply to those schools instead. But parents in those boroughs have voted with their feet, rejected those schools and come to Sutton instead.
The success of schools in Sutton should not mean that Sutton children are displaced to other boroughs. My constituents, like my hon. Friend's, require action on this matter. They hope that the Government will recognise that a genuine problem exists that will not simply go away, and want the Government to work with the LEA to find the flexibility that will solve the problem.
1.47 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): First, I acknowledge the sincerity with which the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) have spoken.
292WH
As Members of Parliament, we all know how important secondary school choice is for parents. The description that the hon. Gentlemen gave of disappointed parents is one we all know from our advice bureaux. It is often the first time that parents feel out of control of delivering for their children. Up to the age of 11 they have been able to deliver for them: they are in their charge, and they can sort out their lives. Suddenly, when their children reach the age of 11, something happens that makes them feel that they have almost lost control of their children's destiny. I understand that well, but there is no easy solution.
Both hon. Gentlemen would probably accept that under whatever system—whether it is the Tories' free schools and selection, or our proposals, under which every parent is guaranteed a first choice—disappointments will happen. The months during which they wait to discover the outcome are necessarily hairy. In my constituency, at the start of May, there are parents whose children do not have places for September.
There is, however, a fundamental difference of opinion between us on the matter. I do not want to give any ground on that, but I wanted to start my speech by acknowledging the achievements of schools, teachers and pupils in Sutton. They are high-performing schools, because of hard-working teachers, a local authority that supports them well and a learning and supportive community.
I am also grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington about class sizes and achievement. I am sure that he is pleased that, compared with four years ago when 37 per cent. of infants in his constituency were in classes of more than 30, only 125 are now in such classes. That has contributed to the rising standards that we have seen in the borough and elsewhere. I want to place on the record the fact that we have not refused any request from Sutton for money to provide places for children who do not have them. The hon. Gentleman did not imply that, but much was said about the capital that had been put in, and I want to make it clear that we have coughed up the money every time since 1997 that the boroughs have come to us to say that they were short of places. As was acknowledged, we have allocated £10.2 million to provide extra secondary and primary places, too.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam seemed to view the situation in Sutton differently from the Government. Sutton schools are good; that is why parents want to send their children there. I probably should not say this, but my experience is that parents want a good secondary school place regardless of which borough it is in. If both hon. Gentlemen represented boroughs where schools were poor, they would not have parents queuing to say, "I defend my right to send my child to a school in my borough, despite the fact that it's performing poorly." All schools perform well in Sutton, and parents are probably saying, "I want a Sutton school for my child because I'm a Sutton citizen." However, if we explore the matter further, the issue will have more to do with Sutton schools being good than with their location.
In my constituency, we have both highly and poorly performing schools and a greater difference of performance than in Sutton. My constituency neighbours Solihull, and parents there want good

293WH
schools, either in Birmingham or Solihull, rather than the right to go to a Solihull or Birmingham school. If they had to choose between sending their children to an under-performing school one side of the boundary and a high-performing school on the other, I know which they would choose. For the Government, the solution is to stop putting parents in the position of having to choose between high-performing and under-performing schools. That will take time, and I will not bore hon. Members by listing the measures that we have introduced to overcome the problem.
I do not wish to accuse schools in neighbouring areas of under-performing, but let us suppose that I said, "Fair cop, all right. I give in. I will ensure that every Sutton child may have a place in a Sutton school." That would mean that other children would have to go to under-performing schools in other boroughs. Whereas it is the task of the hon. Gentlemen to advance that argument, I hope that they will acknowledge that, as a Government, we could never rest on that solution. Some children will end up going to schools that are apparently unpopular.
The long-term dig on the problem is to ensure that we raise standards in schools throughout the borough so that parents do not mind where their children go. I suspect that if the hon. Gentlemen were in a borough surrounded by other boroughs with well performing schools, they would hear no complaints about children going outside the borough for their education. The argument is one of quality of education. Where we have diversity in quality of education—not the rich diversity in provision, which I applaud—parents will do anything in their power to get their child into a well-performing school, and look to the admissions arrangements to help. I can see how the hon. Gentleman's constituents have ended up believing that, if the admissions arrangements ensured their children a place in Sutton, they would get a high-performing school. However, that is not the answer.
It is not just a question of a school on the other side of the road. The nearest school for some of my constituents is in Solihull, although it might be three quarters of a mile away. The boundary makes sense for the local authority, but it is not always easy. Although it is difficult for some authorities, parents should be able exercise a preference for a school in the locality where they live. The over-subscription criteria that we apply must be fair, just, honest and open.
It would not be fair of me to go into too much detail and it may be a touch petty, but an increasingly large percentage of funding comes to schools from national Government rather than local government. If hon. Members rely too heavily on the argument that Sutton parents have paid for Sutton schools, they get into the argument that essentially the nation's taxpayers increasingly pay for the nation's schools.
Mr. Brake: On that specific point, I did not say that Sutton residents paid in the entirety for Overton Grange school. However, I spoke to the authority an hour or so ago and was told that there was a shortfall of £4 million to £5 million that had to be funded by the local authority for a school that would not have been needed had there not been such a significant number of out-of-borough pupils in Sutton.
Ms Morris: I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the financial arrangements. That will not be the first time that a local authority has used its own resources to contribute to capital or revenue. I am sure that he would equally accept in return that, for good or ill, an increasing percentage of both revenue and capital comes from national funding.
I turn now to the core of the matter, which is how one deals with the admission system. There is an obligation on Sutton to ensure that there are sufficient places for children in its borough. It does not have to promise that all those places can be found in the borough. It should share that information with other boroughs and acknowledge that there is an inflow and outflow from schools. That makes it more challenging for local authorities. It would be simple if a borough had the responsibility to provide only for its own children, but I do not think that that would enhance parental preference nationally. It might be a better deal for Sutton parents because they would get the good Sutton schools, but nationally, if we are trying to ensure that parents are not left with the real dilemma that both hon. Members described of not getting their first preference, building walls around boroughs and saying that the schools within them are first and foremost for the children who live there is not a way forward.
We must ensure when we run over subscription criteria that we do so as clearly and accountably as possible. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to the good Ofsted report that Sutton has just received. One of the things that Ofsted praised was Sutton's admissions arrangements. Although, without examining the details, and I suspect that they are not perfect because nothing is, the Department has no evidence that its admissions system is poor or is failing. I too spoke to the local authority in preparation for the debate. It said that it was at about the same stage as it was this time last year in the allocation of places. It is not more worried than it was then. It expects that by September every child will have a place. I suspect that when one looks at that in total numbers, the number of parents who get their first preference will be roughly similar to the figures across the nation.
We must always look for ways to improve. I looked through the correspondence from the hon. Gentleman. I noted that if one lives in an area, particularly a London borough, where one has to look at schools outside the borough to secure a place, one needs clear access to information about where there are places. I thought that we could both go back to Sutton and neighbouring boroughs and give some assurances to parents about that.
This is one of the issues in Sutton. It is born out of the success of the schools. To ask a Government to change a system where we are doing what we can to give as many parents their first choice of school, regardless of where they live, might satisfy Sutton parents in the short term, but it would not guarantee parental preference in the long term. The real challenge for us all is to make every school an improving or a good school so that parental preference means that—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.